CALUM CROWE: If Scottish football is serious about cleaning up its act, a grown-up discussion on strict liability would be a good place to start

• e-mail

When John Swinney was asked to comment on Sunday’s events at Ibrox, he was presented with the political equivalent of an open goal.

After another Old Firm match which had seen shameful off-field incidents dominate the headlines, it was a golden opportunity to stick the boot in.

Swinney had it within his grasp to show strong leadership and to warn of government intervention if Scotland’s clubs and governing bodies can’t get their act together.

And yet, in keeping with much of his efforts as First Minister, he failed miserably.

Swinney’s words were weak and vacuous. Essentially batting the issue back to clubs and the police, he passed the buck.

Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf must have been turning in their political graves. Between them, his predecessors never missed a chance to hammer Scottish football.

Rangers condemned the tifo displayed by their own fans which depicted Graeme Souness holding a shotgun and made reference to 'rebel scum'

The Ibrox club have vowed to help catch the thug who threw a glass bottle on to the pitch during Sunday's Old Firm game

Rangers defender Neraysho Kasanwirjo clears away the Buckfast bottle which was launched on to the field

Listen, no-one actually wants government intervention in all of this. Of course not.

But nor should we just accept a scenario whereby everyone plods along and accepts the status quo.

As things stand, it’s only a matter of time before Scottish football suffers a catastrophic event.

What if the Buckfast bottle thrown at Celtic goalkeeper Viljami Sinisalo last Sunday had actually struck him and split his head open? What then?

What if someone was to end up being gravely injured by one of the flares and fireworks routinely brought into stadiums as part of pyro displays?

Make no mistake, it will happen eventually. Is that what we’re waiting for? Just twiddling our thumbs until disaster strikes?

The mother of all political fallouts would ensue and Holyrood would have no choice but to impose some form of strict liability, where clubs are held responsible for the behaviour of their own fans.

Whenever the issue is mentioned in Scotland, the default position is for it to be dismissed as unrealistic, unfair, and unworkable.

First Minister John Swinney was asked about the shameful incidents at Ibrox but his words failed to convince

One wonders what the American consortium who were shown around Ibrox recently would have made of the events at Old Firm game on Sunday

Collectively, the majority of clubs, along with the SPFL and SFA, run a mile. They don’t want to know and, in most cases, aren’t even willing to engage in a discussion.

That just doesn’t wash any more. If your immediate reaction is to ridicule the idea of strict liability, you are part of the problem.

It can work. We need only look elsewhere in Europe to see the positive impact it’s had since being introduced.

The Netherlands had a serious problem with this stuff. Hooliganism and fan violence was rife, and there were also instances of anti-Semitic chanting on the terraces.

After working together constructively, the Dutch FA [KNVB] and their government eventually introduced their own form of strict liability. It was a collective effort.

In February 2015, the Dutch Parliament voted in favour of tightening regulations designed to curtail football-related disorder.

Branded the ‘Football Law’ and welcomed by the KNVB, it essentially granted greater powers for banning orders to be handed out.

In a report published in 2023, it was found that the KNVB had issued clubs with 168 fines over the previous two seasons because of problems with supporters.

Neraysho Kasanwirjo throws away the glass bottle and other items that were tossed on to the pitch during game

In total, the KNVB dished out penalties totalling almost €920,000 among 34 clubs in the Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie.

Of the fines, 118 were for incidents involving fireworks and 50 for throwing items, such as plastic cups of beer, on the pitch.

In 20 cases, clubs were fined for pitch invasions, while matches were also halted because of trouble 23 times.

While not without its naysayers, the prevailing view is that the legislation has been a good thing. Clubs and supporters are more inclined to toe the line.

UEFA have long been proponents of strict liability, using it as a means of punishing clubs and supporters who fall foul in European competition.

There will always be those who feel it is unfair and disproportionate. Some people will tell you that it just flat-out doesn’t work.

In 2019, at a time when there was a spate of bottle-throwing and sectarian chanting in Scotland, SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster said strict liability ‘doesn’t work anywhere in the world’.

That’s just not true. Other countries around Europe, as well as UEFA, have shown that the legislation works if it’s applied robustly.

When UEFA threatened to close the Copland Stand at Ibrox after an illicit banner was held up in a recent match against Fenerbahce, there was no repeat against Athletic Bilbao.

Rangers fans let off flares during a match with Dundee at Dens Park in 2023

Knowing that their club was in the dock, Rangers supporters, by and large, behaved themselves that night. There was nothing to warrant UEFA pressing the big red button.

Nobody would argue that strict liability will suddenly serve as the panacea to cure all of the many ills within Scottish football.

But it’s not difficult to envisage a scenario where it would have some kind of positive effect and put a stop to certain things. It would also encourage fans to self-police inside stadiums.

Surely that’s better than the clubs and governing bodies just sitting on their hands and doing nothing?

Even the kind of moron who throws coins or glass bottles might potentially hesitate when there’s a very real possibility of it leading to a lifetime banning order, or a stadium closure, or their club being docked points, or hit with a hefty fine.

For them to do otherwise would be weapons-grade stupidity.

Which brings us to the tifo which depicted Graeme Souness looking down the barrel of a shotgun and referenced the words ‘rebel scum’. Rangers were right to call it out.

Being inside the stadium on Sunday was like being back in the dark ages at a time when Rangers should be looking forward to a bright future under new owners.

UEFA threatened to close the Copland Stand at Ibrox after fans displayed an illicit banner during game with Fenerbahce

The Sash, The Billy Boys, Bobby Sands - the songs were all sung with gusto. Does anyone actually do anything about this? No, of course they don’t.

Earlier this season, Bonnyrigg Rose were docked six points by the SPFL for having a slope on their pitch. Throwing bottles and sectarian chanting? Carry on, lads.

For Andrew Cavenagh and the rest of the US consortium watching from afar, it must have felt mortifying to be associated with such bile.

The Union Bears are toxic. So, too, are Celtic’s Green Brigade. Only a couple of months ago, they held up a banner celebrating the life of Brendan McFarlane, a convicted IRA terrorist who murdered people.

When you throw in songs about Fenians, the Pope, and everything in between, it soon becomes clear that Scottish football is unable to free itself from this cesspit. It is no longer good enough to just sit back and do nothing. Club statements won’t cut it. Governing bodies are too cowardly to act or even engage in a meaningful debate.

Which leaves the spectre of strict liability looming ever larger. There will come a time very soon when the matter will be taken out of football’s hands.

Something truly awful will happen inside a stadium and the politicians will have no option but to act and impose legislation.

Surely it’s better for clubs to show a willingness to discuss the matter, and to shape their own version of strict liability, rather than having no say in it at all? At the moment, everyone is passing the buck. It’s Groundhog Day. The current approach clearly doesn’t work.

If Scottish football is serious about cleaning up its act, a grown-up discussion on strict liability would be a good place to start. Sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option.  

Illicit pyro displays have become an increasing problem in Scottish football in recent years

It's not Finn who needs to explain this Lions debacle, it's Johnny Sexton

There was always going to be a media scrum to speak to Finn Russell last weekend after Bath’s Challenge Cup semi-final win over Edinburgh.

Back on home soil, the Scotland fly-half was the star attraction as the Premiership leaders put the capital side to the sword.

Given the furore around Johnny Sexton and the Lions, it would have been good to get Russell’s take on it all.

We asked to speak to him after the match but were politely told by Bath’s media folk that he wouldn’t be available for interview.

Although it was disappointing to be denied access, it’s not really Russell we need to hear from in all of this.

He didn’t bring the elephant into the room. It’s not a problem of his making. No, Sexton did all of that.

Only a matter of months ago, he gave a fiery interview in which he branded Russell ‘flashy’ and a ‘media darling’. He said he wouldn’t pick him for the Lions.

Now? Sexton has been fast-tracked into a role as an assistant coach with the Lions and will work with the fly-halves.

Finn Russell chats to Edinburgh players after Bath's victory in the capital last weekend

New British and Irish Lions assistant Johnny Sexton has been critical of Russell in the past

Not only is it incredibly awkward on a personal level, Sexton is immediately compromised on any selection debate around the Scotland No 10.

If Russell is picked in the squad on Thursday, as he surely will be, then it’s Sexton who needs to front-up and either apologise or, at the very least, clarify those comments.