Tackling offensive behaviour in Scottish football: A how (not) to guide to developing criminal justice policy?

DOI10.1177/1748895820912313
Date01 January 2022
AuthorMaureen McBride
Published date01 January 2022
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820912313
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2022, Vol. 22(1) 24 –42
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895820912313
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Tackling offensive behaviour
in Scottish football: A how
(not) to guide to developing
criminal justice policy?
Maureen McBride
University of Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Since 2011, the issue of ‘sectarianism’ has dominated the Scottish political agenda as well as media
and public discourse. The most high-profile aspect of the Scottish Government’s response to the
problem was undoubtedly the Offensive Behaviour at Football (Scotland) Act 2012. This article is
based on analysis of official documentation, speeches and media coverage relating to sectarianism
and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act since 2011. By
tracing the Act’s journey from its introduction to its repeal in 2018, it challenges notions of a
policymaking process built on consensus. It also casts doubt upon the Scottish Government’s
claims of a socially progressive approach to criminal justice, as the behaviours of working-class
youth around football have been increasingly problematised, criminalised and regulated. I argue
that the Act highlights the need for an ongoing critique of the direction of criminal justice in
Scotland and demonstrates the consequences of knee-jerk responses to complex social problems,
which has relevance beyond the Scottish context.
Keywords
Football, inequalities, policing, policymaking, sectarianism
Introduction
In recent years, the issue of ‘sectarianism’1 in Scotland has attracted significant political
and media attention. Concerns about the volume and impact of ‘sectarian’ marches and
parades led to a review and a set of recommendations for governing bodies which was
published in 2005, and the Scottish Government held summits on sectarianism in 2005
Corresponding author:
Maureen McBride, School of Education, University of Glasgow, Room 203, Adam Smith Building, 40 Bute
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RT, UK.
Email: Maureen.mcbride@glasgow.ac.uk
912313CRJ0010.1177/1748895820912313Criminology & Criminal JusticeMcBride
research-article2020
Article
McBride 25
and 2006. The Scottish media’s long-standing interest in the relationship between foot-
ball and sectarianism has also drawn attention to the costs and pressures on health and
policing services as a result of anti-social behaviour and violence surrounding ‘Old
Firm’2 matches (see BBC News, 2011c). Against this backdrop of existing concerns, the
early months of 2011 saw a series of high-profile attacks with apparent racist and/or
sectarian motives on people with connections to Catholicism, Ireland or Celtic Football
Club (or a combination of the three), including death threats and the mailing of bullets
and viable parcel bombs (McBride, 2018). A football match between Celtic and Rangers
on 2 March 2011 accelerated what Lavalette and Mooney (2013) describe as a ‘panic
reaction’ regarding alleged sectarianism in Scotland (p. 24), within and outwith football.
Media, political and public discourse constructed supporters of Celtic and Rangers in
moralistic terms, as a ‘problem population’ intent on expressing ‘unacceptable identities’
(McBride, 2011) which were, in the words of the SNP’s (Scottish National Party)
Community Safety Minister Roseanna Cunningham, not in keeping with visions of a
‘modern Scotland’ (BBC News, 2011a).
The anti-sectarianism agenda that emerged from these events involved two broad
policy and legislative strands. Since 2011, the Scottish Government committed £13.5
million funding to educational initiatives and community-based programmes to ‘under-
stand the specific causes and impact of sectarianism in Scottish society’ (SNP, 2015) and
established an Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism with a remit to explore the
nature and extent of the problem. The other strand – the most contested aspect of the
anti-sectarianism agenda and the focus of this article – was the creation of the Offensive
Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act (2012) (hereaf-
ter the OBTC Act).3 The decision to introduce legislation solely targeting football sup-
porters was contentious, given that the controversy around the above-mentioned match
related to on-field clashes between players and managers, as opposed to increased levels
of disorder among fans. Moreover, the high-profile incidents appeared to be character-
ised by anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry as much as by antipathy towards Celtic
Football Club. The OBTC Act deeply divided opinion in Scottish football, Scottish poli-
tics and Scottish society more broadly. It was the first piece of legislation to pass without
any cross-party support and was later labelled by Labour MSP (Member of Scottish
Parliament) James Kelly as ‘the worst piece of legislation in the history of the Scottish
Parliament’ (Bews, 2018). The Scottish Parliament repealed the Act in 2018 after a sus-
tained period of activism from supporters’ groups and opposition parties uniting to defeat
the minority Government. However, the Scottish Government remained steadfast in its
defence of the legislation throughout years of criticism.
This article argues that the OBTC Act is a powerful case study of how the framing of
a problem requiring policy attention and the resultant policymaking process – both of
which are inherently political – can determine how ‘punitive’ or ‘progressive’ a criminal
justice response will be. Through analysis of official documentation, speeches and media
coverage, this article makes two principal, related arguments. First, the OBTC Act chal-
lenges the Scottish Government’s narratives of a cooperative style of policymaking
(Cairney et al., 2016). The Act was introduced and implemented in a highly top-down
manner, and critics accused the Government of ignoring legitimate criticism and pursu-
ing a largely tokenistic consultation. This is particularly pertinent given the complex,

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT