Losing the Moral High Ground: The 2016 Scottish Cup Final Aftermath

Unacceptable is the Hardest Word

Raman Bhardwaj of Scottish Television was not happy. He had a word in mind, and he wanted Rod Petrie to say it. The Hibernian chairman, speaking to the press after his club’s first Scottish Cup triumph in 114 years, had just been informed of assaults on Rangers players during a chaotic post-match pitch invasion. “That is… absolutely unacceptable,” Petrie said, having previously been unaware. For Bhardwaj, this was not enough. “It’s disgraceful,” he interrupted, before asking Petrie if he accepted that term. The chairman stuck to his own description. “I think fighting on a football pitch is unacceptable, absolutely.”

This semantic battle became the curious focus for a section of the Scottish media. The Herald’s Graeme Macpherson wrote that Petrie “would not use the term ‘disgraceful’,” as if this refusal somehow negated his repeated condemnation of the violence. The Sunday Mail’s Gordon Waddell went further, calling the chairman’s performance “mealy-mouthed” and “pathetic,” and demanding his immediate resignation from the SFA. Waddell apparently missed the irony that Police Scotland’s chief superintendent Kenny MacDonald had also described the behaviour as “totally unacceptable.” No calls for his resignation followed.

The press seemed unwilling to distinguish between two separate events: a mass celebratory pitch invasion, understandable if not condonable after breaking such a long-standing hoodoo, and the sporadic, ugly confrontations that followed. While one Hull City fan was banned for life for confronting a Derby County player after their play-off semi-final five days earlier, the rest of the Derby squad navigated the celebrations without incident. At Hampden, the scenes were far worse. Yet the narrative being constructed was one of a club chairman downplaying events he initially had not even seen. Petrie stated he was “very ready to contribute” to any investigation and that any identified individuals “will be punished appropriately.” This was somehow insufficient.

An Utterly Bonkers Statement

If Hibernian’s chairman was accused of being oafish, then Rangers’ official response was utterly bonkers. After initially commending its own fans for their “restraint under severe provocation,” the club released a second, extraordinary statement that lost them the moral high ground they briefly held.

It began with a falsehood, claiming it was “incomprehensible that no one, either from within the Scottish FA or Hibernian Football Club, has condemned Hibernian’s supporters.” It then took a bizarre turn, criticising “leading members of the Scottish Government, including the First Minister whose parish is Govan,” for commenting on social media without condemning Hibs fans. The club also attacked the media, stating that in the case of the BBC, attempts to “distort reality” were “not news.” It singled out specific journalists by name, including Stuart Cosgrove and Tom English, complaining that English “was not even at the match” yet “would prefer the authorities to focus on Rangers fans’ reaction.”

The statement pandered to the club’s most extreme elements. It claimed the “tiny minority of Rangers fans” who encroached on the pitch did so only “to protect our players and officials who were being visibly attacked.” STV’s Peter Smith was one journalist who saw it differently, tweeting that this was “not what I saw.” The club’s PR firm, Level 5, home to the ex-hack James Traynor, was widely assumed to be the author. BBC journalist Tom English later described Traynor’s texted response to his questions as “more garbage than a rubbish dump.”

The Dishonesty of Sources

In the Daily Record, columnist Keith Jackson claimed Hibs manager Alan Stubbs had handled matters with a “statesman-like touch,” while his “oafish chairman” had cast aspersions on claims players were assaulted. Yet Stubbs’ words were remarkably similar to Petrie’s. “I can understand the euphoria surrounding it,” the manager said. “I don’t condone it but… it’s not going to take away the pleasure.” Petrie’s version was “unacceptable and not something that anyone would condone.” Jackson, who included no direct quotes in his piece, drew a very fine line between statesmanship and oafishness.

Worse was to follow. “Sources at Ibrox,” Jackson wrote, “insist not one of their players escaped up the tunnel without being spat on, kicked, punched or shoved.” This dramatic claim was quickly undermined from multiple directions. Laura Miller, wife of striker Kenny Miller, tweeted that her husband “wasn’t touched” and wished people would “stop telling lies.” Kenny Shiels told the BBC his son Dean was not assaulted. Even a Hibs player, Dylan McGeouch, noted his “good friend” Andy Halliday of Rangers “was standing with the referee… I stood beside him to make sure nobody did anything.”

The danger in unravelling these narratives is that it risks belittling the real violence that did occur. That some players were not assaulted is far less important than the fact that others were.

While Hibernian fans were primarily responsible for the disorder, the subsequent reaction from Rangers and their media allies diluted any sympathy. Their statement demanded protection from the “hatred of supporters of other clubs,” a demand that rings hollow from a fanbase whose repertoire includes songs about wading in “Fenian blood.” With the club’s manager Mark Warburton silent and a full SFA investigation to come, the focus has shifted from a historic cup win to a familiar cycle of recrimination and whataboutery.