Leaders: It was always an unlikely alliance

THE headline writers will be disappointed that it is not going to be “Miller time” for Glasgow Rangers after the American trucking tycoon, Bill of that ilk, withdrew his bid for the stricken club last night, citing adverse reaction from the fans and worries over the state of the finances at Ibrox.

Of the two reasons Mr Miller has given, the latter has more credibility than the former. If, as has been reported, he is a hard-nosed US businessman, the idea that a few protesters in the crowd urging him to “truck off” would put him off taking on ownership of the club is implausible.

What has more credibility is Mr Miller’s statement that, having been appointed as the preferred bidder, when he and his team took a closer look at Rangers’ books, the more they saw, the more difficulties they could discern in trying to revive this Scottish institution.

The suggestion from the American that early hopes of a financially sound solution to Rangers’ problems turned out to be “more optimistic than reality” will heighten concern among Rangers fans and all reasonable supporters of football in Scotland.

Although Mr Miller revealed he had “preliminary discussions” with the football authorities, it does not appear that the Scottish Premier League discussions on whether to rescind a ban on transfers (which would stymie the club’s efforts next season) has featured particularly heavily in the decision.

So, for whatever reason, what was always an unlikely marriage between an American with no known attachment to Rangers, or Scotland, is now over and the attention turns back to whether the administrators can find anyone at all to buy the club.

Attempting to put a brave face on the situation, the administrators, Duff and Phelps, claimed there were three other potential bidders waiting in the wings, and they did not include the Blue Knights consortium, led by former club director Paul Murray.

However, with time and money running out, Mr Miller’s statement on the financial state of Rangers, which he has had the benefit of studying, is only likely to make other potential owners more reluctant to come forward – or more likely to make an even lower offer.

The consequences of this for Rangers – and, remember, for Scottish football in general – are potentially devastating. As well as even less compensation for the creditors, a reduced bid would give the club even less cash to deploy in trying to retain players.

That, in turn, would further diminish the competitiveness of the SPL. And that would damage the game in Scotland, threatening the money which comes to all clubs, not just the Old Firm, from lucrative television rights,

What is clear is the club’s survival is vital for Scottish football. For that reason alone, we hope that even at this eleventh hour a new bidder can be found and the authorities will find a way of keeping Rangers in the SPL.

Profits the driving factor

Ever since the SNP adopted the enduring slogan “It’s Scotland’s oil”, the black gold lying off our shores has added an extra dimension to the constitutional debate about to come to a head with the independence referendum in 2014.

For most of the intervening decades the oil industry kept its counsel for both principled and pragmatic reasons. The principle is that the future is for the Scottish people to decide. Pragmatism led companies to conclude it was unwise to become involved in a divisive political debate.

It is in this context we must view the latest survey which asked firms to what extent the referendum issues – including the size of future revenues, setting up a sovereign oil fund, different corporation tax rates north of the Border and government support for rig decommmissioning – were a factor in future planning. In answer 39 per cent said these debates were a factor, 56 per cent said they were not.

The SNP’s opponents would be foolish to use these figures in their case against independence. Oil companies are used to dealing with a variety of different governments across the world, including many which are not democracies. What matters to them is not independence per se, but the conditions for their industry were that to happen, particularly the taxation regime.

To that extent it would be helpful for the SNP to be more specific about its future plans for the North Sea. However, given the billions of pounds in investment made over many years, and the prospect of still more profits to be made, the oil industry sare likely to be relaxed about Scotland becoming – or not becoming – independent.