Off the ball?
So that's all right, then.
The Scottish secretary has sought and obtained assurances from Fifa that a Team GB at the Olympics wouldn't jeopardise the status of the home nations in taking part, separately, in international football competitions.
Most politicians affect an interest in football. Jim Murphy is the genuine article. He plays football. He follows football. He's a fan.
Mr Murphy has even achieved the ultimate soccer accolade: he survived trial by Stuart and Tam on Off the Ball. In fact, he was rather good.
Not entirely sure he's on the ball with this one, though.
The assurance he has obtained is from Jerome Valcke, the Secretary General of Fifa. Which is fine, as far as it goes.
He is the ranking official. His word is important. However, as the Scottish Football Association has noted, does this entirely bind the members of the association?
Winner takes all
What if, in future, there were to be questions raised about why the member nations of the UK have separate international status?
What if someone hostile to that status were to attempt to use the Olympic example as precedent evidence?
One can, of course, see the politics behind this. Labour Ministers, led by the prime minister, want to bolster a spirit of Britishness.
SNP ministers want to promote a spirit of Scottishness. Hence they differ on Team GB. Maybe they could settle their differences on the football field. Winner takes all.
PS: I'm off to witness the cup semi-final draw at Holyrood this afternoon. Here's hoping it works this time - and United get the right outcome.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Whilst a politician might get a few headlines (and I suspect that most Scots would have trouble naming and/or identifying the current Secretary of State), one would have hoped that the lesson would by now have been learned - Politics and sport do not mix.
In what way is the administration of international football within the remit of the Scottish Secretary?
If he's trying to lobby for the abolition of the post because he has so little to do, let him have his way.
And if he trusts FIFA, then he's a braver man than me.
Complain about this comment
I know the SNP machine will go to work soon on this one, so let me get my view in now. I am Scottish, I am British, I am proud and grateful of both. Sport is but a small thing, but I have attended Murrayfield and Hampden to support Scotland. In an Olympic year, I support UK athletes of all the home nations, but perhaps most of all, the Scots. In 2012, we get home field advantage.
The SFA must ignore the politically motivated bloggers. Play a UK side, and give our players the chance to play in the Olympics at home. That chance, if missed, will not come again
Complain about this comment
Personally, I would let England submit a side if thats what they want. Scotland, Wales and NI have all stated that they will submit no player, nor team to this venture.
Blatter will sign NO paper to guarantee the sovereignty of the 3 smaller nations. That speaks volumes in itself.
Even then, UEFA doesn't want a Great Britain team either. To create a GB team, UEFA will lose 3 votes from its own continent. This could be crucial in voting circumstances for the rights to host a World Cup. These 3 missing votes could lead to Europe missing out on a World Cup Tourney.
Even France, Germany, Italy and Spain don't want a GB team, as it could in reality, become a force to be reckoned with. They prefer it to be England, Scotland, etc, ie as in keeping England 'weak'.
Let England submit an under 23 team, and the rest of us can sit happily to the side knowing that our unique status is protected.
Complain about this comment
The Government wants a team to represent Britishness, yet the national FAs have recently confirmed that only those with a bloodline link to a British nation should be considered eligible to play for a constituent nation (cf. Nacho Novo's potential eligibility to represent Scotland if he becomes a UK citizen).
When the Olympics comes around, why not put out a team comprised of those who ARE British - by dint of passport, residency, etc. - but who are rejected by the respective FAs because of their "gentlemen's agreement"?
Complain about this comment
#3, Saltire100:
"Even France, Germany, Italy and Spain don't want a GB team, as it could in reality, become a force to be reckoned with. They prefer it to be England, Scotland, etc, ie as in keeping England 'weak'."
At various times in the past, there have been players who might well have strengthened an otherwise English team - George Best, Kenny Dalglish, Ian Rush (I was struggling to come up with a Welshman, but he'll do) - but who now among the Celtic nations' players is markedly better than an available English footballer?
(Like the old adage about women in the workplace, a non-Englishman would have to work twice as hard to get half as far in a setup dominated by the [English] FA.)
Perhaps it would be different for someone born now, but the point in history when I became interested in football (c.1977-8) si such that I cannot imagine ever supporting other than Scotland in football terms.
Even if Team GB was comprised entirely of Scots, it just wouldn't be the same, much as is the case with the current UK Government - top-heavy with Scots, but trying to out-Angle the English to the point where the Ministers seem displaced persons.
Complain about this comment
#2, Cllrsandy:
"Play a UK side, and give our players the chance to play in the Olympics at home. That chance, if missed, will not come again"
... unless Scotland gains independence, when we could look forward to Team Scotland at the Olympics every four years!
Complain about this comment
hi Brian, a concise note of how this works. we should remember the comment from a senior member of the Scottish footballing establishment who stated that if he had been in a room full of uefa and fifa people he would check his wrist to make sure his watch was still there and check his wallet was still intact .
you are correct Westminster are playing politics with this without any regard to the ramifications OR ARE THEY?
given the uk's standing in the world right now, anyone who thinks that someone will not take the opportunity to reduce our 4 teams to 1 and to reduce entry into the uefa cup and the champions league for teams from GB is well out of touch with reality.
but hey it is,after all, politicians we are talking about and we all know how "in touch with reality they are!"
Complain about this comment
Cllrsandy,
My Heart agrees with you, but my head tells me never to trust FIFA.
I would like to see Scots play in GB team in unique circumstances as the olympics (but, never a World Cup).
This is all about Politics. The 4 Home Nations have nothing to fear from UEFA (see my argument above). It is about the other continents (Asia, Africa) who look continually to bolster their numbers at a World Cup.
If we agree to a GB Olympic team, then we will have given an inch, and believe me, they will try to steal a foot. By weakening UEFA's power, these emerging continents will push for greater power.
This is why UEFA has never agreed with FIFA on this. UEFA would lose 3 vital votes in its own continent, and lose 3 powerful votes on the FIFA board.
Let England enter an Olympic Football team and it will mean we will keep our status.
Complain about this comment
The Forfarian,
My point is, that no country in Europe wants a GB Team for 2 reasons.
1. A strong GB side (however it is made up) could do quite well, and even push 'Britain / England' to that final glory.
2. UEFA does not want to lose 3 crucual votes in its own union. Plus, the home nations sit on the FIFA Board. That is priceless to UEFA. Imagine if they were told that they would end up with 1 through a GB rep. The other 3 places would obviosuly go to Asia, Africa and Central America. Thus UEFA's position is weakened.
I don't want a GB team. I've nothing against England, but as you say, I care 100% about an independent Scottish Football Team. I would prefer us to fight for our only glory, even if it only comes along now and again.
Complain about this comment
For goodness sakes!
Stuff politics and let the players form a UK team.
It is for U23s so that eliminates most of the overpaid celeb types.
As mentioned before, this is probably a once-in-a lifetime opportunity; let people take it!
If it contains 8 Englishmen and one from each of the other countries, so be it.
Some of the games are to be played at Hampden Park, yet the petty politics of the SFA and SNP would rather make a poltical statement than give the people of Scotland the opportunity to watch what could be an exciting spectacle.
It may in fact be the only opportunity for this to happen.
Complain about this comment
I hope we are given the opportunity to support a G.B football team. Let the Tartan Army support Scotland and let the rest of us have someone else to support in the Olympics. I will not believe people's identity is so fragile.
Complain about this comment
The UK government over the years has given assurances of Scottish Jobs, Scottish HQs and Scottish Regiments.
All dashed!
In 2011 when Scotland are in the process of being placed in the draw for the World Cup, the African, Asian, South American, North American, Australasia and for that matter the Europeans, say,
"hold on a minute, you guys want to compete as one nation in the Olympics, well we want you to compete as one nation in the World cup".
Sep Blatter has departed the scene, Jim Murphy, Jim Who? other nations will say.
All of a sudden 130 plus years of history disappears over night.
No more Germany’s, Argentinas, Spains, Mexicos, Italys or France. European championships ended. Friendlies finished.
Unionist politicians have not thought this through, ironically, in their dash to please the English FA and mistakenly shore up support for the Union via sport they will kill the Scottish national football team. This will fuel nationalism.
A McG
Congratulations to the Glenrothes Bi-election winner!
Complain about this comment
It would be extremely foolish to accept the assurances of one Fifa official that there was no danger to individual home nation status, if a GB team did take part in the soccer tournament in the London Olympics. I see no objection to a GB team if there was no threat to the existence of a Scottish team. As there appears to be no guarantee on offer, I cannot support a combined team in the Olympics.
The Scottish soccer team is an integral part of Scottish culture. The demise of the Scottish soccer team may provoke such a backlash that the Scots would vote for independence to ensure the continuation of their beloved side and the roller coaster journeys associated with the team.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 & MaliceTown,
Your both very wrong. This isn't about Football or the Olympics. This is about UK Politics and FIFA politics.
Your being very naive if you think it's just about sending an under 23 team to the Olympics.
Please read my comments in the first 10 posts.
Complain about this comment
Re 6
This is the best argument I have heard for independance yet! At least we wouldn't have to qualify. Lets face it this is the only way we are ever going to get to a major finals again.
In all honesty this is a non-issues in footballing terms for two reasons. With the possible exception of Craig Gordon we have no players who would get into the squad. Even Barry Ferguson who is a classy player would not get in in front of Gerrard or Lampard. Basically a British team would be an England team.
But the main reason this is irrelevant is that Footballers know this is not the ultimate medal to have. The World Cup will always be the finest honour in International Football. Nothing else even comes close. So football should not be played at the Olympics, this should be for sports where Olympic Gold is and remains the ultimate honour.
Complain about this comment
"The Scottish secretary has sought and obtained assurances from Fifa that a Team GB at the Olympics wouldn't jeopardise the status of the home nations in taking part, separately, in international football competitions."
Oh yes, and his honesty and that of the London Labour Party government are beyond reproach, so let's do it.....NOT!
Complain about this comment
Keep politicians out of this debate - the SNP are blinded by their drive for independance.
If the FIFA assurance is genuine then we have nothing to fear regarding Scotland being wiped off the football map. Also there is no chance UEFA would accept losing four of it's members if they joined to make up one since it would affect the numbers of members they would have competing at the World Cup.
The question of why members of the UK have seperate international status is a challenge that could be raised anytime. If another nation or federation within FIFA was unhappy with this they could easily make a case now without having an example of a GB team as a back up to their arguement.
This is a great chance for young Scots to have a chance to compete at the Olympics.
If this does or does not go ahead then let it be for football reasons - keep Salmond and his SNP puppets out of it.
Complain about this comment
It would be nice to participate but can FIFA be trusted, and more to the point can Murphy who is one of Gordon Brown's toadies be trusted? Scottish football may be in a sad state, but it's ours and it's preferable that it stays ours. Any weakening of our independent status could see Scotland losing the right to participate in Europe and, when we get a new manager and football hierarchy, on the world stage
Complain about this comment
I think I am fed with Murphy already. Luckily he is MP for Eastwood and although I am by no means a Tory I am considering canvassing for the Tories to get rid of him. I can appreciate why the BBC peddle his views - same New Labour and Unionist values, namely spin. What has sport in Scotland got to do with him? We have a Government of our after all. Maybe after the election he can find a real job that is if anybody will employ him.
Complain about this comment
Two words not to have a GB team, despite so called "assurances" from FIFA
Jack Warner
There are plenty of other reasons not to, but give Warner an inch, and he'll take a mile.
Complain about this comment
Scotland could be independent by then and could potentially field its own team anyway.
I don't trust Murphy or Labour or Fifa. I can just hear the spin and excuses from Murphy and Labour if Fifa forced through a GB team permanently. I imagine they'd do their usual non-trick of blaming the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#17 daven32
I'm always amazed to find 'Patriots' who care not for the governance of our nation, but cry uproar over the independence of our national football team.
Complain about this comment
This isn't an argument about nationality, it's about sporting tribalism. I'm a Hibee and I would be damned if ever in a month of Sundays I would support an amalgamation of us with the Jambos in some sort of Edinburgh all stars.
Equally, I'll be damned if I would support a GB side in the Football Olympics. This isn't about politics, it's about sporting tribalism. There is no tradition of a GB football side, this isn't rugger...
Complain about this comment
Gosh - well done Brian ... You've picked on a subject of huge national and international importance.
Fitbah! Who cares... This is not important...
Complain about this comment
Its all a bit ironic that our "Scottish" secretary and our "Scottish" PM's plans for a "British" olympic football team could potentially jepordise Scotland's status in FIFA as an independent footballing nation.
Perhap's this is Brown's plan to bring his fellow Scot's to heel. Both of them should realise that "Scottish" supporters come from all sides of the political spectrum and not just from the SNP.
Go for all play off in a home international to settle it.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Murphy trust's FIFA. Can he explain why?
I don't trust Murphy or FIFA. Murphy is a Unionist and therefore he thinks it is ok to trust FIFA because if we lose our FIFA membership Murphy will not be bothered because he is a Unionist! It's like HBOS. His primary concern is UK not Scotland.
He probably follows his master Brown with his favourite goal -Gazza v Scotland.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
The Labour mantra that everying Scottish has to be trashed continues unabated, be it bank jobs, the Scottish parliament or the national football side.
Lets be clear, FIFA have flip-flopped so many times on the issue of a GB team that any assurance given by football's governing body simply cannot be taken at face value. This is something that Jim Murphy knows perfectly well.
The SFA and the Welsh FAs are right to give a GB team the thumbs down. The fans don't want it either; and it isn't going to happen no matter what any Labour or Tory numptie has to say on the matter.
Jim Murphy does not represent Scotland, and it's time he was shown the RED CARD.
Complain about this comment
It would be insane to run even a 1% risk of losing our footballing identity for the sake of a juniors tournament that nobody gives a hoot about anyway. How many people reading this blog, without going and looking it up, could tell me who the current Olympic football champions were, even though the tournament ended but a few weeks ago? How many people watch the Olympic football compared to the World Cup? It's a waste of time, and a nakedly political act to boot - we should have no part of it.
Complain about this comment
... I wonder who the token Scottish player would be and whether he would at least get the chance to sit on the substitutes bench?
Complain about this comment
#4 The_Forfarian
"When the Olympics comes around, why not put out a team comprised of those who ARE British - by dint of passport, residency, etc. - but who are rejected by the respective FAs because of their "gentlemen's agreement"?
Clever idea!
We could allow a Scotsman in the side though - step forward Chick Young as an overage player.
Complain about this comment
Or there were today's appalling scenes at Westminster PMQs described by described by Nick Assinder "That left a very nasty taste in the mouth. The awful death of Baby P was turned into a political football. And both sides must share the blame."
I trust that Labour and Tory supporters among you will feel ashamed of your leaders, and the screaming hordes behind them.
Complain about this comment
FIFA stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association.
Key word being : Internationale. (Inter-Nation)
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England are “Nations”.
Great Britain is not a nation.
GB is just the name of a windy, rain sodden island in the North West corner of Europe.
It is therefore impossible for any other FIFA members to argue that the 4 ‘Home Nations’ should play as one team under the pretence of an artificial ‘Nation’.
Unless of course, the people of the 4 nations voted to give up their political national identities entirely and amalgamate into a new country, perhaps called “The United Regions of Great Britain”.
Mr. Murphy & Mr. Brown seem determined that this is the path they wish to lead us down. Do not let this happen please.
Complain about this comment
Is it not the case that Spud Murphy is trying to stir the pot anti-clockwise once more.
The only way that the Home Countries can have any security in this mater would be a resolution duly passed by the governing bodies, to the effect that the Home Countries would not loose their individual status in a G.B. Team playing in the Olympics.
When asked about this mater Individual members of those governing bodies are only putting forward their own opinion at a point in time and have no power to speak on behalf of those bodies.
So Spud Murphy can now go back to his Boss and ask what his next move should be.
Complain about this comment
17daven32
Have a good laugh at that post.
So Jim Murphy is not a politician then?
Arguable, I suppose........
Complain about this comment
It's clear the remit of Jim Murphy is to beat the SNP and/or Alex Salmond to the punch over any Scottish issue.
If the 4 nations associations agree to do this, it's a certainty it will come back to haunt us in the future. Just because one FIFA president says it's ok, doesn't mean it's written in stone forever.
Complain about this comment
Cllrsandy:
#2
Gordon Brown and the Labour Party turned this issue into a political event, at a time when 'British' itself has become a major issue should Brown and Labour not have kept their noses out of football?
It's rather annoying that certain posters are ranting against the Scottish National Party while it was not the SNP who turned football into politics!
Back to Brian's blog:
I do believe that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should host seperate teams. The situation has become politically, at a time when Britishness is being questioned. Is it wise to force Britishness down the peoples throat? Especailly when we risk leaving a bad taste in their mouth... I support David Cameron and his quest for the four home teams to host a home tourament with the victor heading to the Olympics. This is the fairest and most realistic solution to a problem. I also believe this is what the major of the people would be more keen for at the same time.
Complain about this comment
Sepp Blatter quote in full:
"If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympic Games, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team.
"If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?
"This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations have been given by the Congress in 1946."
Complain about this comment
32. Nationalist overreaction of the day!
Indeed, this comment on playing a UK football team at the 2012 Olympics is absolute and irrefutable proof that the government seeks to disband all four nations of the UK and just call us Great Britain/Britain/UK instead.
No delusional paranoia there!
Complain about this comment
There is also a political aspect from FIFA regarding this issue. The laws of the game are governed by the IFAB, with the four home nations each having a vote, with four other member nations of FIFA, making up the council of eight.
Officially, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and England are not countries but rather regions within the United Kingdom. In the past there has been a motion from African member nations challenging the right for these 'regions' to field independent teams.
Without written confirmation from FIFA (i.e. Sepp Blatter gead honcho) the home nations risk losing their national sides, including England, so that we'd end up supporting the United Kingdom in the world cup and the european championships.
For most football supporters across all the nations this is not a welcome prospect for a minor, one off, under 23's tournament. It is not the pinnacle of the sport and it is argueable whether it should be in the olympics at all.
Regardless of how the 'Team GB' (a misnoma as it should be GB & NI or UK) football side was made up, all english, scots etc....it would still be seen as a team entered by the home nations and still have the same consequences.
The Scottish secretary post is an irrelevance, but he seems to be doing his best to stick his oar in on every issue at the moment, whether within his remit or not. Poor Iain Gray, the forgotten man.
Complain about this comment
#27 minuend
"Jim Murphy does not represent Scotland, and it's time he was shown the RED CARD."
I'm sure he already has one, being a member of the labour party.
Complain about this comment
It's not true to say there's never been a GB Olympic football team- such sides were figured in the Olympics until the 1950's (no less a figure than Bobby Simpson of the great Celtic European Cup winning side of 1967 played in the Olympics). Before 1939 Olympic football was arguably more credible than the World Cup. From 1952, however, the East European countries began entering what amounted to full strength national sides made up of state employed "amateurs", teams made up of Queens Park players and amateurs from non-league football elsewhere in the UK were on to a hiding and Olympic football's credibility faded away while that of the FIFA tournament grew. It may also be relevant that the four FAs in question finally began entering teams in the World Cup having ignored that competition before 1950 ("playing pygmies" was I think a term used by one of the English administrators of the 1930's in respect of possible entry, a view his Scottish counterparts would undoubtedly have shared).
It's interesting that nobody seems to get so hot under the collar over other team sports. Take hockey, (male and female). There are GB sides at the Olympics but England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (an all-Ireland team- another complexity I won't go into) all compete at European and World levels and nobody seems to get greatly execised about the disparity.
Of course (unless you're in India or Pakistan) hockey isn't really that important to anybody's national identity and I can't imagine politicians of any stripe using it as a vehicle for political posturing.
Complain about this comment
Jim Murphy is really doing well in his new job. So far he has upset;
1. The Icelanders
2. The Irish
3. The Norwegians
and now
4. Scottish football fans
5. Welsh football fans
and also
6. English football fans
That takes a very special talent to do all that in just a few short weeks.
Complain about this comment
#40 ScotInNotts
By now their card is probably more blue, but with a fuzzy soft pink edging.
Complain about this comment
#3, CllrSandy, says
That's fine for English players, but these Olympics are happening in London, which is in England, not in Scotland. Scottish players will not have a chance to play 'at home', anyway.
Obviously whether or not Scottish football chooses to take part in a UK team for this occasion is a matter for Scottish football, but 'playing at home' is not relevant to the argument. Unless, of course, at some time in the future, Scotland chooses to host an Olympics (and is successful in its bid).
Complain about this comment
I get angered by this argument that Scotland are 'scared' in case we lose our status. Does anyone really believe that Fifa, knowing the history of football, would ever actually scupper a Scotland football team from participating because 'once we played as britain in the olympics'. What utter nonsense, there would be serious civil unrest, never going to happen.
Wouldn't it be fairer to simply say that a huge majority of Scottish football supporters are completely against the idea altogether and want nothing to do with it, end of story.
And how is the team made up? What's to stop every starting player being English, I cant think of a single Scottish player that would get into a british team. Craig Gordon is it?
Just tell them to bolt.
Complain about this comment
#39 ScottsInNotts
"doing his best to stick his oar in at every opportunity at the moment, whether within his remit or not?
By hEck, hasn't someone already being doing that up here for 18 months or so?
Complain about this comment
#15 northhighlander
"Lets face it this is the only way we are ever going to get to a major finals again."
That's the spirit we've come to know and love from you. I'll take it you hope your wrong of course.
"With the possible exception of Craig Gordon we have no players who would get into the squad. Even Barry Ferguson who is a classy player would not get in in front of Gerrard or Lampard. Basically a British team would be an England team."
Unforunately for most if not all of them, only three over age players are allowed, and as those you mention definitely fall into that category for 2012 then maybe none of them will be there.
I think you'll also find that both the current Scottish U 19's and the Welsh U21's are promising to produce some decent international footballers. To say that the side for 2012 will comprise solely of English players is a tad premature.
"The World Cup will always be the finest honour in International Football."
At last we can agree on something!
Complain about this comment
Let's recap what is public knowledge.
1. We have an assurance from the General Secretary of FIFA that competing in the Olympics will not harm any of the four "home" nations.
2. No such assurance has been forthcoming from the President of FIFA. If anything, he has suggested the opposite.
3. The General Secretary of FIFA is a paid employee, whereas the President of FIFA is responsible to, and elected by, the FIFA Congress (ie, the individual members of FIFA).
4. There are regular mutterings within the Congress for the UK to play one team in all international competitions. It is they who would have the final say, not the hired help, however eminent.
So, when it comes down to it, who can we trust? I would suggest it is not the General Secretary, no matter how well-intentioned he is. Sadly, Blatter can easily turn around in four or five years time and, under pressure from confederations outside Europe, advocate for a UK association internationally.
David Cameron is similarly well-intentioned, but I think any participation in a tournament to select the "British" side for the Olympics is almost as dangerous as offering players for a joint team.
Others have raised the International FA Board. We should not discount its past role in keeping the laws of the game as sensible as possible. Speaking as a former referee (Class 1, former Northern Counties East League) I appreciate the efforts that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have made to preserve the spirit of the laws, under threat from the FIFA delegation to the Board. Without that voice on IFAB, the game that we know would disappear and I, for one, would mourn its passing.
Complain about this comment
#41 Forthview
"It's interesting that nobody seems to get so hot under the collar over other team sports."
That's because other sports governing bodies (i.e FIFA) have not tried to amalgamate those teams in the past nor subsequently leave hints that threaten their independence.
Complain about this comment
#45 scotland11
"Wouldn't it be fairer to simply say that a huge majority of Scottish football supporters are completely against the idea altogether and want nothing to do with it, end of story."
...and Welsh and norhern Irish and shock hororr, yes that's right, even English fans.
"Craig Gordon is it?"
See my #47 for the answer to that one.
"Does anyone really believe that Fifa, knowing the history of football, would ever actually scupper a Scotland football team from participating"
well yes, hence the debate in the first place.
Quotes direct from Sepp Blatter, the motion from African nations in the past. All this despite as you say the history of football, the SFA pre-dating FIFA.
"Civil unrest", FIFA and Sepp Blatter would be worried because...?
Complain about this comment
#46
you mean the First Minister of Scotland, charged with supporting Scotland's institutions and promoting Scotland around the world? Then quite simply, yes. I would think this comes under his remit, the SFA being a major Scottish institution.
Complain about this comment
Skip_NC:
#48.
"David Cameron is similarly well-intentioned, but I think any participation in a tournament to select the "British" side for the Olympics is almost as dangerous as offering players for a joint team."
Could you please expand your comment as to why that would be?
I would have thought that would be the best way forward.
Complain about this comment
#48 Skip
FIFA statement:
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/media/news/newsid=945343.html#the+possibility+british+olympic+football+team
Complain about this comment
Hey guys,
1. what about Rugby Union's LIONS?
The UK teams tour as ONE team and we still have separate teams for all other tournaments.
2. the other athletes are under one flag in the Olympics, whey shouldn't we have one soccer team?
3. It's UNDER 23 - I don't think Gerrard & co are eligible.
4. S3rew the politics, let's have some footy.
Complain about this comment
#52 Thomas-Porter
Team GB, no matter how it is made up could and would be used as precedent by other FIFA members as the home nations having competed as one in an international competition.
Complain about this comment
#51 etc.
Do you honestly think our home nations are threatened when there are teams from the likes of Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg, Litchtenstein etc strutting their stuff on the world stage. FIFA have issued their statement but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of some jingoistic drum banging.
Complain about this comment
#53 salmondelation
But Blatter had a somewhat different message back in March.
"If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympics, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team," he said.
"If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?
"This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations have been given by the Congress in 1946."
Hardly the reassuring words that might help to placate officials in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/football/7529807.stm
Read the other BBC Sport articles on this also. Contradictive stuff from FIFA isn't it, especially Blatter. Trust him yet?
Complain about this comment
53 salmondella
Do you also knowThanks for the reference to the press release, which states -
Who requested this private meeting?
Where it took place?
Why Jim Murphy was discussing football anyway?
The Scotland Office describes its remit as
Complain about this comment
Maybe Jim Murphy should go back to playing with his train set as this matter is devolved to the SFA.
Complain about this comment
The Olympics should be about seeing the world's best in athletics, swimming as well as other sports which don't have their own world championships.
Not every sport is represented, why on earth would anyone want to include a sport where you have to restrict competitors to those who "might be among the best someday, or maybe not".
Complain about this comment
In terms of suggestions for a token Scottish player, what about Labour MSP John Park? Seemed to deal quite well in his last game.
N.B. I don't mean the Glenrothes bye-election, I mean when he took Chick Young out when playing for Parliament against the Press.
Complain about this comment
Jim Murphy's touch lets him down again.
Empty vessels etc etc
No sensible politician I have ever known seeks unpopularity with such unerring accuracy.
His premature promotion has gone to his head.
Was there some reason that I am unaware of that forces him to pontificate on this issue on which the only guarantee is that he will collect enemies no matter what he says?
Complain about this comment
I think it's very sad that the 4 nations cannot be allowed to compete as 4 nations in the Olympics. There are many precedents for countries taking part who are not independent - i.e. Hong Kong, American Samoa, Puerto Rico etc.
At footabll matches, England fans wave UK national flagas if it were their own, the England team sing the UK national anthem "God save the queen' and the English fans sing "rule Britannia." If the English FA take Great Britain's football position at the Olympics then the English take-over of all things British is complete.
This is not right, nor fair. The English FA and the British Olympic Association should ensure that the preservation of all 4 national footabll associations is placed ahead of their ill-conceived, selfish illusions of British Olympic football gold medals.
Again, the BOC needs to approve the application to field 4 separate nations to ensure no athlete or competitor loses out. This is surely the best way forward with such a challenging situation. win-win?
Complain about this comment
Good one Brian - you've avoided Falkirk.
Complain about this comment
#56 salmondella
"SOVEREIGNTY OF ANDORRA
Article 1
1. Andorra is a Democratic and Social independent State"
Do you notice something different from the position of Scotland Wales etc in the above extract from the Andorran Constitution?
Complain about this comment
#48, Thomas_Porter,
I think that anything which gives the impression that Scotland condones a united team in the Olympics is dangerous. There is precedent for this. The Home Internationals have been used as qualifiers for one World Cup (1950) and one European Championship (1968). For the World Cup the UK got two slots (although Scotland chose not to play as they finished second to England) and for the EC it was one slot. My fear is that if it is OK for the Olympics, some will think it is OK for other tournaments.
Now, you might think that, because it has happened before and Scotland still has its own team, we have no problem. However, remember that when it last happened, Sir Stanley Rous was FIFA President and the Asian/African voting bloc did not have as much power as it does now. That bloc could easily allocate one slot for future World Cups. Or perhaps it could get a half-slot, with the winners of the Home Internationals playing off against, say, a South American team. In any case, it would dilute Scotland's chances of qualification in the future.
# 53, Salmondella,
Sepp Blatter has issued conflicting statements on this issue. He is not to be trusted. He is a master-manipulator who will say anything if he thinks it will get him what he wants. I was never very fond of Joao Havelange, but at least you knew where you stood with him. It's a bit like comparing Margaret Thatcher to Gordon Brown, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Oh yes, I know what's happening here. Let's have a British football team and then those nasty Scots can't complain about the billions that are going to be flung at the LONDON Olympics. Murphy, in a cold light with the Brown light off you, you'd not agree with this.
Scotland is a nation. If we can't compete as one, then awa' ye go (LinguaAlba).
Complain about this comment
ScotInNotts:
#55.
"Team GB, no matter how it is made up could and would be used as precedent by other FIFA members as the home nations having competed as one in an international competition."
The team would technically not be 'Team GB', it simply would be a certain team representing Great Britain.
At least for the United Kingdom we have greater pleasure watching our four teams fight for the honour of representing Great Britain and at the same time be pleased when we take home the gold. It does not matter if the team be Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish at this point.
Everyone wins.
Complain about this comment
Blatter on 4 August 2008: "I can't guarantee that the four British associations will never lose their privileges but I can tell you that when the FIFA Statutes were revised in 2003 there were no longer voices to challenge these privileges."
From FIFA's Blatter calls for solidarity.
Hardly a guarantee, and as others say above, both Blatter and Valcke are merely FIFA officials. It's the members who make the decisions.
So Murphy is simply following his master's voice - meddling outside his remit and bringing nothing new to the party.
Complain about this comment
FIFA have had to step in to stop governments in other countries crossing the line in dealing with footballing associations. This situation should be no different. Back off Murphy.
The fact is, party politics aside, the Tartan army has no interest in this Team GB malarky and if England want to put a team in and call it GB then thats up to them. But the idea that Scotland must contribute or be a part is a joke.
We can't be giving ANY other nation a reason to question why the UK gets to have 4 national teams. It would only take one incident for some countries who dont like the idea (maybe claiming it gives the "UK" an unfair advantage) of there being 4 home nations to start causing a stir.
I dont get how Jim Murphy can be a football fan and not see how this is not just a bad idea, its a potential vote loser in Scotland. Football before politics!
Complain about this comment
OK, conspiracy theories abound again.
Here's a compromise:
The Olympics are supposed to be about amateur sports men and women. Then why not have a UK team made up of amateurs, drawn from ballots of the top players in each country. We have the British Lions in rugby, so why can't we have the same in soccer?
Once again, politics screws up sport.
Or does the SNP now forsee and independent Scotland being a better international football team :p (sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Complain about this comment
why don't the politicians stay out of football they should stick to trying to get the country out of the mess they have got it in to memo to G.Smith DO NOT GIVE IN TO POLITICAL PRESSURE.GBFOOTBALL TEAM NEVER.
Complain about this comment
"Oldnat" - forget Andorra and look at many of the non-independent nations participating...some are even defined as 'protectorates' especially many island groups. Read #63.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
If the SNP/SFA are so against the idea of a UK footie team, why the hypocrisy of allowing Olympic football matches at Hampden?
Complain about this comment
#41 - that's Ronnie Simpson, the great Celtic goalkeeper...
#59 - this would be under Foreign Affairs, which are not Devolved.
#63 - I think we all know the hassle that the waving of the Union Flag causes in certain parts of Scotland - and I don't just mean the West of Scotland! There are those up North who don't like that flag either. So why the sour grapes about the English flying it? They are just as entitled to as the rest of us are. Except that for non-sporting reasons, few people in the other home nations do fly it.
However - Sepp Blatter is a toerag, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I can spit. He'll probably expect the teams to play in extra tight shorts, for the entertainment value...
Complain about this comment
Why would anyone in Scotland want a GB football team. We have a football team, IT'S CALLED SCOTLAND. Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy showing their anti-Scottish credentials again
Complain about this comment
What a load of numpties.
Talk about being led down the garden path.
There is no intention of having a mixed all GREAT BRITAIN team or of having a play off between the four nations to see who represent the GB team.
The intention is and has allways been, to have the english team play as GREAT BRITAIN.
Why do you think that SPUD has come out with this now, just after CAMERON said he would like to see a play off between the four nations.
the above has been the great leaders idea all along.
Complain about this comment
This is clearly a case of Jim Murphy being the UK parliaments man in Scotland rather than Scotland's man in the UK.
The point has been made repeatedly that Scotland's place as an independent footballing entity is in danger if a British Isles team is fielded in an international context - not to mention Northern Ireland and Wales, both teams who have done better than Scotland at World Cup finals.
Has Jim Murphy, in trying this stunt, got guarantees for those footballing nations as well?
Why is it that the head of the elected government of Scotland in approaching other countries to represent Scotlnds interests is 'cold shouldered' and 'humiliated' by having his point politely listened to, while JM, barely in the post two days, is some kind of miracle worker in getting spurious and meaningless assurances from committee men in smoke filled rooms?
Complain about this comment
71
The British Lions is an invitation team which doesn't play in official tournaments and includes players from the independent Republic of Ireland.
The comparison is meaningless.
Complain about this comment
#73 NoGBfootball
OK I've got the sporting and political solution.
The Maldives are sinking, and we have surplus islands they could have. They bring with them a seat at the UN and a FIFA place.
It's the equivalent of a company buying another because of its contractual links.
All we need to do is persuade them that the climate on Mingulay is similar to the Indian Ocean.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#71.
Hello Neil,
"The Olympics are supposed to be about amateur sports men and women. Then why not have a UK team made up of amateurs, drawn from ballots of the top players in each country. We have the British Lions in rugby, so why can't we have the same in soccer?"
The British Lions were not a great success for Scotland. Have you watched several of their games? In some, we witness Scottish players spending more time on the bench and only allowed on when its clear that the Lions won't win...
Politics aside, neither the Football Associations or the people appear to be interested in a British Team at the Olympics. The discussion should be over, the teams should be figuring out how Britain can be represented another way. But then Gordon Brown came in and fanned the flames and what should have been simple has turned political with what could become a dangerous backlash.
Complain about this comment
#68 Thomas_Porter
We will have the pleasure of the home nations playing against each other as there is already discussions for the 'Celtic' nations to revive the home nations championships. England declined to join in this venture.
"It does not matter if the team be Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish at this point."
It would to Sepp Blatter and FIFA, as well as those in the African block how have already tried a motion to amalgamate the home nations in order to free up world cup qualification places and also to reduce the home natins strangle hold on the IFAB. Technically it's not 'Team GB' to us if it does not comprise of players from each nation, but that won't matter to FIFA, the name will though.
Complain about this comment
#56 salmondelation
"Do you honestly think our home nations are threatened when there are teams from the likes of Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg, Litchtenstein etc strutting their stuff on the world stage."
Yes I do. Why? Andorra etc. do not have four seats on the IRB, do not potentially take up slots in major tournament finals and do not have representatives in the latter stages of European competition. They have also never faced a motion tabled by some African block memebers to amalgamate them into Spain, Italy, France/Belgium, Switzerland.
FIFA has issued it's statement you say. Well they've issued many on this matter, please do read the rest on the BBC Sport website as I mentioned earlier.
Complain about this comment
As everyone knows, the UK Olympic team is known the world over as the English Olympic team, just as the arrival of the UK delegation led by Mr Brown at the recent EU meeting in Brussels was described on the French television news, for example, as the arrival of the English. Clearly, although you may be told that the proposed UK Olympic football team would be British, it would be perceived abroad for the most part as an English team.
If you are not careful, the Scots will be dragooned into being identified as English in football as in everything else. As you are not English and appear not to wish to become English, why let this happen?
Complain about this comment
from Fifa website - comments at a press conference by sepp blatter. (1 year ago so in recent history)
link -
http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/womensworldcup/china2007/news/newsid=606702.html
Thursday 27 September 2007
Quote
On England not being allowed to compete at the Olympics despite finishing as one of Europe's top three teams
Contrary to the structure of the Olympic games, in FIFA the UK countries divided into four separate national associations - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - but when comes to the Olympics there is no England team, there is only the possibility for a Great British team. The privilege that we afford to individual associations is no longer valid for the Olympics, and that is why the England team cannot qualify for the next Olympic games. It's that simple.
Definitely, when London hosts the Olympics, the women's and men's team will automatically qualify to play, but they will play under the nomination of Great Britain. But for 2008 they need to qualify and they cannot qualify as Great Britain as they have not entered the competition as Great Britain. It doesn't matter to us if they decide to enter as one team, but then they would lose all their current privileges, there would be no Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish national teams and leagues. Can you imagine what British football would look like?
end of quote
doesn't look like all of Fifa are in favour of 4 teams then. also the knock on effect is not only for internation teams - so it looks as though our 'big 2' might be joining their 'big 4' in the race for the 4 European Cup places as all of the leagues need to join up. It should also be interesting when our 'big 2' need to travel to Belfast for a crunch league or cup match! mmm! Maybe a televised match where we should keep the tele muted for the sake of the women and children present.
a second point to consider is who picks the team. Fifa recognise 4 different associations but none of them are GB or UK or any other artificially amalgamated name.
I am guessing, but I would think that the Scottish Association, for national regulations as well as player insurance cover reasons, can only pick Scottish players - and similar situations for the other associations. Does this mean that our UK/GB government should now be actively setting up a UK/GB amalgamed (or independant) football association for administration and applying to Fifa for a place as a recognised team. As Fifa regulate everything in football, surely someone other than the current associations will have to be registered with them to be able to compete.
Oh! And when all the leagues amalgamate, good luck to Eastbourne Burough on their away trip to Wick Academy in the first round of the now amalgamated GB FA cup on a cold wet blustery night in the middle of winter (Oct - Apr in Wick). Enjoy the 1480 mile round trip guys. There are a coulple of good chip shops in Inverness on the way home if you manage to make the south bound trip that far before about midnight.
Aye! keep it simple - keep it scotland
Complain about this comment
Ooh, I'd love there to be a British football team!
Melodious chants from the peaceful and happy stands, harmoniously mexican waving,
"There's only one United,
And that's the United Kingdom!"
(Not the same, I know.)
Fans so far from cold or chilly wrapped 'til near blind in four scaves, four hats.....misty-eyed...
(wistful sigh!)
Complain about this comment
Sepp Blatter's position over the last three years:
Sep 2005
Fifa has said that Great Britain must enter a team at the 2012 Olympics but that each home nation's individual status will not be affected.
"The four British associations will not lose the rights and privileges acquired back in 1947," Blatter insisted.
"They will play with one team but it is up to them how they do it.
"It can be a mixed team, it can be from just one of the home nations, whatever they want to do."
Oct 2007
"For us there is no problem, I don't know why they are concerned.
"The more they discuss, the more they will be in danger of someone saying 'OK they are not even happy themselves so we will change it'."
Blatter also said Fifa would not be concerned if every player came from one national association and played under the Great Britain name.
Mar 2008
Fifa president Sepp Blatter says a Great Britain football team at the 2012 Olympic Games should feature only English players.
The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football bodies oppose a GB team in case it affects their Fifa status, while England back the idea.
Blatter now says said the independent status of the four British associations could be harmed by a unified GB team.
"They should enter only a team composed of players from England," said Blatter.
"This will then not provoke a long and endless discussion of the four British associations."
"I said that is the best thing for you to do," said Blatter.
"If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympic Games, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team.
"If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?
"This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations have been given by the Congress in 1946."
Coincidentally: Capello admits 2012 Olympic Dream after Fergie didn't commit
Complain about this comment
Of course, none of this really matters.
The timing of Murphy's statement (and Brian's thread?) may have had more to do with diverting our attention from
Scottish economy faces sharpest downturn in 30 years
Complain about this comment
No Team GB
Complain about this comment
Have you had a good think about my 77 yet.
The SCOTTISH FA say no.
The WELSH FA say no.
The NORTHERN IRELAND FA say no.
The ENGISH FA says yes.
Do you believe that the ENGLISH FA would say yes, if it would mean the end of their own place in FIFA.
The problem is how to get the ENGLISH football team into the olympics without upsetting the rest of the home nation supporters.
Yes you do exactly as they are doing now, pretend you want a all nations team so that the respective fans kick up a fuss that it could affect their individual places in FIFA , and then say ok, but we will put in the ENGLAND team as they want to be part of the olympics.
Ask yourselfs, why is SEPP BLATTER now contradicting himself as opposed to his statment in march.
If the england team is in the football, then the tournoment will be a larger success and more money will flow.
Complain about this comment
Nearly all groups of people find their identity through independence and establishing a country acknowledged by the world.
For some reason the Scots don't think this is the way to go...but yet most still want their identity. - jeez, what a struggle!
Many Scots genuinely feel that the world calls the UK by its official name...we all know that's not the case. The union flag is nearly always called the English flag and the island is called England. Haven lived in several countries I can confirm the aforementioned.
4 separate countries in the Olympics will allay fears from UEFA and allow all the athletes to complete. BOA needs to change their approach.
"Oldnat" - rather than the Maldives, lets take Malta cos its warmer and closer...we could come home for the weekend!!!
Complain about this comment
#88 oldnat
It's Ok though, as part of the union we'll benefit economically as a result.
"John Swinney, the Scottish government's Finance Secretary, called on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, when he presents his pre-Budget report in the Commons next week to invest in public expenditure on the economy north of the border."
or maybe not?
"John Park, the Labour Opposition's skills and economy front-bench spokesman, accused the Nationalist government of not doing enough in terms of retraining to help those Scots who are losing their jobs."
If the Scottish economy is to be disproportionatley hit as reported, does that mean disproportionate financial aid will be given to Scotland as part of the union dividend?
We'll see how that goes down with voters in the rest of the UK. I wouldn't like it if I perceived I was paying my taxes for someone else to benefit, if indeed that was the case. Perhaps we'll get fiscal autonomy by dint of disaffection from the rest of the UK?
Complain about this comment
#91 NoGBfootball
As long as it's warm and begins with "M" (Moldavia is out) - it saves the cost of changing letter heads - "MSP" = Maldivian/Maltese/Montenegran/Mongasque Scottish Parliament.
Complain about this comment
I'm giving up. Sport is supposed to be separate from politics, but judging by some of the comments on here what is the point?
The players are to be under-23, which eliminate Gerrard etc. So it would not be the full international teams playing anyway.
If you don't want a GB team, then don't play at Hampden. The SFA don't want a GB team but I bet they want the money. And guaranteed the prices will be sky high to cash in.
Why will Scotland bother anyway? We'll get gubbed, and probably by the Maldives :p
But as long as England don't win............ (that's really my reason, I'm sick to the back teeth of 1966........if GB wins, they can't claim it)
Complain about this comment
I'll be taking a leaf out of the Scots book - anyone but Britain.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who cares at all about Scottish football will say NO to the idea of a GB team for the olympics.
No one - not even those who currently run FIFA or UEFA - can guarantee that the fielding of an olympic GB team would not be used in future to prevent Scotland from competing as a seperate entity in world cups and european championships.
Labour are flying this union jack coloured kite yet again in the hope that supporting a GB team will make us all feel warm and special about being British.
The risks they are willing to take in pursuit of this politically-motivated delusion are huge. The birth of Team GB would end international games at Hampden, terminally undermine the SFA as a governing body, deny generations of Scottish players the chance to compete at international level and call into question Scotland's representation at club level.
I suggest that Jim Murphy and David Cameron are wheeled out in front of the Tartan Army before the Argentina game to get a flavour of popular sentiment !
Complain about this comment
#92. ScotInNotts
Silly me! I should have remembered that the UK would solve our problems.
You said "Perhaps we'll get fiscal autonomy by dint of disaffection from the rest of the UK?"
I suspect the willingness of Brown and Murphy to talk about a change in the basis of Scottish funding to one founded on the performance of the Scottish economy during a recession, and low oil prices is not co-incidental.
Expect the new funding formula to be based on the GDP of the Scottish land area, with the borrowing facility available to the Scottish Government to be (as at present) only from Murphy, and for the Scottish Government to have no enhanced powers over the control of the economy.
This will allow them to continue to present Scotland as an economic basket-case, (bailed out by English borrowing) that can't possibly survive alone.
In the short-term such a strategy would probably work, and reduce the SNP vote. In a few years time, however, when the recession is over, we might actually have moved nearer to our goal.
Complain about this comment
I can hear it now...
"Hello, hello, we are the GB Boys,
Hello, hello, Gordon's paid us to make a noise,
He learned a few things when he was in Beijing,
And he's told us what to say,
Yes, we are the GB, GB boys"
"W-e love Gor-don,
W-e love Gor-don,
W-e love Gordon, Gordon, Bro-wn,
W-e love Gor-don, Gordon Brown"
"We're popular, yes we are,
We're popular, yes we are,
We're popular, yes we are..."
Complain about this comment
I think it all gets too politicised.As a football fan i wouldn't support a GB team because i'm an England supporter.To understand what i mean just ask any Rangers or Celtic fans if they fancy having a Glasgow team or Man Utd and Man City becoming Manchester,not gonna happen.The other point i want to make is why is Ally McCoist advocating Rangers & Celtic joining the English league and being in what would become a British league but I didn't hear any support coming from that quarter for a British team,could it be because of the money,so much for loyalty,hypocrites.
Complain about this comment
Just one other thing lads,will youse be wearing your Argentina shirts when you play them,If not can i borrow one,can't quite bring myself to buy one,cheers
Complain about this comment
Scotland and the Scottish flag existed long before Britain and the union flag showed up - FACT! We are and always will be Scottish, so the unionists can argue all they want but the Scottish football fan's spirit and determination will not be broken or compromised by the English need for the GB Team berth.
I wonder if a Team GB football team followed by a UEFA request for a GB team would bring about immediate SNP independent country of Scotland.
Sport and plitics along with politics and music will always be related...its not right, but it real.
'Oldnat,' what about trading The Orkneys as a timeshare with the USA, and we get Puerto Rico in return - and although they are a US Territory - they also have an Olympic team (BOC take note!!!) ...then Scotland get a seat at the UN and the right to have our own football team at the Olympics! Then rename Puerto Rico as Scottish Maldives!!!
Complain about this comment
If we were an independent country we wouldn't have to endure any of this nonsense and our National team would never be under threat. Our position at present is absurd and leaves us open to others' interests. Only we can end the insecurity of our national position.
Complain about this comment
Why is Football an Olympic Sport?
Just a bunch of Overpaid Pansies who should be sunning themselves on holiday when the true Sportsmen and Women take the field!
Oh - and Tennis as well
What ever happened to the True Meaning of the Olympics - Yes before TV & Commercialism !!
Complain about this comment
Dear God, is this really the burning political issue of the day?
Brian, stop indulging your hobbies on BBC time, and get back to your day job !
The BBC has enough second-rate football pundits already
Complain about this comment
I can't wait for Brown's next idea.
I think it should be, let's rename Scotland 'North Britain',
England 'South Britain,
Wales 'West sticky-out bit of Britain'
and, 'cos I know he really wants to anyway, Northern Ireland 'Nearest part of all Britain's other Bits and Bobs'
Just needs a slogan.....hmm...
"W-e...can on-ly be British....",
"Tough on Britain, Tough on the Causes of Britain."
I'll let him come up with that one - I've done all the hard work....
Complain about this comment
"Resistance is Futile"? No? ...
Complain about this comment
Gordon in his pulling days: "Do you want to come back to mine - and I can show you how "British" I am? (Eyebrows and head nodding.) Guaranteed success!
Aha, maybe that's the root of his obsession about it? He'll have designed the Team GB strip already (possibly even wore it on those successful occassions?!)
Complain about this comment
#97 Oldnat ... i had a little theory this morning on way home from work. Radio Scotland was on and going on about the Scottish Government .... again i heard the words ' without Gordon Brown ..Scotland would be in a bigger financial mess than it was ' or something similiar , this set me thinking . Do you think its possible (ooooooo another conspiricy RE ) that the Labour leadership challenge was all put on ? Lets face it , it would have been political suicide to take on Gordon and even if you won you wouldnt have been PM for long after the general election. Milliband is pretty much an unknown with most people so wouldnt have been popular . Now Gordon comes through shining ...the party is fully united (no infighting) and we have a leader to be proud of . I think this is the reason that we are hearing 'Gordon is our saviour' all the time. Leadership challenge stopped , save the country , stop the SNP ( labour point of view not mine) be a world leader etc etc ... It was to get the sympathy votes i reckon.
Complain about this comment
#105 #106 What about 'Mind the Gap' ;o)}
Complain about this comment
What about ' Stand and deliver ..... your money or your life ' now that would be appropriate for Gordon !
Complain about this comment
#109
...between Gordon Brown's reality... and...reality?! :-)
Apparently it's also a theatre group. Must do tragedy or comedy. :-)
(Sorry about the nonsence - I'll go and have my cup of tea now.)
Complain about this comment
110.
"Your, er, money, ...or your, er, life."
(You have to do voice and wander your gaze from left to right.)
He's a charmer.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Apparently one of the reasons for this stushie is the idea that a Team GB footy time would be likely medal winners - I'm not sure on what evidence.
Would we not be better off pushing for equality for women in track cycling events, if the UK medal count is the issue?
I can't understand why U-23 footy should be an Olympic sport anyway.
Complain about this comment
I hope this blows a huge whole in the debate!
If the member nations of the United Kingdom were to field one team, does that not imply that the member states of the European Union should field one team also?
Lets see what France, Germany, Italy and Spain have to say on that one!
I live in a nation called Scotland, and proud of it.
The Olympics are nothing to football, and the Olympics are supposed to be an amateur competition, so where do professional footballers fit in? The IOC has lost the plot.
What is the point of jepordising Scotland's National football team for the sake of some under 23 competion, which in all probability may have one token Scot in the team anyhow, who might get on the bench!
Support the SFA on this!
(ps I am a Rangers fan too)
Complain about this comment
Maybe someone has already explained- but why is football an Olympic sport anyway?
Football is the world's biggest sport, it doesn't need the Olympics. Nobody cares who won this year's Olympic gold at football do they?
How many Premiership/La Liga/Serie A stars were there?
If Paris had won, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway- and Scottish taxpayers might be somewhat beter off in the long run!
Complain about this comment
What's the point? A British team will consist almost entirely of English players. That's not saying Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish players are rubbish, it's just that players who play for Premiership teams will inevitably be considered ahead of non-Premiership players, and most of them will be English. Imagine if it wasn't an under-23 team - it would essentially be England plus perhaps Craig Gordon, since they've not had a decent keeper in about 20 years. Even Alan Hutton wouldn't get a look in. The only non-English player who would have gotten picked for such a team in recent years was Ryan Giggs, due to the complete lack of decent English left-wingers.
So three countries would jeopardise their independent footballing status for the inclusion of perhaps a couple of token squad players each. What a great idea!!!
If we really want to support Scottish players at the Olympics, let's get behind the Republic of Ireland - they nick all our good ones these days.
Complain about this comment
#114
Some might say that Britain is a country and the EU is not. But I agree with you - team GB is a farcical idea.
As is having nations within a nation.
Complain about this comment
Well if Scots supposedly aren't good enough for such a team then why the fuss about our 'inclusion' in such a shceme. Just carry on without us then as you will anyway...
Complain about this comment
45 Scotland 11
After reading through a bit of this blog I was tempted to simply post "bile, bigotry and paranoia...situation normal".
However, you're own point seems seems to carry either a servile inferiority complex or a severe persecution complex. It's hard to tell.
Assuming that Sepp Blatter can be trusted (I have no desire at all to amalgamate the Home Nations...indeed bring back the competition straightaway in my view!) and given the "President for Life's" chicanery over the years this is a very big "if". A squad of home nation players would be picked to make sure that everyone was represented. It would be incumbent upon the selectors to do so! Given the number of games involved and a big squad there should be room for everyone to play!
In rugby the Lions have managed this very successfully, barring the odd grumble, for many years. They have been a major force in sporting excellence and sporting diplomacy and I have never heard anyone who actually plays getting uptight in public about the provenance of individual players (although even I was dismayed by Clive Woodward's selections in New Zealand). At no point has anyone proposed merging the home unions.
I think that any attempt by Blater to force through such an amalgamation post 2012 would, or should be met with a blank refusal. I they don't like it we should collectively withdraw from FIFA and stop paying the contributions.
I think that a unified squad just for the Olympics is a great idea. My only insistence is that we don't have a Scottish goalkeeper ;-)
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
#119.
The Lions are under different circumstances. The team also consists of people from the Republic of Ireland (aswell as the United Kingdom). Team GB at the Oylmpics would consist only from people actually from the United Kingdom. It would be quite possible that our teams could be merged while the Lions can not, could you imagine the outrage from the Republic?
Complain about this comment
It may be the case that FIFA will honour any agreement to maintain the Home countries as international entities after 2012 but with good reason we don't want to risk it and we should therefore be listened to and our position respected.
And why is Jim Murphy so desperate to overrride the overwhelming opinion of those he is meant to be representing. It's ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
120 Thomas Porter
That just goes to show how much you know. The Irish Rugby Union represents both the North and the Republic. The name of the team was changed from the British Lions to just The Lions to address any sensibilities for players coming from the Republic. The Irish Union has been a showcase for both cross-border cooperation and Irish unity for many years.
The Home Unions could be merged, but they are not, for the very simple reason everyone would object strongly. The same would apply in football.
I suspect that sport isn't your thing!
Complain about this comment
You're not comparing like with like. Rugby, like Cricket are minority sports of no real interest and consequence to the world unlike football.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
#122.
But then you have to acklnowledge at least that the Lions are under different circumstances from Team GB. It is not good to compare those that are different.
Besides the football associations are against the idea of Team GB, while the fans appear to be against the idea. Should the discussion not be over? The only real reason the discussion has continued is because Gordon Brown decided to voice his opinion. Is it wise to press on when politics has became involved? If we went ahead should our team not represent the unity in Britain rather then be created for political purposes when Britainess is being questioned?
Complain about this comment
123 Bluelaw
You could be right. Religion, as Marx said "is the opium of the masses". I doubt very much that this is still true outside of certain parts of the Islamic world. Instead we have football in which otherwise normal people can legitimately express hatred and crass tribalism towards their near neighbours.
Just like religion used to, it keeps Joe Soap focused on anything but his lot in life. Which is why politicians love it so!
You might assume that I'm not a football supporter? Partly true. I'm a sports supporter and as such I increasingly see little sport in modern football. I'm glad to watch our local sides play and, at a superficial level I'm glad to occasionally go up to town to see Arsenal play. But in the case of the latter I never lose sight of the fact that it is a vast marketing machine dedicated solely to extracting the hard earned cash from ordinary people.
Top flight football is a rigged game designed to ensure that the richest sides always win the competitions and, on the way, sell the maximum number of relpica shirts to fat blokes with baseball caps and goatee beards who believe that some sort of dumb esprit rubs off on them. Opium indeed!
Complain about this comment
Well, again if football is such an irrelevance and is only a vehicle by which the corrupted 'lessers' vent their hatreds then Coe, Murphy et al won't mind in the slightest if the SFA with the backing of most of those with an interest in Scottish football have nothing to do with a GB team.
Complain about this comment
#125 Anglophone
"the opium of the masses"
Which makes our Brian just another drug dealer!
Complain about this comment
124 Thomas Porter
You're right. I will certainly not be losing any sleep over Olympic Football. In a way it's a shame because, as there is so much football infrastructure across the land, it's one of the few sports that can genuinely be "taken to the people", rather than everyone having to brave the Tube to get out to some converted marshland in E. London.
If nobody wants it then it is a done deal.
Will you be coming to the Olympics? I'm told that the plan is that, provided that you don't use your car, everyone can travel from any point in the land for the same price. Let's hope that once they've thought it through they will make exceptions for people in remote communities ( before you have a go at me;-)). Judging by the tone on these pages I suspect that most contributors will restrict themselves to booing English competitors at the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh.
Complain about this comment
Haven't read all of the comments, so forgive me if I'm repeating.
An old journalist friend supplied this very insightful info : Bespoke International football tournaments are NOT for countries.
They are however for Football Associations (just so happens,that for the most part they match with countries).
Personally, I'd rather Scotland had a team in the Olympics rather than a GB one. Yes - you got it, I'm in favour of independence for Scotland.
I don't dislike or hate any GB team. Some wise person mooted ".. the opposite of love, isn't hate - it's indifference".
Complain about this comment
#125
Not much argument from me on your shrewd assessment of the football machine.
But do you think the marketing machine for team GB, or team Gordon Brown, will sell a lot of shirts?
Complain about this comment
Attending a football match - a way to ensure you are both bored and cold at the same time. Has to be on TV for me, preferrably at the pub. Rugby's better because they've got better outfits.
An old school friend once commented, after sitting in the stand through a whole match, "So, who won then?". I admired her disdain. :->
This team GB thing is good for a laugh.
Complain about this comment
#123 Football .... 22 blokes chasing a ball around a pitch ... thats nae a sport ... you should try cross country mountain biking ... thats a mans sport ... erm and women . Aye you try telling the Indians that cricket is nae important .... nae Red Indians tho ;o)}
Complain about this comment
127 Oldnat
True, but I think that Brian is dealing in an even stronger drug...nationalism. If you lot don't get your daily dose, you can get violent!
Complain about this comment
#128
Anglophone, did you used to be a professional cat goader in your younger days?! ;-]
I have to give due recognition at your ability trying to get other posters to dangle on your ball of string.
Better mention team GB again...er....their maskot could be a giant cuddly It's a Knock Out-style....Gordon Brown! Yey-hoo!
Complain about this comment
130 Aye-Write
It's hard to say isn't it. I for one would not buy a replica shirt of anything...but what if my kids want one?
On the negative side, for the manufacturers (in the Far East naturally), there isn't much of a sell-on opportunity. Secondly, you probably wouldn't see people wearing them after the Olympics so they might baulk at the doubtlessly high price.
On the positive side, they might just catch on in the general surge of popularity around the time. In pure financial terms it doesn't really matter if a few curmudgeons in the extreme provinces don't want to get involved ;-)
Given the usual gripe that foreigners always refer to this island as England...maybe some foreign entrepreneur will make a huge gaffe by making millions of Team England shirts in the hope of making a killing Oh dearie dearie me!
Complain about this comment
Could we not field a team comprising only of Manx and Channell islanders. As far as I'm aware, they don't have national associations to worry about losing.
Complain about this comment
128 I dont think any of us would boo English competitors in any sport .... football is different i suppose ... i happened upon a blog by some english guy ranting about andy murray .... just cos he was scottish ... so dont give us that ... i dont think much scots boo'd Tim Henman at Wimbledon !
Complain about this comment
84 Frankly Francophone a.k.a. Anglo Saxophone a.k.a Greetings Earthlings etc etc.
Is not the fact that that the French media refer refer to the British Government as the English Government an issue of laziness and or ignorance on behalf of the French? Or are suggesting some sort of plot? I'm sure that Expat will be only too happy to add it to his list.
Surely this flies in the face of your usual assertions regarding the breadth and sensitivity of French attitudes towards all things?
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
#133.
Are you not to some extent a British Nationalist?
I'm not linking you to the BNP, just a plain British Nationalist.
Complain about this comment
Isn't the sum total of the argument this: Anything that tends to unite British people is bad, bad, bad from the SNP perspective, and anything that divides us must be good, good, good?
Why try to circumvent the issue? Why make spurious points to camouflage your hatreds?
It's the same thing with HBOS, isn't it? You'd rather have a Chinese bank adding financial domination to economic domination than accept anything English somehow "ruling Scotland."
Oh, NO! Shock, horror! We're not anti-English! We're not little tartan racists! How dare you! Oh, no!
Aye, right.
Complain about this comment
134 Aye-Write
Certainly not, apart from appearances on this blog I'm strongly opposed to cruel sports. Unlike the pheasant or the fox you do have the chance to shoot back...not of course that I'm advocating anything as ungentlemanly as shooting foxes! (Poisoning is so much cheaper!)
A team GB Football Mascot? How about a model of four men sitting in a room looking pointedly out of different windows?
Complain about this comment
bluelaw #123
"You're not comparing like with like. Rugby, like Cricket are minority sports of no real interest and consequence to the world unlike football."
------------------------------------------
That is only a view shared by Americans and soccer fanatics. The former prefer a game played by young girls, and the latter are often too drunk to appreciate the subtlies of complex sports. Both cricket and rugby (both codes) have huge followings around the world, and rightly so - they are played and watched by people who remain civilised to each other and violence doesn't deter folks from taking their young children along. The population of India alone make a nonsense of your assertion regarding cricket.
Soccer should not be in the olympics for two reasons:
1) The behaviour of many of its players and supporters are in direct conflict with the olympic spirit.
2) The ball is completely the wrong shape.
Complain about this comment
137 RabbieHippo
Sorry, couldn't resist it. I take no responsibility for any of my compatriots who get hot under the collar but I don't like them either.
Perhaps you shouod go intop bat on that blog and bring this neanderthal down a peg or two. I only check out this blog to police paranoid or insulting accusations...it also makes a maddeningly great alternative to work!
I like Andy Murray...he really looks like the real deal now! Hopefully the personality bypass operation can be reversed with time and maturity, but then Tiger (ha!) Tim was no different.
Complain about this comment
I live in Newton Mearns and the unctuous Murphy is my MP. He loves having his picture in the local papers at every opportunity and they are only to willing to oblige..MP Jim tying his shoelaces, (that sort of thing). The man does not have an original thought in his head . He dropped out of Glasgow Uni yet at every opportunity has his picture taken at some school function or other. The fact that education is a devolved matter and he has no formal education matters not to obsequies Murphy. He is the Great Broons creature and will do exactly as he is told, hence the reason that he is Sec of State for North Briton.
The only good thing about it is that one day he will be found out for the incompetent nobody that he truly is...
Complain about this comment
In all this furore about Jim Murphy and his meeting with a EUFA official and an Westminster minister in charge of sport, contributors to this blog seem to have forgotten one thing. Sport, along with culture, is a DEVOLVED matter and not within the remit of Mr Murphy who is a mere Westminster MP and so has no power to speak to anyone on the subject.
Seems to be a bit of a cheek coming from a unionist MP who complains bitterly when the Scottish Government appears to encroach on Westminster's territory.
Motes and beams spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
I liked Alan Cochrane's piece on this theme in the Telegraph Some extracts -
"I am much more impressed by the fact that Mr Murphy is an ardent fan of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And as the latter is the most forthright exponent of this Team GB idea, a cynic might well suggest that keeping on the right side of the PM was higher up Mr Murphy's list of priorities."
"there was even a suggestion that Mr Murphy was putting himself forward for a new Olympic sport - javelin catching."
"His reliance on Mr Valcke's assurance didn't cut much ice, either. "I hope this promise from Fifa doesn't turn out to be like that piece of paper Neville Chamberlain brought back from Munich," said one wizened observer."
Complain about this comment
John:
#140.
Your showing your true colours, John. I believe even David Cameron is not backing Team, but prefering that each team faces one another with the victor representing Britain at the Olympics. Is Cameron also racist?
You are involving politcs far to much. Plain and simple the Scottish and Welsh football associations are against the proposed British Team. The fans also appear to be against the British Team.
Are we all racist, anti-English people now?
I see you carry a similar attitude as someone else. If we do not back the HBOS takeover then we are apparently anti-English... Now you are suggesting that those who are against the British Team are anti-English...
Please stop playing the race card. It's been used far to much.
I am impressed that you managed to throw the SNP into your rant at the same time.
Complain about this comment
139 Thomas Porter
No not really. Thanks for being careful not to identify me with the BNP. Brownedov does that, which is ironic considering that he lives in Europe's last legitimately fascist state.
I'm very uncomfortable with nationalism. It's a panacea for frustrated egos and a vehicle by which aspirant politicians can galvanise support to meet selfish ends. Nothing works better than noisily pointing out the enemy.
One of the better elements of the Union in my view is that, barring the jingoism that emerged in the two decades before the First World War, it has managed by and large to avoid excess nationalism.
Nationalism relies on intolerance, a sense of shared superiority and sometimes a sense of shared victimisation. All of these are chimera when placed in the context of people who, culturally, are virtually indistinguishable.
In this respect I'm uncomfortable with Scottish Nationalism and equally uncomfortable with the emerging English nationalism which, believe me will do you no good at all if it ever takes root.
My favouring the continuance of the UK as a country is firstly my great fear of where Balkanisation will lead. Secondly, in a rough world, a course of action that makes Britain weaker and Scotland just plain weak is simply playing into the hands of those who are...shall we say "indifferent to the health, wealth or happiness of the people of these islands".
Complain about this comment
#140 brigadierjohn
I know you read lots of papers, but your writing style seems to be tending towards the tabloid.
Strip out all the emotive nonsense from your post and it becomes -
"Scottish" identity is promoted by Scottish Nationalists (not your most radical insight)
It's also true that
"British" identity is promoted by British Nationalists
"European" identity is promoted by European Unionists
Why would any of these positions require a "racist" appellation?
Complain about this comment
#141 Anglophone
"a model of four men sitting in a room"
No gender equality? Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
139. I think you are looking for the word 'unionist'. There's a considerable difference between a unionist and a nationalist of any creed, one is about progressive partnership and the other is about regressive division. Quite simple really.
145. I believe he was in discussions about all the UK's teams....unless Holyrood is now responsible for UK-wide sport now?
Complain about this comment
Yeah right, Rugby and Cricket are so world important the Olympic Committee is falling over itself to include them as Olympic sports.
Post #140 is a disgrace. Parade your anti-Scottishness elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#151.
No, no not Unionist. I support the European Union, therefore by default I could be classed as a Unionist too.
Division? The Scottish National Party, at the same time many other British Unionists support the European Union. One of the main reasons Europe has not been at war with one another and has been one of the main reasons cooperation between European states has increased which has made many of us richer and more developed.
By the way you are anti-SNP, you are creating divisions of your own out of pure hatred for the 'other'.
Complain about this comment
#151 Expat
Given that the SNP profess to be all in favour of closer links and strengthening the progressve partnership within the EU, are you suggestiong that 'unionists' are all about regressive division?
Complain about this comment
150 Oldnat
Well I had tried to visualise some sort of hybrid creature consisting of a firebreathing three headed lion with a scaly pointed tail, with thistles instead of ears and whistling Danny Boy in three part harmony. But that would be ridiculous. It would clearly be lionist (lions have a religious objection against whistling) and involve a mixing of field-weed and mythical creature genes that contravenes current ethical regulations. I mean...what if Sarah palin found out?
Ohhh...and it would be too expensive for Chinese people to stitch together for a dollar a day!
Complain about this comment
147 I see you carry a similar attitude as someone else. If we do not back the HBOS takeover then we are apparently anti-English... Now you are suggesting that those who are against the British Team are anti-English...
How about 'if you aren't nationalist/pro-independence, you're not a true Scot'?
Example:
152. How is any of that post 'anti-Scottish'? I only see anti-nationalism there.
Complain about this comment
152 Bluelaw
At least the Brigadier lives in Scotland which is more than you can claim.
By the way...rugby was once an Olympic sport and the Olympic champions are the USA. Not a lot of people know that.
Cricket would be difficult to include given that each game would last 5 days. But who knows, maybe the 20:20 version could be given a try-out. Or given the success of beach volleyball and its following among errr...gentlemen of a certain age, perhaps mixed "Beach Cricket" could put in an appearance. That would set pulses racing at the MCC.
Complain about this comment
154. You haven't confused yourself in any way there, have you!
LOL!
Complain about this comment
152. We could say the same about golf, by the way.
Or maybe we should stop trying to talk down certain sports just because they originated south of the border....
Complain about this comment
152 Thomas Porter
Whooa...got to stop you there. I'm broadly in favour of the EU, subject to a bit of a clear-up, but this oft-made claim that the EU has kept the peace in Europe is baloney!
The peace in Europe has been kept by a deep reluctance to ever go to war again coupled to a fear of the Soviet Union that was! In this respect, the peace in Europe has been kept by NATO.
The EU's big test in Yugoslavia was a ruinous, blood-soaked failure. But what has this got to do with football?
Complain about this comment
#158 Expat
Not in the slightest. Have you?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#156.
I don't see anyone claiming that you are not a true Scot unless you support the Independence or are not a Nationalist.
John was slightly out of order be implying that we, who do not support the HBOS takeover or who do not support the British Football Oylmpic Team.
His post was not about anti-nationalism. His snipe at involving the SNP was anti-SNP when so far David Cameron does not support the Team GB for football at the Olympics. John was wrong to only mention the SNP in his rant. But hatred towards one group tends to blind you from everything else.
Complain about this comment
#160 Anglophone
Indirectly, you could say it led to Denmark winning the 1992 European Championship.
Tongue firmly in cheek as I typed that before anyone accuses me of insensitivity.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
I was replying to Expat's claim that Scottish Nationalism is about division (when they favour the EU).
Perhaps I was wrong but to some extent the European Union has helped prevent disputes turning into wars. It's not the time for that debate though.
Complain about this comment
My post #162 should have said,
John was slightly out of order be implying that we, who do not support the HBOS takeover or who do not support the British Football Oylmpic Team *change* as racist/anti-English. *change*
Complain about this comment
163 Fit-Like
Nice one! It looks like the usual suspects are now arguing about how Scottish they are. You can always nail a seccessionist movement this way. So I'll be off to dream up the rules for mixed beach cricket.
It will concentrate on the dress code and adapting some of the more arcane rules to a less sophisticated audience. How about "shapely leg before wicket"?
Goodnight all. I will restrict any further nationalistic comments to watching Andy Sheridan grinding Al Baxter's grizzled visage into the Twickenham turf (hopefully).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#149 oldnat: You are more than smart enough to know that I was not complaining about anyone promoting a positive view. It's this petty "Anything but English" attitude we see all over the blog, but framed in a spurious argument to hide the bias.
Sometimes the tabloid style is the simplest way to communicate with people who don't want to hear the inconvenient detail of a reasoned response.
I have avoided the blog since before Glenrothes (all together now, Nats, spit!) because it was too easy to laugh at Alex with his punctured balloon and the bloodhound eyes halfway down his cheeks. But catching up, it seems no lessons have been learned and all the arrogant bluster is undimmed. Nats have already convinced themselves that it wisnae fair, Labour criticising their local incompetence. I think it was actually people waking up, belatedly, to some wordly realities, like how wee and powerless Scotland might be, alone in the big world.
Perhaps I missed it, did BigH - remember him, the ace punter and Most Intelligent Contributor - ever tell us how much he won on Glenrothes?
Complain about this comment
I see Germany, the powerhouse economy of Salmond's favoured eurozone, has now gone into full-blown recession for the second time in just five years. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth has seen them join Ireland.
While the UK still isn't defined as in recession with only one quarter of negative growth reported. It looks like our economy is not as fragile as certain others.
Salmond lauded Iceland (now bankrupt and being rescued by the IMF) and Ireland (the first European nation in recession) as 'model economies'.
Salmond also lauds the Euro as the saviour of Scotland...even though it can't stop its biggest economy from slipping twice into recession in five years! Unemployment in the eurozone has been at least twice that of the UK for nearly ten years now.
And Salmond thinks this currency would be good for Scotland?!
Does our glorious economist have the slightest clue what he's talking about?
Nope, I didn't think so.
Complain about this comment
#141 & #148
Anglophone,
"(All the stuff with the knowledge about the economics of football merchandising - I had to ask, sweat.)"
Intriguing. I rely on nice Asda or Tesco to do the cheap pretend ones - my children are too young to tell the difference.
I suspect they'll probably sell a fair few whatever the price in all the heat of the moment.
"A team GB Football Mascot? How about a model of four men sitting in a room looking pointedly out of different windows?"
OK. That's just funnier.
----
"I'm very uncomfortable with nationalism. It's a panacea for frustrated egos and a vehicle by which aspirant politicians can galvanise support to meet selfish ends. Nothing works better than noisily pointing out the enemy."
I kind of think that's what Gordon Brown is doing with GB.
"Nationalism relies on intolerance, a sense of shared superiority and sometimes a sense of shared victimisation. All of these are chimera when placed in the context of people who, culturally, are virtually indistinguishable."
I don't think so. Though yes, some are (there's always some), I don't think being nationalistic requires intolerance. I'm pretty tolerant (go by how I rate someone, not simply by what their views are, language, skin colour or culture - I loved Kuwait when I went there), but I see Scottish Nationalism as quite rational.
Nor do I think Scots are superior - blogs like these can quite often support that!
As for victimised, there are of course cases of unfair treatment, high-handedness, underhandedness or whatever, received by Scots throughout history, but that's what neighbouring countries have always done to each other.
I am very wary of using such arguments of grievance - it just looks too emotional and like sour grapes. It's a mistake to think these past events are automatically relevant and can be used to justify today's actions. Yet, given my lack of sore feeling about the past, I still feel there's a case for Scottish independence.
I accept that our populations are very similar, but disagree that this has come to the point where we are no longer distinguishable enough for it not to matter.
There is still such a thing as a Scottish identity today. Granted, it is no different in substance than the regional differences both in England and Scotland themselves, but never-the-less it matters because the region called Scotland was once a sovereign state.
This fact is what makes all the difference. Scotland is described as a 'nation'. Therin is the problem. People who think of themselves as belonging to a nation can notice and question their lack of sovereignty.
I know 'nation' does not mean having sovereignty, but the definition of 'national' is 'pertaining to the state'. That is how it is used in international relations (not just by the media, by politicians too) for example, when we speak about international organisations.
It is the intertwining of these definitions, that prompts nations to examine their power, through their sovereignty.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#167.
I was looking at what you wrote. From what you pointed out I could not see anyone writing that if you did not support Scottish Independence or were not a nationalist are not true Scots.
Ah, the offensive tone again. I don't see why you bother replying if you have nothing good to say apart from abuse.
If I have zero credibility then why are you creating stories and suggesting I am claiming them?
"Or are you perhaps claiming that you have NEVER seen any nationalist make such statements? Not here or on the Scotsman/Herald sites."
I never wrote anything of the sort or infact stated that I have never witnessed that type of remarks being made.
But come on. There has to be more Expat. According to you, nationalism is the force creating divisions but it appears your hatred for the other is the real force creating divisions.
The face of the Union. Don't you love it?
Complain about this comment
168. I tried to give the boards a wide berth after the SNP's humiliation at Glenrothes....but I just missed toying with the nats.
I know it's cruel but what can I say. It's fun.
In all seriousness, I'm astonished at how quickly the SNP's honeymoon as ended. Labour managed to walk by-election after by-election for several years after they came into power in 1997. For the SNP to suffer such a resounding defeat within barely 18 months must be horrifying for them all.
That Salmond has managed nothing in the way of his usual anti-UK publicity since, shows how serious this battering was.
(Ah, tell a lie, he managed to squeeze a bit more life out of his 'lottery money' effort again....as if we aren't seeing any money being spent on sporting infrastructure for pre-Games use by various Olympic squads!)
Complain about this comment
I see Reluctant-Expat has decided to de-rail the topic of this blog. I guess Expat has nothing important to be getting on with, instead they will spend hours upon hours spreading abuse against the Scottish National Party and putting down those who 'appear' to support the same views.
Lovely, the true face of Unionism.
Rule Britannia!!
Donate to the British National Party Today!!
Complain about this comment
170 Ayewrite
I've gone to bed but that clearly took a bit of writing so it would be rude of me to ignore it.
Thse islands are full of former nations. There are several in England but I've never yet come across a Mercia Seperatist or or a party advocating the seccesion of Wessex. (Although this would square with the, quite literally, Crazyislander's scenario of a rich South-East seceding and leaving the rest of the country in the lurch).
Complain about this comment
#141 & #148
Anglophone,
"(All the stuff with the knowledge about the economics of football merchandising - I had to ask, sweat.)"
Intriguing. I rely on nice Asda or Tesco to do the cheap pretend ones - my children are too young to tell the difference.
I suspect they'll probably sell a fair few whatever the price in all the heat of the moment.
"A team GB Football Mascot? How about a model of four men sitting in a room looking pointedly out of different windows?"
OK. That's just funnier.
----
"I'm very uncomfortable with nationalism. It's a panacea for frustrated egos and a vehicle by which aspirant politicians can galvanise support to meet selfish ends. Nothing works better than noisily pointing out the enemy."
I kind of think that's what Gordon Brown is doing with GB.
"Nationalism relies on intolerance, a sense of shared superiority and sometimes a sense of shared victimisation. All of these are chimera when placed in the context of people who, culturally, are virtually indistinguishable."
I don't think so. Though yes, some are (there's always some), I don't think being nationalistic requires intolerance. I'm pretty tolerant (go by how I rate someone, not simply by what their views are, language, skin colour or culture - I loved Kuwait when I went there), but I see Scottish Nationalism as quite rational.
Nor do I think Scots are superior - blogs like these can quite often disprove that!
As for victimised, there are of course cases of unfair treatment, high-handedness, underhandedness or whatever, received by Scots throughout history, but that's what neighbouring countries have always done to each other.
I am very wary of using such arguments of grievance - it just looks too emotional and like sour grapes. It's a mistake to think these past events are automatically relevant and can be used to justify today's actions. Yet, given my lack of sore feeling about the past, I still feel there's a case for Scottish independence.
I accept that our populations are very similar, but disagree that this has come to the point where we are no longer distinguishable enough for it not to matter.
There is still such a thing as a Scottish identity today. Granted, it is no different in substance than the regional differences both in England and Scotland themselves, but never-the-less it matters because the region called Scotland was once a sovereign state.
This fact is what makes all the difference. Scotland is described as a 'nation'. Therin is the problem. People who think of themselves as belonging to a nation can notice and question their lack of sovereignty.
I know 'nation' does not mean having sovereignty, but the definition of 'national' is 'pertaining to the state'. That is how it is used in international relations (not just by the media, by politicians too) for example, when we speak about international organisations.
It is the intertwining of these definitions, that prompts nations to examine their power, through their sovereignty. We cannot get away from that.
Complain about this comment
I think……yes sometimes I do……that when it comes to individual competitors in sports i.e. running, jumping, skipping, hopping and cycling etc. the nationality question becomes irrelevant because we tend to support the individual competitor rather than the country they represent, a recent example being the Olympic cycling. When it comes to team games, football in particular, then historically the individual national football sides have never consistently played as a single UK team in any competition, when you include the fact that for many years the home countries played each other in the Home Internationals and the amount of rivalry these games generated then it is hardly surprising that it is difficult for football fans from any of the four countries (not just Scotland) to accept the formation of a single UK team let alone support one. Also there are dangers if this GB team occurs, within FIFA there are those who would love to see the end of the four home countries, setting a precedence in the Olympics might be just enough for them to have their way.
There is little doubt that Gordon ‘Chopper’ Brown has made it his personal goal to project his notion of ‘Britishness’ in order to counteract the revolutionary tactics of the North Britons, one way of doing this is to create a pseudo British football team for the Olympics. I think the GB Olympic football team shall come to pass, Gordon ‘Bite Yer Legs’ Brown will have his foul way; he is a consummate dribbler and will mesmerise the various football associations into taking part or else. So in 2012 like every other football fan in the rest of the nation(s) I shall be as sick as a parrot when in the semi final penalty shoot out, the ball is blootered over the bar and Germany go through.
Complain about this comment
171 Thomas Porter
Thomas...Raven has just started on TV! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Does anyone understand post 171?
Complain about this comment
#169 RE
"And Salmond thinks this currency would be good for Scotland?!
Does our glorious economist have the slightest clue what he's talking about?"
Bank warns of recession into 2009
'The Bank of England says the UK has probably entered a recession in the middle of 2008 and is likely to continue to contract well into 2009.'
Funny you ignore the fact that your glorious exchancellor now PM has encouraged this by his actions for his own self gratification.
Complain about this comment
#168 brigadierjohn
Thank you. I much preferred that style.
"I think it was actually people waking up, belatedly, to some worldly realities, like how wee and powerless Scotland might be, alone in the big world."
I wouldn't disagree with that assessment of how the financial crisis has affected the voters.
It's why I object to the polarisation of the argument between "Independence" and "UK Unionism" - with little discussion of the more important European dimension.
As you may remember, I'm a Nationalist in some areas of Government, and a European Unionist in others. The consequence of that leaves few areas of significance for the UK to deal with.
If I were in the SNP, I would be arguing that they need to change the direction of the rhetoric towards demonstrating how much safer our economy would be as part of the EU rather than restricted to a historic small union with only the other parts of the UK.
While they deny it, UK Unionists often show an emotional attachment to the UK which equates to "nationalism".
Complain about this comment
#171 Thomas: Take a look at bluelaw's #152. I dared to criticise Nationalist attitudes and received the SNP-approved knee-jerk comment that I was a disgrace and anti-Scottish. You didn't look far for evidence before dismissing RE.
Believe me, Thomas - and Bluelaw - it's very possible to be proud and patriotic like me, and still recognise the simplistic nonsense spouted by those who would claim a monopoly on Scottishness. But people are waking up, gradually.
Complain about this comment
Let's do the Tebbit test of Britishness (albeit that his applied to Asian immigrants and cricket):
Next Wednesday, England play a football game against Germany (live on ITV other than in Scotland); who will you be supporting?
The 'British' team, or 'Anyone But England'?
Complain about this comment
Further to my #182,
For me, it's ABE wll the way if I have to endure a John Motson-style commentary, although if attending the game itself I might show greater favour to our fellow islanders.
That said, I will be quite happy to watch Kevin Whately's first outing as post-Morse Lewis, even though I could watch the game if I so chose.
Complain about this comment
"aye-write" - you get the award for the longest response and runner-up in the same category!!!
You're also spending too much time on here and you should be out walking the dog or doing some housework, yer wife will kill you!
Give me 4 separate Olympic nations taking part embracing all the Olympic idealology and kick the politics out.
If we are United Kingdom, then why do we participate as GB? Is that not insulting to Northern Ireland? I see an old photograph from the 1920's Olympic Games and we were called UK, after the Free Irish State was founded... so many inconsistencies with the British Olympic Association.
:)
Complain about this comment
#178, Reluctant-Expat
Re Thomas_Porter @ #171
A classic example of someone claiming to be innocent of something of which he has not been accused..
Complain about this comment
#182 The_Forfarian
I'll support the team which represents a population which is more European.
It will take me some time to work out who that might be :-)
Complain about this comment
Sepp Blatter's position over the last three years:
Sep 2005
Fifa has said that Great Britain must enter a team at the 2012 Olympics but that each home nation's individual status will not be affected.
"The four British associations will not lose the rights and privileges acquired back in 1947," Blatter insisted.
"They will play with one team but it is up to them how they do it.
"It can be a mixed team, it can be from just one of the home nations, whatever they want to do."
Oct 2007
"For us there is no problem, I don't know why they are concerned.
"The more they discuss, the more they will be in danger of someone saying 'OK they are not even happy themselves so we will change it'."
Blatter also said Fifa would not be concerned if every player came from one national association and played under the Great Britain name.
Mar 2008
Fifa president Sepp Blatter says a Great Britain football team at the 2012 Olympic Games should feature only English players.
The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football bodies oppose a GB team in case it affects their Fifa status, while England back the idea.
Blatter now says said the independent status of the four British associations could be harmed by a unified GB team.
"They should enter only a team composed of players from England," said Blatter.
"This will then not provoke a long and endless discussion of the four British associations."
"I said that is the best thing for you to do," said Blatter.
"If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympic Games, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team.
"If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?
"This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations have been given by the Congress in 1946."
Complain about this comment
#174
Thanks. It's not my intention to disturb anyone from bed!
I'm not expecting an immediate anwer to this, so just "please yersel!"
Those once-nations you mention by the way have long since become no more - had Scotland been in that position from 1707, it is quite conceivable that we Scots would have long since mourned the loss and long since gotten over it.
But we have a carrott continually dangling before us, as the nation of Scotland continues to exist.
However, undeterred by your awesome sweeping away of my argument (!!), I am having one last go at unmasking my pro-independence argument, from my position of less intelligence!
Your position is very sensible, (one perhaps I'd share if I didnt live where I do?), but has your country, England (I assume) or Britain, ever lost it's sovereignty and never gained it back?
It will take me ages to write this! (even if I have no interruptions.) So reply or don't as or if you see fit, whenever I get round to posting it. :-)
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the Olympics will be the last chance for young Scots to play in a world football tournament? I don't expect us to qualify for another World Cup in my lifetime. To be really naughty, might I suggest that any fitba-crazy dad whose wife is expecting could travel to an English maternity hospital, so that the wean will at least have options if he turns out to be a good player?
Mind you, I hear the Italian and Spanish maternity arrangements are quite good!
Anything but England, eh?
Complain about this comment
#189 Why all this talk about world class footballers (ok the blog is about football but) .... i want my boy ..or girl to be a world class cyclist !! Were not exactly lacking in them just now but everybody goes on about football ... it drives me nuts ..... you have no idea how much training cyclists do ...and they dont go out on the piss like footballers do ..they are more dedicated for far less money... Anyway Brigadier ... why would we want our kids to play for other nations sides .... Scotland might not be very good but were always full of hope and we dont yearn for past times (66) lol
Complain about this comment
#174 Anglophone
Just to add to the comments from #188, aye_write.
I'm surprised that after posting here for a few months, you don't appear to have understood the dynamic of the argument.
Scotland, as with every other current nation (and I include the British in that), consists of a group of former nations/peoples/political groups who have merged together into a common political identity.
The primary reason that Scotland has remained a separate "nation" is that there was very little involvement of the UK state in our lives until the second half of the 20th century.
You may be interested in this pre-devolution study of identity from 1999 -
Scottish not British 33.7%
More Scottish than British 35.6%
Equally Scottish and British 23.4%
More British than Scottish 3.5%
British, not Scottish 3.7%
You will note that only 7.2% felt that their primary identity was British.
The question of our preferred political structure is much more complex, but if you misunderstand Scottish nationality after all this time, then that is unfortunate.
Complain about this comment
#188, aye_write
1066?
1603?
1714?
In each case, the former sovereignty of England was in jeopardy. In 1603, why did England not become a province of the Scottish crown? Similarly, 1714 and Hanover?
England persisted because it was seen as a greater prize than the realm from which its new ruler hailed - hence, the Norman/Scottish/Hanoverian rulers became definedly English over time.
And to return to football, why is it that footballers (well, Le Tissier) from the Channel Islands - who can CHOOSE to which of the Home Nations their allegiance is owed - tend towards England?
Is it because England offers a higher profile and a [perceived] greater chance for glory?
Personally, I'd rather be a big fish in a little pond
Complain about this comment
"I don't expect us to qualify for another World Cup in my lifetime."
like northhighlander before you I'll take it that your of course hoping that you're wrong about that?
Complain about this comment
Re #169 Reluctantmoron
Nice to see the half-witted yes-men are out to play.
Germany's in recesssion, lets all laugh at them.
We'll just ignore that the British recession is forecast to be deeper than anyone else in Europe, that sterling is falling down like a drunk on Saturday night. Tell me, how many Euros do you get for the GBP these days ?
Even GBs lapdog AD has finally had to admit what everyone else in the World knows - we're bust, and oh, quietly whisper it, he even admitted we may have to raise taxes in the future to pay for all this spending - what a shocker !
Strange how everyone is avoiding Sterling like the plague when we have you confirming that everything's better in Britian with our world beating PM - yeah right
Let's all play a game - who's been in charge of the economy for the last 11 year .... anyone .... could it be ... Gordon (just stick it all on the national debt) Brown
Yahoo, trebles all round !
Complain about this comment
Who are you patriotic for Brigadier? Scotland or Britain? No doubt you'll say both but then why do so many Scots regard your position as irreconcilible and in increasing numbers too? I suppose you'll use the "knee-jerk" Unionist reaction and say racist yet again won't you. I suppose when eventually independence is declared you'll say all those who brought it about are racist won't you?
I am not racist. There's nothing racist about seeking the self determination, freedom and independence of your country. Hundreds of groups of people of varying sizes have done so for centuries. It is entirely honourable.
I think Scotland's position is absurd. I believe Union has been based all along on lies and deceit and the only reason for its continuance is a perverse sentimentality and that it serves the interests of the UK government to have Scotland at its disposal.
Complain about this comment
#169 RE
Hi RE, off topic but I'll take the bait.
Germany, the world's largest exporter (hard to believe I know, but you heard it here from the BBC) doesn't have a service based economy like the UK but a manufacturing based economy. Who do you think is best placed to recover most quickly from this economic downturn?
Again, according to the BBC, Japan will also officially go into recession within the next few days, as will France and Italy. Whilst the UK isn't officially in recession, do you not think that is merely semantics and that we are in fact in recession right now? Do the job losses announced by large firms in the UK not point to this?
On another topic, over the past couple of weeks you've had a go at:
Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Germany, "small" EU countries, well actually the whole Eurozone from your last post. The question is: a. Are you in fact Jim Murphy?
b. 'Reluctant Expat' Which country is it your relunctantly residing in? I sure hope for your sake you aren't having to stay in one of these aforementioned 'rubbishy' eruozone countries.
Complain about this comment
First Ministers Questions anybody?
Complain about this comment
#195 bluelaw
There are problems with your analysis.
"I believe Union has been based all along on lies and deceit"
Prior to the Union, the English were quite clear that they were determined to protect their Northern border. We had a choice of accepting Incorporating Union, or being conquered.
The consequent trade-off whereby Scotland delivered the Scottish MPs as a compliant group at Westminster, in return for the jobs involved in running the Empire, was quite open - and was to Scotland's economic (if not moral) advantage up to the 1920's.
"the only reason for {the Union's} continuance is a perverse sentimentality"
You can't write off what is (currently) majority Scottish opinion as "perverse".
For the "British" in Scotland, I would agree with you. However, most Scots are not yet persuaded that the future lies with extending the "pretendy wee" UK Union to a reformed European Union.
You don't persuade them by insulting them.
Complain about this comment
#195 bluelaw: I'm patriotic for Scotland and proud to be British. If I were a British patriot I would not worry about Scottish nationalism - I'd move south. But I'd rather live here under the best government available. It pains me to say it, but that might eventually be a UK Tory government.
Of course there is nothing racist about being an SNP supporter or seeking independence. But it is racist to keep blaming another nation for your problems, often in the nastiest way, when the democratic right to opt out exists. You can't blame the English for the failure of Scots to support your point of view.
The difference between us is that I am open to the argument that any party may come up with policies that suit me, while your own mindset is closed to anything but SNP propaganda.
I have to tell you that as the economic position declines the SNP will shrink back to the original band of fanatics, to the point where they might wish to cancel the referendum to avoid embarrassment.
Complain about this comment
#169 do you know what you are talking about.
Nope don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Nonsense oldnat. Union was never popular with the vast majority of Scots who opposed it and rioted all over Scotland in protest. And we cannot say for sure that the English Army sent to Scotland's borders to guarantee Union went ahead would have "conquered" us as you claim.
The idea that Scotland was enriched by membership of Union is another myth. The poor of Scotland, those not forced off their land to make way for sheep were just as poor at the start of Union as they are now at its dying end. A mercantile Anglo-Scots class did very well no doubt but not the majority of ordinary Scots.
It is perverse. It's perverse to consider yourself Scottish and accept the absurd and ridiculous position we are in as a people. We are insulted daily by remaining within such a nonsensical union.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier
You look through every single one of my posts and you'll see no such blame for Scotland's ills on the people of England. Nowhere do I blame "the English" for the state of Scotland. I don't blame them at all even if I resent some of the ignorance about Scotland that sadly abounds in England not helped by an increasingly hostile anti-Scottish media including the BBC.
I do however hold to account an English/British establishment who in collusion no doubt with so-called Scots have treated and continue to treat Scotland, her people and interests with contempt. And if not contempt a callous neglect bordering on criminal. Sadly, I have little time for Scots who defend the Union. I am sorry to be so untempered as it were but I simply think life is too short to dissemble on what I regard as an obvious injustice and a national debacle which condemns far too many Scots to an unjustifiable impoverishment.
Complain about this comment
#184
NoGBfootball
"aye-write" - you get the award for the longest response and runner-up in the same category!!!
You're also spending too much time on here and you should be out walking the dog or doing some housework, yer wife will kill you! "
Vey funny!
It's alright though, I'm approaching burn out. (Seems I've missed a few..)
:-D
Oh, and as for a wife - that's me. And a dog - jees 4 children is enough!
Complain about this comment
#199 brigadierjohn
1. You've reverted to emotive language "original band of fanatics"
2. You consistently use "SNP" (a political party) to include Nationalists whom the SNP rejected (eg the FSP), and Nationalists who are not in the SNP (and who disagree with some of their policies).
I know you were a journalist, but now that you are retired you can actually use reasoned language, instead of constructing a rhetoric that uses emotionally charged terms, and "implication by association".
Only then can we accept your claim that you are "open to the argument that any party may come up with policies that suit me" - with its implication that you might accept an SNP argument. Of course no nationalist argument will ever suit you, so the contrast you make between yourself and bluelaw "your own mindset is closed" is no contrast at all.
You are simply the flip side of his/her coin.
Complain about this comment
Salmond was his usual brilliant self at PMQs. Again having to fend off more personal attacks. The inclusion of Lindsay Roy by Labour shows how desperate they ultimately are.
As for Germany and the arc of prosperity countries. All have suffered but all these countries are much richer per head than the UK. Anyone who has ever visited these countries would surely agree that they are in a much better position to endure recession than we are. And none have the terrible incidences of poverty and all that goes with that as we do.
Complain about this comment
re Scottsin Notts
The issue about qualification is really about realism. Scotland qualifying would be a magnificent achievement and I for one will never stop believing. Miracles do happen.
My comment was tongue in cheek, Scots are good at laughing at themselves, it is one of our better qualities.
Of course there are some who take life a little more seriously and turn a issue like this which is of little real relevance in the real world.
Old nat:
Totall agree with your comment on yesterdays disgusting PMQ's. What a dreadfull bunch of politicians we really have. How out of touch both leaders are with the feelings of the nation on this issue.
Todays horrible events in Manchester make you wonder will we ever have asystem where Children are properly protected against evil. I know 100% will never be avhieved but surely we can do better.
Complain about this comment
re201
Wind yer neck in! Are you a relation of Bighullabaloo?
Complain about this comment
#192 The_Forfarian wrote
#188, aye_write
1066?
1603?
1714?
In each case, the former sovereignty of England was in jeopardy. In 1603, why did England not become a province of the Scottish crown? Similarly, 1714 and Hanover?
England persisted because it was seen as a greater prize than the realm from which its new ruler hailed - hence, the Norman/Scottish/Hanoverian rulers became definedly English over time.
---
Interesting and all that but still I feel has little bearing on today's situation.
Yes, there are reasons why things went the way they did in those years. (Sorry can't muster the energy to leaf through some history notes.)
But the fact is we weren't alive then, so we cannot be affected by it - there really isn't any point "iffing and butting" about what's gone in the past. (We could just about take any points from history and interpret them to prove anything anything.)
Perhaps your argument points out that if Scotland had come out on top, and every English voter in a British election now, could be outvoted in the way that every Scottish one can, then perhaps the roles woud be reversed and England would have a ENP etc. etc. Who knows.
My point is today England retains an effective position of sovereignty through having the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons. So it is therefore not in the position Scotland is, in that it has not lost sovereignty and never regained it.
Complain about this comment
#203 aye_write
I was looking forward to how you treated the "your wife" comment.
Nicely underplayed (thus much more effective) response.
Complain about this comment
Re 205
Always willing to see a first, I just watched FMQ's. Were you actually referring to this weeks performance?
I didn't really see any personal attacks, a few comments thrown by Alec, but mild by his standards.
But I didn't see anything brilliant. As usual he never answered a question. No detail on how the SFT will work, just more empty rhetoric.
All I can say is your expectations are low.
Complain about this comment
#209 oldnat
Oh, thanks ;-)
It had slipped my mind that posters are inadvertantly assumed to be male on these things - be funny if the majority turned out to be bored housewives! :-D
Complain about this comment
#206 northhighlander
"Of course there are some who take life a little more seriously and turn a issue like this which is of little real relevance in the real world."
Completely agree with you, there are many issues of much greater importance, and I don't agree with the ploiticisation of this at all. However it doesn't stop sport and politics becoming intertwined as they frequently have in the past, and most likely will in the future.
"The issue about qualification is really about realism. Scotland qualifying would be a magnificent achievement and I for one will never stop believing. Miracles do happen."
Glad to here we both hope Scotland will qualify. We may need a miracle this time around now after recent results, but I still remain hopeful for the future competitions.
Just my luck, the minute I'm old enough to travel to major finals on my own, Scotland don't qualify for a single one of them...yet.
Just to avoid confusion, I'm a Scot in Notts, not Scott in Notts.
Complain about this comment
#201 bluelaw
More than happy to debate Scottish history with you.
"Union was never popular with the vast majority of Scots who opposed it and rioted all over Scotland in protest"
I quite agree. They were never asked or even had the arguments explained (Scotland was a democracy) and that was the only response that was open to the "mob" (as the ordinary people were then described).
"we cannot say for sure that the English Army sent to Scotland's borders to guarantee Union went ahead would have "conquered" us as you claim."
I may have given the wrong impression. There was a clear threat that if the Scots chose a different monarch from England on the death of Queen Anne, there would be military consequences, but the immediate threat was the Aliens Act directed at the Anglo-Scottish aristocracy, but more importantly the removal of the main market for Scottish goods. There was no English Army on the border to force the Union.
The Highland Clearances were a totally different issue (and often misrepresented).
Complain about this comment
#211 aye_write
"be funny if the majority turned out to be bored housewives!"
Unlikely, the posts would be more subtle (though doubtless just as pointed) and us guys wouldn't understand a thing!
Complain about this comment
"old nat" - you just got nominated for the "avoiding the issue" award!! LOL
Well, I think Brian Taylor's plan has worked...how does he increase the hits on his blog?? - talk about Team GB at the Olympics!!
Night y'all.
PS 4 separate nations for the Olympics - BOA please 'listen.'
Complain about this comment
214
With an name like aye_right, all us males should have known!
Complain about this comment
#215 NoGBfootball
What do you mean "nominated". I won it outright!
Complain about this comment
re212
If we areto have a good football rant I think we would have had a lot better chance without george burley.
Tactically niave and doesn't seem tp motivate like smith and macleish could.
SAeems acident prone in his dealings with the press and players, has dined long on 10 good games at hearts.
I too would like to go to a major finals but definately not the Olympics!
Anyway the climate in South Africe is no the best for scots.
Complain about this comment
Bit of a Labour humiliation on Newsnicht tonight.
Difficult to understand why parties allow their "less bright" MSPs to appear.
Complain about this comment
Looking forward to next week's question time in Glasgow, our esteemed Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the panel. Feel free to email the BBC your suggestions for questions to pose the panel :)
Complain about this comment
#218
Football rant...why not eh?
We'd be keeping Nivea in business if we made it though. I'd be more worried wandering around Jo'burg...you think Glasgae's rough!
Couldn't agree more with you on GB (Burley that is). Unfortunately for us both previous managers were still young enough to continue with their club management careers, that and the money ;)
Who else would you have, and who of those would realistically take the job?
Think we should go in for Sven?
Complain about this comment
#70
We can't be giving ANY other nation a reason to question why the UK gets to have 4 national teams. It would only take one incident for some countries who dont like the idea (maybe claiming it gives the "UK" an unfair advantage) of there being 4 home nations to start causing a stir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I doubt this would happen. I don't how anybody could say the UK has unfair advantage for having 4 teams. Just take a look at the recent past winners of the World Cup. the UK could have 12 associations and still win nothing. I don't think other nations are overly worried about the football might of the UK.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
#63
At footabll matches, England fans wave UK national flagas if it were their own, the England team sing the UK national anthem "God save the queen' and the English fans sing "rule Britannia." If the English FA take Great Britain's football position at the Olympics then the English take-over of all things British is complete.
--------------------------------------------------------
Try as they may to wave the UK flag as if it were their own. If English fans want to wave a flag with a Scottish flag backbone I am fine with that. Every time they fly that flag they are showing support for Scotland in my eyes and it make me chuckle.
English people can use the words England and Britain interchangeably if they like too. It is still incorrect. England is England. Britain is England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These are the facts. And Average Joe can say what he likes but people like them who don't know basic information about their home country that they supposedly love get no respect from me.
Just as infuriating are my fellow Scots who base their hatred of the English on a Mel Gibson film because they are too lazy to read a book. I am a Scot who is against independence. Actually, it's not that I am against it. I am against Salmond. He cares nothing for Scottish independence he just wants to ensure that it is his name that goes down in Scotlands long history as the one who secured independence. He is a wee snake glory hunter.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
I get the sense that all over the UK people are mad about this for the wrong reasons. I feel as though some people on both sides of the issue are of the mold "I don't vote in political elections because my vote doesn't matter"
How suddenly these people become interested in politics when political issues start seeping into football.
From a football history standpoint it would be sad if the UK associations were
to merge.
The issue to merge the associations for the sake of Britishness is a double-edged sword. On one hand, much of hatred between England and Scotland, nay, most of the hatred in the entire UK is football related. But if you merge the associations it will increase resentment. But who is to say that in the long run it would or would not ease relations between the nations of the UK.
While change can sometimes comes overnight. Peoples acceptance of it doesn't. We have to remember that each coming generation is on average more accepting than the last. It was not so long ago that Mark Walters was having bananas thrown at him. Now look at the all the races gracing our football leagues. Acceptance comes with time.
Even if the football nations stay separate which would be ideal. I wish that the citizens of the UK could have more of a sense of togetherness as opposed to the separatism that plagues the UK.
If Salmond stops trying to make a name for himself, Scottish people stop watching Braveheart for the thousandth time, and English people stop thinking that they should still have an empire which covers 2/3 of the world then maybe we can get along a bit better. I hope for that day soon.
But keep the football teams separate just because of the history. You can't erase the two teams who played in the first international match of the sport.
Complain about this comment
#219, oldnat:
"less bright" MSPs
There aren't many at Holyrood who could outshine even a 60-watt bulb.
Besides, the smart ones know not to put themselves forward for "Newsnight"; has any politician ever come out well in that arena?
Complain about this comment
I'm confused about a couple of things.
First off, what authority exactly does the SFA have in this matter? They are one of four football governing organisations in Scotland, none of which has control over teamGB and what sportsmen they choose to field for what sports.
Footballers are not contracted to the SFA, they don't have to do what the SFA says, not does the British Olympic Association whose decision this would be.
Secondly, why exactly is it that we are able to play at a Uk and a Scottish level in all other sports without problems but not football???
Rugby for example, where we do the British Lions tour, is pretty much exactly the same situation, yet we don't have this problem there. The same could be said for most sports. Why exactly is football different outside of some people in Glasgows views that "football is life".
Its highly unlikely, you know, in the real world, that Scotland would have its status taken away from them by FIFA because of the actions of an organisation completely unrelated to them. Dealing with the actual "politics" if you can call them that of football, there isn't a single country in UEFA that would support cutting 4 votes down to 1, no country in S. America would want a united kingdom football team, no country in Africa has seperatist nations who are at a stage where having a seperate football team is a priority so they wouldn't care about the precedent set by allowing us to stay as we are.
The reality is that this whole situation has been spurred up by a bunch of self important people who are using this justification to hide whatever their true goal is. I get that GB may well have advocated a British team for political reasons, there was probably some sense of "we're hosting the olympics, we should enter a team into our national sport" in there as well however.
Alex Salmond on the other hand is clearly trying to spin spin spin this to his advantage, by pushing this issue repeatedly saying that he "won't let the English parliament destroy the Scotland football team", knowing full well that at worst this is a highly unlikely future event.
This whole situation has been blown completely out of proportion. People should grow up and ask the players what they want. If there are 11 good players that want to represent the UK then they have that right, and the BOA should allow them to do so. The opinions of Alex Salmond and the SFA are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this decision.
Complain about this comment
What I find amusing is the ingrained cringe which assails a lot of characters who post on this topic and of which they are totally unaware.
Most obvious is those who think we should support a the concept of a British team because it is more likely to win things. By that logic we should all support Brazil as small boys do or the Potuguese should join Spain. This is the character trait - cowardice, lack of confidence, lack of ambition - which makes them unionists in the first place. The fact is I am Scottish and it is to Scottish effort that I relate - no matter how strained or unsuccesful that might be. Anbody that says "I am proud to be Scottish but want to see a British football team" is telling porkies. They are not proud to be Scottish, they are ashamed to be Scottish.
Complain about this comment
#224, NCA999:
"They are one of four football governing organisations in Scotland"
I give up.
SFA, SPL, SFL, what's the other one?
Complain about this comment
Re221
Myself i would pick Souness. Not a popular man but a born winner. Lets be honest we could all pick the team, its the tactice and motivation that is the trick
Souness would excell, he always gave everything for Scotland as a player.
Re 222
I regularly travel a 600 miles round trip to glasgow to support a team that is very proud of its British roots and the union jack is very much on display.
Don't hear many English accents in Govan, plenty scots and a fair few Irish.
The Union Jack is regarded by many as a symbol of Britishness in all corners of the UK.
Complain about this comment
Salmond has not tried to make political capital out of this issue. He has said point blank that he thinks the SFA and the Tartan Army should be trusted on the issue and because they very forcefully reject the idea fearing the loss of Scotland's position as an international outfit in the wake of such a venture that Scotland shouldn't risk it.
As far as I am aware the reason the SFA have been called into question on this is because FIFA have told Coe that they need the permission of all the FAs for a UK team to be fielded.
There was an English Army ready to invade Scotland in 1707 if she didn't agree to Union. Union wasn't sought by the people of Scotland in any shape or form as the revisionists would have it. And none of what you have said oldNat contradicts the fact that ordinary Scots have never benefitted from Union. Ordinary Scots broke their backs building the Empire and were left to rot once it was over. You need only look to Scotland's health statistics and the high incidence of poverty in Scotland to see how true this is.
Complain about this comment
#224 NCA999
You're not confused at all. You have a strongly held political opinion, which you show here again.
Back in August you said - "A team EU is not a serious proposition because nobody in our country considers European to be their nationality. At the moment, at least, a majority of Scots consider British to be their nationality. Most are proud of being both Scottish and British."
Your claim about national identity was a mistaken assertion then (see my #191).
There are a number of factual errors in your post -
"they don't have to do what the SFA says"
As far as football is concerned, they do.
"British Lions"
As others have pointed out, this is a touring team which contains players from the Irish Republic.
You reveal your real political ideas in your (misspelled)-
"Africa has seperatist nations"
Gad! Where did the Empire go?
I thought the League of Empire Loyalists was long gone, but it clearly still exists in one house in Argyll and Bute.
Complain about this comment
Re 225
Rubbish
You can be British and proud of it and Scottish and proud of it.
I think if you look at glenrothes the majority of us are okay with this
Complain about this comment
The good news is, almost everyone treats any "assurances" from those types of people with utter contempt.
The "genuine article" or not, Mr Murphy and the FIFA lackey, can stuff their "assurances". We don't want to play any part in a Team GB.
Complain about this comment
#223. The_Forfarian
How very non-PC. Surely nowadays it should be a 9 watt eco-lamp. They are slow to start and grow dimmer with age.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#224.
"I get that GB may well have advocated a British team for political reasons, there was probably some sense of "we're hosting the olympics, we should enter a team into our national sport" in there as well however.
Alex Salmond on the other hand is clearly trying to spin spin spin this to his advantage, by pushing this issue repeatedly saying that he "won't let the English parliament destroy the Scotland football team", knowing full well that at worst this is a highly unlikely future event."
I see, Gordon Brown may have had poltical reasons but Alex Salmond will turn this into his advantage to stir up scaremongering about the 'English Parliament' out to destroy the Scottish football team.
You are incredibly biased against Alex Salmond are you not? Your wording to describe their actions suggest that Brown may have other political reasons but Alex Salmond is definitely the bad guy who will spin the story...
It was Gordon Brown who brought up a British football team at the Olympics, the same person who has also attempted to bring up Britishness etc. Gordon Brown should have kept his nose out of sporting full stop. You can't pretend to us that Brown may have had other political reasons. His opinion was politcal. To annoy the Scottish nationalists while attempting to appeal more to England.
"Rugby for example, where we do the British Lions tour, is pretty much exactly the same situation, yet we don't have this problem there."
British Lions? I am sure the people from the Republic of Ireland would disagree with you. The Lions can not be compared to a British football team at the Olympics.
Not only are the Irish from the Republic allowed to play, but Can you name several major rugby competations that the Lions have taken part in? They have not came close to playing in something as major as the Olympics. So, how can you even attempt to paint the picture that the Lions can be showcased as an example where Britain plays united?
Complain about this comment
#228 bluelaw
History is not a matter of making unsubstantiated statements.
If you can give evidence for your statements, then I'll listen. However, restating some of the mythology which passes for "history" damages the case for independence rather than helping it.
I'm afraid that current health and poverty statistics are not relevant to your case, unless you can demonstrate that an independent Scotland would somehow have escaped the consequences of industrialisation that are evident in all areas which have moved on from a heavy industry economy.
There is a significant body of evidence from the 20th century that supports the view that Scotland is ill-served by the UK Union, which you should look to.
You seem to come from the Christine Graeme school of history. Alternatively, you might be an FSP supporter.
Complain about this comment
#214 oldnat
"Unlikely, the posts would be more subtle (though doubtless just as pointed) and us guys wouldn't understand a thing!"
#216 northhighlander
"With an name like aye_right, all us males should have known!"
-----
Chuckle :-)
Yep, that's me the Sarah Palin of Brian's Blog!
Goodnight ;~)
Complain about this comment
#230 northhighlander
What a hypocrite you are!
All this posturing by you about how the north is being ignored by these nasty people in the Central Belt.
Various members of my family support Aberdeen, ICT, Ross County, Dundee United and Ayr United depending on where they were brought up.
You, on the other hand, "regularly travel a 600 miles round trip to glasgow to support a team that is very proud of its British roots and the union jack is very much on display."
Your Unionism is sectarian Unionism. No wonder you love the Union Flag - a symbol of imperial control over Irish Catholics!
Complain about this comment
#235 aye_write
Sarah Palin - seems a bit unreasonable for you to use a helicopter and an AK47 to shoot a moose. Mind you, you must be a helluva good shot to kill something that small!
Rabbie Burns would probably have disapproved.
:-)
Unlike Rabbie, however, I don't think your gender (whatever it is) matters.
You make intelligent posts here, and that's always welcome.
Complain about this comment
222 aphexrephlex
So you chuckle every time we wave the Union flag at an England game eh,
have you ever been to an England game,i'm a member of the England supporters club and we would NEVER consider flying the union flag,have a look next time we're on TV and there'll be a sea of the cross of St George,that's England.I think you people are living in a celtic dreamland to assume that we are the only ones who want a GB team,we don't,its the Scottish prime minister and media stirring this up,i'm from the peoples republic of Yorkshire and we are English 1st and always.There also seems to be an assumption on here that the English consider themselves British 1st,wrong again,we're just like the rest of the UK,we're English 1st and always will be.I would suggest that when you do hold your referendum for independence you include us in it then you'll definitely win,we wouldn't mind an independence referendum down here but we've as much chance of getting that as we have an English parliament.Now where's my Argentina shirt.
Complain about this comment
#238 JMetcalfe
I have no idea what aphexrephlex was posting about, but I'm encouraged by the way that the English have been reclaiming their flag from the racist extremists.
You could get an English Parliament if you voted for it, but as long as you fall for the Labour/Tory "conspiracy" to swap power between them every few years, then of course it won't happen.
Complain about this comment
Labour MPs seem to be nailing their colours to the mast (or even the jack).
"The 18 Scotland-linked MPs were among 21 to sign an Early Day Motion put down by Labour's Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North).
It reads: "This House welcomes the assurances given by Fifa that a 2012 Olympics UK football team would not undermine any of the home countries' ability to compete in their own right in future events."
It was signed by 12 Labour colleagues with seats north of the Border, as well as David Mundell, the shadow Scot- tish secretary, (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale).
The MPs are: John Robertson (Glasgow North West), Jim Devine (Livingston), Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East), Brian Donohoe (Ayrshire Central), Anne Moffat (East Lothian), Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow Central), Anne McGuire (Stirling), Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway), Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and Falkirk East), Anne Begg (Aberdeen South), Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) and Jim McGovern (Dundee West).
Other Labour MPs putting their names to the motion were Edinburgh-born Doug Henderson (Newcastle Upon Tyne North), Greenock-born Andy Love (Edmonton), Coatbridge-born Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) and Dumfries-born Ian Gibson (Norwich North). Labour colleagues David Anderson (Blaydon), Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston) and Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) also signed it."
Complain about this comment
Oldnat
More absurdity on your part. I might equally ask that you support your historical assertions and could as easily dismiss them as mythologising too.
As for Scottish health and poverty statistics being irrelevant to the case for independence they most certainly are not. They are amongst the worst in the developed world and certainly amongst the worst in the EU. If this is the success that you alluded to as part of the benefits of Union that Scotland has accrued then I'd love to know your definition of failure. The fact is other countries have had a similar industrial and indeed post-industrial history as ours yet none suffer the appalling incidences of health and poverty that Scotland does. So either Scots have some genetic predisposition towards ill health and poverty which there is absolutely no evidence to support or Scotland has been denied the resources to ensure she isn't blighted in such a way and which there is a wealth of evidence to support. Again, Unionists are fond of alluding to a dividend for Scotland. If this it then we can do without it - and the Union of course.
Complain about this comment
AAhh it the classic no win Olympics question..
If FIFA assures everyone that they won't lose their independance, no one will be happy as to be fair the final team will most likely be English dominated (yeah even us English as well we like a good moan as much as you guys).
If FIFA does you end up with an English side, that to be fair, no one will care about unless players from their club sides are going (that includes the english).
Politicians get to play the Scotland vs England thing.. Again... old old.
I am English, I love Everton, I quite even now enjoy watching England for all the pain that causes and very much enjoy watching all the home nations play. Infact before Capello, Scotland were far more fun to watch. But football at International level is about the European Championships and World Cup, who cares about the Olympics? When we last play in it 1904?
Personally couldn't give too hoots about the Olympics or whether we put a team into it, single nation, mixture or whatever. Infact, the only way I will care if we do put a team in, is if it is the Falkirk youth team..
Complain about this comment
Ok on the British Lions point #233, it doesn't matter what capacity the team is, or whether or not Irish people play in the team.
Why is this, because it is proof that Britain is capable of fielding a competitive Rugby team.
You say that their tour is not a big event, yet it probably gets a significant amount more coverage than the under 23 football at the olympics. Your analysis is flawed, simplistic, and by virtue of your attempt to engage in debate on such grounds and your inability to make valid arguments a concession that in reality this is not a serious issue.
To Mr OldNat, I'm very impressed that you can trawl up comments made back in August. I've no clue what your exact point is but let me make a very simple one;
At the last olympics there was widespread support all across the UK, for all of teamGB. I'm fairly sure most people in Scotland didn't know exactly where a competitor was from when watching, nor did they care. There is absolutely no reason to say that they would have equal difficulty supporting a British football team, absolutely none at all.
You also make the irrelevant point that Ireland plays in the British Lions team. If you honestly think that representatives of every national Rugby association looks at that and says, oh thats a reason why England and Scotland shouldn't have seerate teams, oh but one of the 15 players is Irish so its no longer valid.
If the argument is that a British Olympic team would prove our capability to play as a single nation I'd hardly say that the British Lions fails to do this, unless you're seriously arguing that we wouldn't be capable of fielding a rugby team without a couple of irish in it.
And no, the BOA is in no way accountable to the SFA. Nor does the SFA have any power over any Scottish footballer in what they choose to do.
Regardless of your misguided views towards me I am a passionate Scotland football fan. I attended all 3 of our World Cup qualifying matches and would never support a position which I would believe to prevent Scotland from competing as a football team.
The reality however is that the Olympics are coming up, and for the BOA not to allow British footballers to represent us at our national sport, when it is being hosted in our own country, just because of the protectionist politics of the SFA, and the nationalist politics of Alex Salmond would be quite wrong in my opinion.
And yes, I do believe that Salmond has played far more politics with this than Gordon Brown has. Were this a proposition he had plucked out of thin air, like we should set up a British touring team similar to the lions then I would agree with you but its not. This is the reality that a major football competition will be taking place in our country and that under the status quo no British people would be able to take part in it. Its right for the Prime Minister to suggest putting aside partisan differences to let our players compete in, and our public support a national team in such an event. Alex Salmond on the other hand has done nothing but play the political card in this matter, entirely without objectivity, as always.
Complain about this comment
I thought the England supporters club had been disbanded due to hooliganism.
England fans used to use the Union jack and this tied in with many English people regarding Britain as synonymous with England. With the rise in Scottish and Welsh nationalism and the receding of British identity they embraced the St Georges flag especially by the time of Euro 96.
As for English people being desperate to cut Scotland loose. This is just an Imperial-type resentment that yet another 'colony' has had the audacity to reject London rule. But in time England will I hope escape such shortsightedness in these things and will assert its own identity more happily as an independent within Europe. England's a great country and I have no doubt it could survive and flourish as an independent country.
Complain about this comment
#244 bluelaw..
'I thought the England supporters club had been disbanded due to hooliganism.'
Could you please bring yourself into the 21st century, England has an official supporters club and no it hasn't been disbanded due to hooliganism.
Firstly, football hooliganism is a world wide issue that affected just about every major country that played the game. Football violence is still a part of life both north and south of the border but it ain't the 1980's any more. Someone mentioned somewhere football and tribalism, and he had a point, and we still get the downsides, though I think policing and behaviour of English fans in the vast majority is excellent, same with Scottish fans.
'As for English people being desperate to cut Scotland loose'
I think you'd find, the vast majority of the English population couldn't really give a care in the world at the moment. Scottish Independance is a Scottish issue as far as most care, it not really become a political issue south the border yet for the people.
'yet another 'colony' has had the audacity to reject London rule'
You never were a colony, get a wee footballing phrase in here, 'If ya know your history'! Shouldn't have bankruppted yourselves trying to play with the big boys really all those years ago ;)
But saying that I am a northerner so at least you guys had a go, we got screwed over for a lot longer than you guys, though apparently the labour pledge of region government in England is going through. Maybe the north will get the voice it deserves.
As for the Union Flag, yeah it is identified around the world still a lot with England, but I dunno, think most English peeps see it as what it is, a sign of all the nations, we got our own flag back from our own slightly nastier version of nationalists this last decade.
Oh and Alec Salmond is a single minded person, he don't care about HBOS or football, he cares about his one man Scot Independance band, which I dunno, I still think, if the poll was tomorrow, the answer would be no.. Things may change, but neither Westminster or Holyrood is exactly full of shining lights, all a bunch of self idiots it seems most of the time.
But in future Bluenat, can you supplement you use of the word 'England' with the word 'Westminter'. It would give a fairer representation to what you say, because I would guess i dislike as much if not more than you do.
Complain about this comment
#241 bluelaw
I offered to debate history with you.
You have offered no sources to support any of your assertions.
I don't support the UK Union, but you need to separate history from political belief. They are not the same.
Please stop attributing to me statements that I didn't make.
If you do not believe that there were economic benefits to Scotland from access to an expanded market in the 19th century, then I suggest you read any academic historian on the subject.
There is a perfectly valid argument to be made that, had the Union not taken place, Scotland would still have gone through an early Industrial Revolution and benefited from it's resource based economy. However, access to the English Empire would have been subjected to discriminatory tariffs.
There was a "Union dividend" up to the 1920's.
Where you are wrong to argue about health statistics etc is your failure to recognise that "transition point" between the stages where the UK Union was an advantage, then a disadvantage to Scotland.
It is in the post WWII period, when the UK Government seriously interfered with Scottish governance that the benefits of Union with England diminished, and the benefits of Union with a wider Europe developed.
I understand that you don't live in Scotland, so you may have a picture based on "grievances about the past" rather than a vision for the future.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw 244
"As for English people being desperate to cut Scotland loose. This is just an Imperial-type resentment that yet another 'colony' has had the audacity to reject London rule. But in time England will I hope escape such shortsightedness in these things and will assert its own identity more happily as an independent within Europe. England's a great country and I have no doubt it could survive and flourish as an independent country"
I don't get it,you moan about wanting to break away and your independence and when an Englishman agrees you moan that i agree for the wrong reasons,daviebobs right,we don't really care but because i think you're a nice bloke and passionate in your beliefs i'm willing to be your independence representative in Yorkshire,just send me an info. pack and car stickers and i'll distribute them for you.
Complain about this comment
#245 DavieBob_efc
Apart from your crazy suggestion that only one person supports Scottish Independence (how do you think the SNP became the largest party in the Scottish Parliament?) your post makes a lot of sense.
Quite why the North of England has allowed the South-East to seize so much of your resources seems strange to an outsider - but that's your affair. You vote as you think best.
I totally agree with your objection to "England" being used instead of "Westminster". I'm afraid that there are ignorant Scots (as well as ignorant Brits, English etc).
Complain about this comment
Back to the football,i don't really care if there's a GB team or not,all i know is i won't be supporting it but the great Ally McCoist was in the papers at the weekend saying how he wants Celtic and Rangers to join the ENGLISH premiership,won't that make it a British premiership and would it mean all the non GB supporters would stop supporting these teams,is the reason this is ok but not a GB team greed.Will the debate about Scottish teams joining the prem now stop because of this conflict?
Complain about this comment
#248
Sorry Oldnat, been up here over two years and still couldn't name you another SNP politician.. Sad I know but really, I only get so far as Wendy Alexander on the Labour side and well that didn't end well. Oh hang on the health minister is Nicola Sturgeon? I think.. Or something like that. I should know working at the moment in the NHS.. Seen the name somewhere anyway.
But then it in regards to health issues, whenever it the Scotland Independance issue I can not think of anyone beyond Alec. And I would not suggest he the only one who supports, there is a large support, but he is the mouth piece. And he can't mention anything without it appearing somewhere! So i stand by my one man band theory, until i hear him say something about policy and Scotland that doesn't at some point go on about Independance. The others seem to manage it just fine, just I can can't remember their names.
No but anyway, I mentioned Alec specifically regarding the thread anyway, and the olympics football issue, which I think he just found a new bandwagon. Sorry don't think he cares at all about the actual issue.
I am hugely biased because I really cannot stand the guy, as I think oldnat you are aware of.
But seen as this has moved slightly towards an independace debate. I will actually nail my colours to the mast. I live in Scotland from northern England, I believe the Union is a good thing overall and I am proud of where I have chosen to live aswell as my former home. I do however disconnect myself from the Scottish issue, I would not vote in an Independance election as for me it not really my place, it for you guys to decide. I will vote in local and Scottish elections for the candidate that looks after the interests of where I live and the community.
What tires me out, is the misrepresentation of old England and the people in a lot of these threads, a lot is often written from point of views that don't know say the reality of life in the north of England as opposed the South East. If you want to disagree with Westminster go for it, but please, don't write it as England.
Olympic football is a 'British' issue to which as I have stated I don't care. Scottish Independance is a Scottish issue. And may the debate be open and clear for the people of Scotland to decide when the vote finally comes and whatever the outcome, I will always be proud to live in this country because I do fear I will never leave.
You have an amasing country up here, concentrate on that, not old arguements, but the here and now and what is best for Scotland in the future.
And still not caring about the Olympics sorry Mr Taylor sir.
Complain about this comment
Congratulations on your doctorate Brian
Complain about this comment
All this arguing, you would think that this Team GB is guaranteed to win Gold. Wouldn't it be hilarious if they did go forward with a Team GB not even to make Bronze!?
Personally, the Olympics are seen as an English only affair by the majority of the "United" Kingdom, why not let the English do what they want as per usual? Fingers crossed Independence will come before the Olympics meaning that a Team GB football team will be the least embarrassing thing for a future "British/English" Government.
Complain about this comment
Re #219 oldnat
Newsnicht was unbelievable, the man was an embarrassment, and what's more he obviously knew it himself as the interview went on.
He really showed up how entrenched London Labour are to the position with absolutely no real argument for it.
All together now ...
why should the merger be allowed to go ahead, what is the benefit ...
its the only offer on the table ..
no, but what's the benefit to the public and shareholders ..
its the only offer on the table ..
but you still haven’t told us what the benefit is ..
it’s the only offer on the table ..
but you are not even addressing the question ..
it's the only offer on the table ..
(interviewer gives up, one step ahead of throwing himself off the nearest building in despair !)
The man’s a genius - err, I meant brainwashed idiot.
Complain about this comment
Re 237
Old nat: in every group or organisation there are unsavoury elements ( Look at nationalism!). I absolutely detest sectarian abuse in any form and it must be eradicated.
I support Rangers because as a young lad the late and very great Davy Cooper was a Rangers star of that time and he inspired a life long love of football in me.
I have come to realise over time that Rangers and Celtic have a fan base that extends far and beyond Glasgow in a way that few other teams in the world can do. In many parts of the World rangers are regarded as a British team. However Rangers and Celtic have worked a lot harder than any Government to eradicate this problem.
I also think the sectarian debate in football needs widened to cover other offensive behaviour. Very little of the chanting at Ibrox and Celtic park is now sectarian. But is the chanting about glaswegians being drug dealing pimps heard regularly at Pittodrie any less offensive? I can't say I relish being called a orange hun of dubious parentage every time I go to a football match. But it appears that that is okay.
But to try to eradicate this problem through football is political cowardice because neither the Labour Party or the SNP have the courage to fight this properly.
So please do not tar all rangers or celtic supporters with that brush, I expected better of you.
Also in the far north we used to have Celtic fans on our bus, who were going to away games and we would do the same. We have different and better way of life here free from that rubbish.
Now perhaps you understand why I don't particularly want to replace Westminster domination by Holyrood domination.
Complain about this comment
Returning for at least a moment to the topic of this thread, I haven't spluttered in irate outrage nearly enough about this yet, and I simply must or bust.
You are simply not playing the game. It's just not cricket. You Scottish chappies are making a political football out of football and kicking us decent chaps about again. It is time that someone cried foul.
How parochial and ungrateful of you to insist on having your own team instead of joining ours. You should know, in any case, that you can't resist our superior numbers indefinitely. We always win in the end. Play up and play the game, I say. England expects.
Complain about this comment
The official England supporters' club disbanded:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1224882.stm
I do use Westminster and England appropiately. And I repeat, I don't hold English people in general responsible for the state of Scotland.
Yes, for a people who supposedly don't give a stuff about Scotland you don't have make a fuss about us. You sound like a spurned lover ;-)
Complain about this comment
>>>>I offered to debate history with you. You have offered no sources to support any of your assertions."
I am happy to discuss our history. I could cite Devine et al but what difference would that make. I don't need them to know my history.
>>>I don't support the UK Union, but you need to separate history from political belief. They are not the same.
I think you should stop trying to set agendas. I'll argue on my own terms.
>>>>Please stop attributing to me statements that I didn't make.
You defended the Union and talked of a dividend.
>>>>If you do not believe that there were economic benefits to Scotland from access to an expanded market in the 19th century, then I suggest you read any academic historian on the subject.
And who benefitted from improved access to these markets? Not ordinary working Scots that's for sure.
>>>> There is a perfectly valid argument to be made that, had the Union not taken place, Scotland would still have gone through an early Industrial Revolution and benefited from it's resource based economy. However, access to the English Empire would have been subjected to discriminatory tariffs.
Well, we'll never know but yes, England's Navigation Acts would no doubt have remained in force and England's attempts to keep us in penury would have continued.
>>>>There was a "Union dividend" up to the 1920's.
For whom this "dividend"? The tens of thousands of Scots who had just died in WW1? Or the thousands who returned to cold damp overcowded houses and some of the worst exploitation in Western Europe?
>>>> Where you are wrong to argue about health statistics etc is your failure to recognise that "transition point" between the stages where the UK Union was an advantage, then a disadvantage to Scotland.
Disingenuous nonsense. Working Scots have endured poor health and exploitative wages and conditions throughout Union. There has never been any transition point at all. That's why life expectancy in some parts of Scotland is only marginally better than it was at the time of Union.
>>>>It is in the post WWII period, when the UK Government seriously interfered with Scottish governance that the benefits of Union with England diminished, and the benefits of Union with a wider Europe developed.
More nonsense. Before WW2 Scotland was administered as North Britain and there was no real shift in emphasis after WW2 beyond Thatcher and her Citizenship Act and other centralising tendencies. If anything post-war Scotland slightly improved because of moves towards a welfare state and an NHS etc. This window was closed shut in May 1979.
>>>>I understand that you don't live in Scotland, so you may have a picture based on "grievances about the past" rather than a vision for the future.
Tiresome. I have no wish to disclose my personal circumstances but I spend a lot of time in Scotland. It is precisely because of the genuine grievances that Scotland has endured and does endure that I completely embrace the positive vision of a fully independent Scotland. I suggest that you're not quite the honest broker you like to think you are.
Complain about this comment
241 Bluelaw
Your posts are just great. I can sense even the committed nationalists looking at their watches and edging away from you...like a man who suddenly starts talking loudly about immigration at a party.
Take a look at Mark Easton's Map of the Week. It shows that health and longevity have improved markedly faster in the North of the country in recent years. There is also the conundrum that whilst the NHS in Scotland gets more money per head than the rest of the UK, health indicators have remained stubbornly lower.
I'm not an epidemiologist but I would suspect that there are a number of factors at play. Smoking, which remains widespread when compared to the rest of the UK. Heavy drinking...I'm talking about chronic long term consumption rather than Saturday night bingeing that gets the Daily Mail so excited. Daylight hours in winter and its effect on general mental health...and drinking culture. Diet...I'm not talking about deep fired Mars Bar myths but it is only in recent years that many Scottish people have had access to good fresh food all year round. (In my English middle class way I thought that the gap had finally closed when I bought a fresh mango in Ullapool last year). That aside, the traditional diet is not heavy in fresh veg...for perfectly understandable reasons!
Put these together and you have a public health problem without a doubt...but I fail to see how the Union or the English can be blamed for smoking, drinking, diet and the rotation of the Earth!
Poor health is frequently associated with heavy industry and, indeed, former industrial areas in England and Wales have similar problems i.e. diets focused on providing "fuel" for hard manual labour. But like OldNat I fail to see how this is the fault of the Union or that somehow it wouldn't have happened if Scotland had remained a sovereign country.
Loved the bit about the English army poised to invade Scotland. That was news to everyone! Even better the bit about the implied fierce resistance, fight to the last man, sent home tae think again etc. etc. Living in the past is one thing, but living in a fantasy past is I think one of the biggest obstacles to serious debate on independence issues.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
243 NCA999
Actually I only watch the Scottish competitors in the GB team with any interest at the Olympics. I think I'm fairly typical and I'd get a lot more enjoyment if we had a Scottish team.
So would Scottish swimmers, for instance.
Remember all those Scottish swimmers winning all those medals at the last Commonwealth Games.
How many of them got into the GB Olympic team?
Nane!
Complain about this comment
There's a systemic link between poverty and ill health. The Scottish working classes were amongst the most exploited people in the world. They quite literally broke their backs enduring slave wages, appalling conditions and terrible housing all of which have contributed to the terrible legacy we see today in parts of Scotland having life expectancy bordering on third world.
Now if you believe like so many Unionists do that Scotland has somehow enjoyed a dividend through Union and Union is somehow responsible for the success of Scotland and indeed that Scotland couldn't survive without Union then why won't you accept responsibility for those aspects of Scottish life which can only be described as appalling.
I believe that if Scotland had been independent, in control of her economy and been in receipt of all her resources and revenues then Scotland would not be enduring such poverty and ill health on the scale she presently is. I believe that independent sovereign countries which Scotland obviously isn't simply do not allow so many of their citizens to fall into decline in such a way and when it is totally unnecessary for them to do so in the first place. One need only look at the examples of our European neighbours, all with industrial and post-industrial profiles and how much better off their citizens are, many in colder climes, many originally with just as tough-living and bad-eating a profile as Scotland.
Now I am not blaming ordinary English people, who are barely better off than their Scots counterparts but I do hold Union and Westminster largely accountable for this state of affairs and this informs why I believe for Scotland's sake she must become independent to escape such a devastating cycle of poverty and all its associable ills.
Complain about this comment
An English Army was moved to the Scottish border to ensure Scotland agreed terms. I've even heard Alex Salmond refer to it in two of his speeches.
Complain about this comment
#240 oldnat
"The 18 Scotland-linked MPs were among 21 to sign an Early Day Motion put down by Labour's Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)."
To think I actually voted for that guy once, maybe I should write to him.
I did the opposite journey to northhighlander whilst still at home, being a Dons fan. They're even fewer Glaswegian accents on Union Street of a Saturday, except when the Old Firm are up of course.
I too am a little confused about his grievances regarding rural areas being ignored by centralised governments, yet travels to Ibrox regularly. Wonder if he uses the 'useless' public transport to get there, probably not.
Complain about this comment
Every two or three weeks I travel travel to and fro to Glasgow and Edinburgh and I live in Aberdeen....
I've been to London once, for 6 hours. It was nice, wouldn't live there though!
Hey I even went on holiday to Cornwall once, that was nice...
Oh how dare I not feel British and wish to support a 'British?' (if there is such a place) fitba' team?
The unionista's will be appauled!
Complain about this comment
Life expectancy in Scotland is about 76 years. The only reason to take the worst parts of Glasgow and pass these off as representative of Scotland is to whip up an artificial sense of victimhood.
Complain about this comment
#254 northhighlander
"But is the chanting about glaswegians being drug dealing pimps heard regularly at Pittodrie any less offensive?"
No it's not any less offensive, verbal abuse is verbal abuse. The difference is that you know you're not the aforementioned slur, but you may be of a particular religious persuasion.
Thankfully I never went to Old Firm games at Pittodrie, as you say all clubs have a few idiots, I know the three clubs mentioned definitely do.
"Very little of the chanting at Ibrox and Celtic park is now sectarian."
Which is why it made the news recently and the debate that followed. Also, away from Ibrox and Celtic Park does it stop then also? It's a major cultural change that your talking about that's required which will take a very long time, and unfortunately in some cases people's attitudes are that ingrained that they will never change.
"Also in the far north we used to have Celtic fans on our bus, who were going to away games and we would do the same. We have different and better way of life here free from that rubbish."
Sounds nice, "used to" the operative phrase. You certainly have a different w of life there, but I doubt it's free from that 'rubbish' in many parts, perhaps its not as openly expressed.
Back to the football rant, now I know why you'd like Souness. How about Stuart McCall, Joe Jordan, Craig Brown (again), Willie Miller, Alan Hansen? ;)
Complain about this comment
Your attitude is disgraceful anaxim. Scots life expectancy is still well below countries like France and Italy and even if it were better none of this excuses the poverty and ill health that blights Scotland in general.
Complain about this comment
Re266
Don't like craig brown idea, he was okay but a wee bit negative ( even for a rangers fan).
Don't think Alan Hansen would know where Hampden park is any more but the rest would be fine, also would add Roy Aitken to that list and Stevie Clark. Both were excellent servants to the scottish team.
Really someone who showed the passion and fire when a player.
Regarding the rest should separate Football and politics.
Also don't agree with the sectarian point you make. Most Rangers and Celtic fans are of no religous persuasion whatsoever. Church atendances in Glasgow bear no resemblance to match attendance. So really it is just abuse.
But the issue is much wider than football, that is my main point.
the "used to" phrase relates to a time before I was married and could afford the expensive trip to Ibrox. Now it is a much less frequent journey but still several times a season. I also watch Aberdeen and Inverness when the opportunity allows as well as follwing the Highland League regularly.
Complain about this comment
262 Bluelaw
"An English army was moved into the Scottish borders to ensure Scotland agreed terms. Even Alec Salmond mentioned it in two of his speeches"
Silly me...it must then of course be true. I wonder how big this English Army was???
Please refer to my comments about living in a fantasy past.
Complain about this comment
I don't live in a fantasy past. I live in the present and believe in Scotland's future as an independent sovereign nation.
Complain about this comment
267 Bluelaw
And there's the next conundrum. Both Italy and France have a mixed public and private (insurance based) health care sector. They spend a far greater part of their GDP on health that the UK and have greater average life expectancy. It's also possible that the Meditterranean diet may also have a role to play here but not let's do that one again.
Unfortunately the NHS is one of those political sacred cows. On the whole it's a good service but it is unlikely that we can ever meet unconstrained demand from public funds alone.
You a bit a UKphobe I imagine and thus everything done elsewhere is just much much better than here. Under that premise, would you agree that we will only achieve Continental life-expectancy when we allow insurance based funding to top up public provision in healthcare?
There are certainly parts of Scotland that are poor by national standards...but you'll find that in most British cities. Try visiting Tower Hamlets in London for instance. Equally, try having a look in the outer suburbs of many French cities. Try looking in the outer districts of Amsterdam or The Hague? To try to portray Scotland as uniquely blighted as a result of its apparant enslavement is to miss the point by a mile and you provide no evidence beyond wishful thinking that it could have been otherwise as an "independent" country.
Complain about this comment
If Jim Murphy were a real football fan, he wouldn't be so desperate to undermine the SFA and Scotland's ability to qualify for future competitions.
It is pathetic that he thinks that people will be 'reassured' by some whispered conversation between him and a FIFA lackey. As pointed out above, this does not even fall under his compency; the Scottish Government and the SFA should just out and out say that.
Complain about this comment
#269 Anglophone step into the real world, I think this is what is being referred to
"The Earl of Mar informed Godolphin that 'the opposing party's misrepresenting every Article of the Treaty make the commonalty believe that they will be oppressed with taxes'. Troops were brought in to the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at Queensberry's disposal on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble."
http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/06_03_mob.html
Complain about this comment
270 Bluelaw
I which case I wholeheartedly look forward to your forward looking posts and say farewell to your rants about past victimisation.
Anyway, what has any of this got to do with football? I don't think that there are many takers for a GB team so perhaps that should be the end of the debate.
Brian's hit rate must make him one of the top dog blogcasters at the BBC. Are any of the regular contributors members of his family do you think? In numerical hits terms it's only topped by Impossible Conspiracies which I can thoroughly recommend...if you're a rational person it's a hoot...if you harbour fears over a shady military-industrial conspiracy then you will find many fellow travellers.
Complain about this comment
If Scotland were independent we would have controlled that much of our GDP we spent on health and how mixed it was. Although Health is devolved we still don't have the resources to fund health as we would do as an independent.
Scotland is in comparison to any comparable countries uniquely blighted with terrible incidences of poverty. The statistics support this and in my experience as well; I've not seen deprivation anywhere in any EU country comparable to Scotland.
I am not a UKphobe. Until my early 20's I was a supporter of Labour and by default a Unionist. Thankfully my eyes have been opened.
Complain about this comment
264 Brian SH
I can see that such a widely travelled man as yourself will be able to bring a a sense of balance and objective judgement to these debates;-)
Complain about this comment
Warning, some long posts are coming
:-\
Complain about this comment
#148
Anglophone.
"My favouring the continuance of the UK as a country is firstly my great fear of where Balkanisation will lead. Secondly, in a rough world, a course of action that makes Britain weaker and Scotland just plain weak is simply playing into the hands of those who are...shall we say "indifferent to the health, wealth or happiness of the people of these islands"."
This is a sensible fear (I'd be a fool not to recognise it), but for me it must come after the resolution of my earlier point at the end of #170. Otherwise the taking of any such further decisions is rendered meaningless. I will try to explain.
You may be, and can, feel quite safe in the knowledge that as a stronger Britain our international security is and will be secured best through this.
But remember, you have an influence over the direction it all takes. I as a Scot, must rely on the decision of the majority of Britons, which means my neighbour, England, even though Scotland may well be over-represented in terms of MPs per population. Scottish views can still be completely wiped out.
That’s wiped out.
Meaningless.
That’s depressing.
This is not an emotional knee-jerk reaction, but a resigned acceptance of the above unavoidable realisation – and that at the moment there’s nothing I can do about it.
The place where I grew up in Britain was once a sovereign nation, and, then as now, in so far as daily life goes, it still seems like one. Everything we had immediate contact with was Scottish, the school, the police, the bank, the small businesses, the farmers, the fishermen.
The nation of Britain was always a secondary aspect. Life was conducted in the context of the nation of Scotland. To us, we lived in practice very much as a nation - except for our lack of sovereignty. When compared with other nations in Europe and elsewhere, this seemed unusual.
Of course I saw Scotland in the context of the wider world but it just seemed she was totally and universally ignored. None of this stuff really cheers you up! There seemed little point in having a nation if it had no sway whatsoever. Britain’s role and influence globally was apparent, but it seemed self-serving (obviously), and that equated to self-serving for England.
You could say that it doesn’t matter as our countries have almost entirely the same priorities, but it wasn’t shown that way. It was seen in terms of England’s needs (media interchanging the two terms, news always filtered through an English media).
We were therefore not ignorant of Britain, but being in it affected our lives in more detached ways, such as coverage of an international sporting event, the location of manufacture of some delivered goods, coverage of a particular war, coverage of UK elections.
It was mostly just a term and had no real daily significance on Scottish life. But we always noticed the difference. It didn’t help that the UK media always unwittingly portrayed Scotland as far away, parochial and insignificant.
We felt totally disconnected and misrepresented.
Due to these things, I wanted the consensus of my population to carry the same weight as that of the nations I neighboured. I saw it as natural that, as Scotland and England had the same nation status, if we were to be in a partnership, then we should be equal partners.
The fact that we obviously weren’t, left me asking why not (Scottish people are not genetically less capable) and wondering if I was right to feel we’d been sold short.
I summarise that it is my experience of my upbringing in Scotland, that has helped form my belief that it is fair and rational for Scotland to be viewed as an equal to its neighbours. This is the same phenomenon that happens in nations all over the world and that usually adds to social cohesion.
That experience i.e. the fact that I am Scottish, plus the fact that I was aware that Scotland was once a sovereign state, sparked a desire to regain sovereignty as a fix to the fact that Scotland is at a political disadvantage. In essence it only seems fair.
So it is fine that you disagree on the main point of independence, but I don’t think you can so easily summarise those reasons for supporting it as stemming from any flaws, that a better person would not allow to colour their views.
Breath.
Complain about this comment
#148
Anglophone.
Perhaps a solution would be to teach Britishness in preference to Scottish ness at school level etc., and bolster that feeling of national identity, as it clearly largely passed me by. Plus teach Scottish ness in terms of history, the past – this is where we came from.
The trouble with that of course is that the nation of Scotland has not yet disappeared into the history books. Therefore this approach could only work if there were was only Britain left and not also the other nations aswell.
So there seems to be more than one option:
1. Have only Britain and not the other nations that comprise it - go entirely by the current regions of all the countries instead and kill Scotland off altogether, of course losing England aswell.
2. Downgrade/upgrade the member nations into equal status federal regions within Britain.
3. Have independent nations – then choose to either each go as members of the EU or foster ties with the British Nations, or both or something else entirely.
4. Scotland goes independent and in the outcome of the ensuing constitution shake up, England renames itself Britain, or forms a new Britain with the other remaining parts of it.
Perhaps you feel my lifelong feelings of intolerance for the imbalanced system of nations in Britain is an indulgence I have a cheek to pursue at the risk of Britain’s security.
But try on my shoes - put England is Scotland’s place. Would you happily forgo all your voting influence in exchange for trust that it will all be sorted for you? Others can run your international affairs?
Why do I not accept Scotland as a nation that is represented by Britain? Because that is accepting that we are lesser than those nations who do have national sovereignty. This all makes Scotland already as weak a nation as it can possibly be - in a “things can only get better” situation (in Britain and in the world).
I cannot overstate the effect of this; it sort of eats away at you. I doubt it’s good for the psyche.
As for having a say and therefore influence, as a British voter, given that I have always experienced life from as a Scot, I would have to be able to switch off my Scottish allegiances to effect that - forget about being Scottish. I’m not sure I want to abandon my Scottish nationality – it is no less worthy than any others.
I think it is easier for the English population to feel British, as the two are largely interchangeable in media portrayal, even within Britain. Your “indistinguishable cultures” argument is true in that respect.
It’s arguably harder for an English person to imagine that some of us Scots do not feel part of the gang, don’t feel the same overlap in cultures (Scottish = British), don’t feel the assimilation as automatic, do see it as conflicting.
Almost done.
Complain about this comment
#148
Anglophone
I don’t suppose any of this will allay your quite rational fears of becoming a weaker world force. As for your worry about independence achieving a pretty futile vote each for the separated British countries in the EU, agreed, this could be seen as a step down for England.
But England through being seen as the same as Britain by the world, won’t loose that British reputation. She may slot into things just fine.
The change for Scotland would be, and I stress, fundamental. Yes, it would be a vote among many other European votes, but however the system works, it would be a vote!
I know others revere the feeling of wielding of power that chiming in with a British vote seems to give, however Scotland is wielding no power here.
The difference from no Scottish vote to having a Scottish vote is momentous.
It would mean everything.
It would right a wrong.
Again, if England were in Scotland’s position, would they not have just as much a desire to be fairly represented?
Is Scotland’s security and economy better served as part of Britain? Only if Scotland and England always have exactly the same issues and share exactly the same needs, thus negating the requirement for any Scottish influence.
Some would argue they do already share these things. If that is so then why not do away with the nations of England and Scotland etc., just jump on the British boat and sail forth?
In my view it is extremely difficult for Scotland to be adequately protected in the word arena without fair and equal representation in Britain. Perhaps that would inevitably lead to a clash of interests in Britain. At least with equal representation a fair compromise might be reached.
I don’t have all the answers for post independence international relations. But neither does anyone, there are too many variables. We are not in the Balkans. It will be a process. I’d settle for being involved in it.
Just a bit more.
Complain about this comment
#240. I was intrigued by that piece when I first read it this morning. At first glance it seemed a touch one-sided with no reference to the very considerable opposition to the notion of a GB team and the widespread scepticism over the "assurances".
But then I started to wonder. Instead of just saying that a number of Labour MPs had loyally signed the motion, it listed every one of them by name, and very helpfully identified their constituencies.
Or am I reading too much into this... :-)
Complain about this comment
#148
Anglophone
As for the economy, personally I have no spectral fears about it all going terribly wrong after independence. But then I have something not all Scots possess, confidence in the abilities of our population as being on a par. I see no reason why a Scottish economy should by definition automatically and terminally flounder (although any economy could under poor leadership).
Though this is no future predictor, Scotland once was prosperous, before wars, famine and some failed overseas business ventures crippled her prior to 1707. So we have done it before, albeit in different days.
Is a Scottish economy within the UK economy the better way to go? Not sure, but I don’t see the difference between the two economy options as being a decisive factor, like some may.
The Scottish economy may fair worse than it does now just after independence or it could receive a boost. Who can actually tell? Economies dip and recover as they always have and the important thing to me is, can I trust Scots to manage their own - yes.
Even if there is a distinct advantage from being linked to the British economy, I’m sure it’s not worth giving up a fair and equal say for - that’s more important than the difference between two substantial pots of money, they will both be large enough.
Independence for me is nothing to do with English-hating, nursing historical wounds or seeking to be better than our potential would allow. The current set up ensures we don’t have the chance to represent ourselves. The question of potential has been therefore rendered irrelevant.
It’s not about seeking an inflated status, but rejecting an inferior one.
Perhaps all of this is just romantic ramblings and far from the best display of pragmatism. If so, as a mere ordinary Scottish housewife, I offer my apologies. At least I may have given anti-nationalists an insight into the reasoning behind the formation of a pro-independence viewpoint.
Right, done.
Complain about this comment
Apologies Brian if those posts send all fleeing from your blog!
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
"Brian's hit rate must make him one of the top dog blogcasters at the BBC."
Perhaps Brian should leave us a message of thanks for the bonus that he will no doubt receive at the end of the year?
;-)
Complain about this comment
279 InMy Kip
Imagine for a moment a Jeremy Paxman "Yeeesss!"
The positioning of garrison troops on the streets to quell serious mob violence has mutated in to a potential "invasion force". Neat!
The same article refers to Jacobite agitators spreading fears and resentment among the people. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose as you used to say in the Auld Alliance!
Complain about this comment
275 Bluelaw
Phooey! Why do people believe that governments in the past behave like they do today? The British government adopted an almost entirely laissez-faire approach to industrial development and just about everything else up until the 1930s.
Everything was basically down to local entrepreneurs. This is the reason why British industry was already in relative decline before the First World War with the problem exacerbated throughout the Great Depression. It is one of the reasons why UK industry failed to plan and invest for so many years. It's why large swathes were nationalised and its why large swathes fell easy prey to competitors with a much more focused national economic strategy.
Healthcare is no different. The NHS was one of the first public healthcare systems that emerged, trying to create order in a haphazard tangle of local provision. The NHS is 60 years old, just one sixth of the age of the union.
Do you really think that Scotland in the 260 years before oil was discovered would have behaved differently?
Complain about this comment
good posts aye-wright
Complain about this comment
#285 I hate quibbling over detail, but the extract also mentions troops being stationed on the Scottish Border and troops in Ireland being made available.
I presume you think these nice chaps were only to ensure the safety of the crowds for the apres signing celebrations in Scotland?
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
#285.
Foreign soldiers entering another countries territory? Yes, I do believe we call that an invasion. There should be no shame about the past, it's all in the past, done and dusted. It's the future that counts.
Complain about this comment
#237 oldnat
"(nice stuff)"
Thanks.
One can only try one's best :-D
(The Palin comparisons are effectively dead - I've reminded myself of my wardrobe!)
Complain about this comment
Aye Write...ad nauseum
Phew! Eloquently put. As I've said before, You mention "equal status" a lot and I'm not sure what this means.
One Englishman equals one Scot (no gender thing intended;-)). One hundred Scots is equal to one hundred Englishmen. To have equal status with a country ten times your population however , as you seem to be saying, is little more than converting what is notionally a democratic deficit into a "tyranny of the minority".
An independent Scotland would face the same problem. Demanding equal status in the EU would get short-shrift. The situation is changing and small countries get a better crack in the EU but as the Constituional negotiations show, nobody but nobody will happily cede power or influence. It just doesn't happen in real-life.
Rather than seek a federal "camel" solution, if Scots feel unrepresented in the UK (and you seem to treat this as some sort of block vote in which all Scots and English people vote one particular way and therefore Scottish views are always suppressed) then I think it is time for seperation and "take what's yours and be damned!"
I'm not one for international and military granduer...I find it hubristic. On the other hand, in diplomatic terms, isolationism is a short-cut to irrelevance and economically there will always be forces that will try to take your share of the pie...it's as old as time .
For Scots to suddenly project themselves internationally as the groovy liberal modern ultra-democracy, then I imagine that the subtext will be that the rest of the UK will be left with all legacy "brand" problems. A bit rich when, as Bluelaw is often pointing out, Scots played a very prominent part in the establishment of the now politically unpopular British Empire. Now that would be ironical.
Complain about this comment
Yes, I do believe Scotland would have behaved differently as an independent. If you look at how much worse the British and Scottish working classes were treated in the same period and even now compared to their European counterparts then I have no doubts ordinary Scots would be in a much better position than they are now.
But what really concerns me is the future. The plain fact is Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland ALL have despite weaknesses in some areas much better average incomes and living standards and lower incidences of poverty and better health than Scotland. All my experience and everything I read and see about Scotland more than strongly suggests to me that Union and Westminster is a key factor in Scotland not being on a par with those countries.
Complain about this comment
289 Thomas Porter
I hope that you're not seeking officer selection?
It would probably be worth finding out who exactly the soldiers entering Edinburgh were. I'm guessing but I would strongly suspect that they were the local regiment or possibly the militia. Most major towns were garrisoned this way...Foreigners indeed!
Complain about this comment
#247 bluelaw
Thanks :-)
Wait though, they haven't been torn to shreads yet!
Complain about this comment
288 In my Kip
The impression that you gain is that these troops were there, if required to protect the lives and property of Scotland's political elite.
Let's not forget that at the time there was a real fear of invasion by a Jacobite army to overthrow the Hanoverian monarch. This fear was to be borne out twice over the next 50 years. It's hardly surprising that troops would be stationed close to the border. It doesn't automatically constitute an invasion force.
Maybe one of the nationalist ferrets with time on their hands can unearth the correspondance, chain of command and invasion plan should the evil English have failed in their attempt to pacify Scotland by unification???
Complain about this comment
#274
"if you harbour fears over a shady military-industrial conspiracy then you will find many fellow travellers."
That's a hoot!
Complain about this comment
#148 Anglophone
"Thanks for being careful not to identify me with the BNP. Brownedov does that, which is ironic considering that he lives in Europe's last legitimately fascist state."
I'm glad I a had the chance to look in this afternoon, if only to counter yet another jibe at me and, more worringly for your sanity, Switzerland.
What on earth can the Swiss have done to you for you to make such an accusation against the most democratic state in Europe, with probably the strongest Liberal Party? Please support your slur with some evidence or withdraw it.
Whilst it's clear that, like "Duff" Gordon, you're a British or UK nationalist, I have never suggested any connection between you and the BNP. In fact, in attempting to understand one of your less transparent posts, my #75 on the Bean counting on a political scale thread did suggest that your loyalties were confused: "In #18 you're a one-nation Tory but by #24 you're extolloing the virtues of Bliar's 2001 NuLab government and you think my #35 sugge[s]ting they're much the same is unclear!"
The more I read your comments, the more I see that you seem only to oppose self-determination and local democracy and the less I see anything positive.
Spare time will be limited for me over the next few days, but I will try to look in later to be able to respond to any reply.
Complain about this comment
292 Bluelaw
You really do jump between past and present don't you.
I think that your argument would carry more weight if you could also ascribe the apparant success of these countries to a common reason...or are you suggesting that the common reason is that that they're not English?
Complain about this comment
292 Bluelaw
You're great! Treatment of the working classes indeed. Pause to hum the Internationale. You like history but seem to prefer not to actually read any?
Nobody would suggest that the lot of the British labouring classes in the 18th and 19th Century was an easy one. Rights, in terms of suffrage and union representation were hard won. To suggest however that their Continental counterparts had it easier in terms of pay and conditions doesn't square with my knowledge of the violent protests in European capitals from 1848 to 1863 that were frequently put down at the point of a bayonet.
Even as recently as the 1920s Swedish army units killed protestors with machine gun fire (revulsion at the event has done much to cement in place the humanitarian nature of the present Swedish State).
To start out I suggest that you read Germinal (striking French miners) before making rash comments.
Complain about this comment
Comparing population numbers doesn't exactly tally to the amount of influence a country has and power isn't shared that way. How can it be tyranny of the minority if it does not have more influence than the majority.
No, not block voting, merely that the potential exists for such a circumstance. Scotland votes Labour (shudder) and the Conservatives get in at Westminster etc.
I only meant equality in actually having a say, the same as other nations do. I realise each nations's say will not carry the same weight, be the same as or equal to another's. That's quite evident. But tusseling about the bad and nasty world with a say is better than doing the same with none.
I'd gladly accept the opportunity to "take what's yours and be damned!". Better to have control over a small country than none at all, first and foremost.
Comparing population numbers doesn't exactly tally to the amount of influence a country has and power isn't shared that way. Nations of all sizes negotiate depending on more things than just population size.
I have no delusions of "international and military granduer". Just a national say would do. Isolationism doesn't have to be top of the pops either. I think we could box more cleverly than that.
I don't doubt that the rest of Britain couldn't cope if Scots get Independence. I'm sure they could figure out something.
I'm not imaging a rose-tinted world but to accept the status quo is to lie down.
Maybe you think we Scots should accept the easy ride and pipe down. Given the choice, I'd rather be in the driving seat than the baby seat.
Complain about this comment
#291
P.S. I don't disagree fundamentally with those realist arguments (states have always done this etc. etc.), I just don't think they are the be all and end all.
Complain about this comment
# 300
Oops, meant to read:
I don't doubt that the rest of Britain could cope if Scots get Independence. I'm sure they could figure out something.
Complain about this comment
#295 I'm sure one of the Unionist weasels will equally find some historical note and intepret it for their own agenda.........any what has this got to do with the beautiful game?
Complain about this comment
#291 Anglophone
- ... as the Constituional negotiations show, nobody but nobody will happily cede power or influence. It just doesn't happen in real-life.-
Definitely not a Freudian slip then? The "loss" of Scotland would not demean the remainder of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in any way? No power lost, no influence reduced?
Complain about this comment
aye_right #280 etc.
What you are eloquently articulating is the gripe that I so often hear from nationalists on this blog and elsewhere, that the wishes of the Scots are always outvoted at Westminster, so better to ditch the oppressive union. This argument is one I find personally bewildering for two reasons:
1) It makes the assumption that all Scots, male and female, rich and poor, male and female, black and white etc. etc. share the same political opinions and aspirations. That is demonstrably false just reading the posts on this blog, never mind wider experience of life. I am willing to bet good money for example that I don't vote the same way as you. If in an independent Scotland, the majority of voters in, let's say congested Edinburgh and Glasgow, vote for policies that the people in the sparsely populated Highlands don't want, should the Highlanders then demand equality of voting weight to even up the balance with the large cities? Of course not. The concept is absurd.
2) The majority of taxation is, and always has been, raised in England (that's just a fact of population numbers - please let's not muddy the water talking about oil, which in union terms is both new and transitory anyway). Many of those taxpayers in England are Scottish - and many other nationalities besides, but the MPs they vote in are of course for English seats. (Scotland by the way, despite the number of Scottish seats at Westminster eventually being reduced post devolution is still over-represented on a per capita basis compared to England, ie there are more MPs per head for Scotland than England. It could be argued therefore that Scots do have "weighted" voting power compared to their southern cousins). It is true however that there obviously are more English seats than Scottish ones, (or Welsh ones too) given population distribution how could it be else? If you buy shares in a company, your votes are counted according to the number of shares you hold, and carry a proportionate weight in decision making. Does that make it pointless being a small shareholder? No for my money. Running the UK is, and can be, no different.
I realise that some of the more passionate Nats will flame me for daring to suggest that a) the English pay more tax as a collective group, and b) that Scotland is still over-represented at Westminster. I care not, but judging from the tone of your posts you seem to be a more considered person and hope you will accept this post in the manner in which it is intended.
An open letter to others:
Independence for Scotland is a perfectly respectable political aspiration, but then so is opposing it. I do, not from any blood-pounding emotional attachment, but for perfectly rational, well-considered, pragmatic reasons, coupled with my own personal circumstances and experiences. I just wish the debate could be held without the deliberate distortion of history, the substitution of assumption for proven fact, and with less offensive name-calling on both sides. What may have been had there been no union is an obvious unknown, and I for one don't believe that Scotland would have been a tartan utopia, without poverty or disease. In fact, I believe there would have been more of both, although I know some will never agree. I am sure, however, that if I had been born with a spout I would have been a teapot!
Complain about this comment
#35 MalcolmW2
You don't share my views (!) but thanks for reading them anyway and commenting.
I don't assume that all Scots vote the same (take my own relations for a start!).
My point was that the potential exists for such an incongruity e.g. Scotland votes overwhelmingly Labour yet the Conservatives get into Westminster. That doesn't bother you?
All I'm saying is that if Scots were inclined to vote as one, those results wouldn't matter. That does bother me.
Don't shareholders each have a vote? Scots do yes, but with the problem mentioned above, but Scotland doesn't. You suggest that doesn't make us worse off.
I'm not sure running a business is such an appropriate comparison as business is about making money, while government is about society and it's wellbeing. Money is crucial, however, Kuwait is a rich country but it has its problems with population inequality. So it certainly doesn't solve all ills.
Basically I am prostituting my national say for a bonus in my pocket. I'd trade some of it to regain some semblence of a significance.
Complain about this comment
#291 Anglophone
Thanks for reading. An intersting, if rather fatalistic counter :-)
Comparing population numbers doesn't exactly tally to the amount of influence a country has and power isn't shared that way. How can it be tyranny of the minority if it does not have more influence than the majority.
No, not block voting, merely that the potential exists for such a circumstance. Scotland votes Labour (shudder) and the Conservatives get in at Westminster etc.
I only meant equality in actually having a say, the same as other nations do. I realise each nations's say will not carry the same weight, be the same as or equal to another's. That's quite evident. But tusseling about the bad and nasty world with a say is better than doing the same with none.
I'd gladly accept the opportunity to "take what's yours and be damned!". Better to have control over a small country than none at all, first and foremost.
Comparing population numbers doesn't exactly tally to the amount of influence a country has and power isn't shared that way. Nations of all sizes negotiate depending on more things than just population size.
I have no delusions of "international and military granduer". Just a national say would do. Isolationism doesn't have to be top of the pops either. I think we could box more cleverly than that.
I don't doubt that the rest of Britain couldn't cope if Scots get Independence. I'm sure they could figure out something.
I'm not imaging a rose-tinted world but to accept the status quo is to lie down.
Maybe you think we Scots should accept the easy ride and pipe down. Given the choice, I'd rather be in the driving seat than the baby seat.
Complain about this comment
I've read Germinal and Therese Raquin and Nana and many other novels by Zola.
England obviously produces more money collectively than Scotland. But Scotland receives no dividend in this regard. It's demonstrably false to assert otherwise.
Complain about this comment
#256 bluelaw
2001! I am gonna make no references to living in the past, but at least you did make the 21st century! I needn't make any references to Manchester though in what 2008 in relation to football problems?
I thought you may be talking about some recent. 2001, that was a good year actually.
And actually, only thing that gets me on this is the blah blah blah blah english blah blah blah. And a lot of it don't add up to be honest with you.
Maybe the problem stems that I compare Scotland with Northern England where as you compare it with somewhere I have no idea where it is. Even up to the South East of England you seem to have a very narrow view. And as to what us English think you totally off.
Aye_write seems to have a much more balanced arguement overall.
That just me, and yes I put my feelings on the matter, I also stated it not my place to vote in a said Independance vote, though I dare say I could if I wanted to. But it not my call, because I am English, and believe it or not, I see Scotland as a country in its own right, Union or no Union!
Complain about this comment
DavieBob_efc_
Cheers :-)
Perhaps I'd better end on that high!
From what I encounter, most relocators from England to Scotland appreciate their new life up here and seem pro-Scotland and what it has to offer them, in this area anyway!
I think it's a benefit to my area certainly, as far as enhancing the community goes. These thoughts are blunt - it's way past bedtime.
Complain about this comment
Lastly, I think if I could refine and answer the "International Question" post independence, it could strengthen the whole pro-independence argument quite considerably.
I muse that this is an area the SNP could also be stronger on.
Anglophone's common sense descriptions previously (about the dynamics of the UN and EU) I might not argue with...
...however I suspect that if s/he were inclined to bolster rather than deter the pro-independence argument, s/he would have an equally incisive "post independence international plan of action" for Scotland!
It would not surprise me if s/he already knows what that might be.
But I suppose it would counter his/er power-retaining interests to reveal it.
No offence intended there - I only wish I was half as smart.
Anyway, been nice Blethering with you all,
TTFN.
Complain about this comment
Fifa are not to be trusted, they say one thing and do another. Between now and 2012 a lot of negotiation will be needed. I hope all 4 UK teams can play, I also hope the Home Internationals can return. Speaking of which the Six Nations approaches, will it be the wooden sppon for Scotland again ;-)....
Complain about this comment
abecketts
the UK teams playing separately is a nice idea, but the tournament is 16 teams and Europe has four slots, which generally go to the semi-finalists in the last UEFA under-21 tournament. So, if the four home nations were all to obtain automatic qualification as hosts, there would be one slot for Europe. I can't imagine the rest of Europe would go for that.
This raises an interesting point. What happens if Scotland qualifies for the Olympics by getting to the semis of the U-21's in 2011? Do we accept? Does it matter if, say, England also qualify? Would the IOC accept both countries? If they do, problem solved. I never, ever thought I'd say this but...
Come on England!
Complain about this comment
#227
I regularly travel a 600 miles round trip to glasgow to support a team that is very proud of its British roots and the union jack is very much on display.
Don't hear many English accents in Govan, plenty scots and a fair few Irish.
The Union Jack is regarded by many as a symbol of Britishness in all corners of the UK.
------------------------------------------------------------
Having been born in Govan and spending the first 21 years of my life there (I'm twenty six now) and being a lifelong Rangers fan. You aren't telling me something I don't already know. Although I would argue that there are plenty English people in Glasgow. Maybe not in Govan itself though.
My point was is that it is laughable that some of the same people who think England and Britain are the same thing, who will slag off Scotland, parade a flag about that has the Scotland flag in it. It is funny to me thats all.
The same things happens with some Rangers fans. They parade the union flag about and talk about how they hate England yet in essence they are waving the England flag. Of course they will sing GSTQ and RB but will also seem to append the word b*****d to the word English most of the time but yet have no problem with the English players who have played for them in the past (Hateley, Gazza, Butcher to name a few) . It is basically the same hypocrisy that lets a football fan not be a racist toward a black player on his team but is still a racist toward black players on other teams as well as black people on the street. It just doesn't make sense.
Complain about this comment
#238
So you chuckle every time we wave the Union flag at an England game eh,
have you ever been to an England game,i'm a member of the England supporters club and we would NEVER consider flying the union flag,have a look next time we're on TV and there'll be a sea of the cross of St George,that's England.I think you people are living in a celtic dreamland to assume that we are the only ones who want a GB team,we don't,its the Scottish prime minister and media stirring this up,i'm from the peoples republic of Yorkshire and we are English 1st and always.There also seems to be an assumption on here that the English consider themselves British 1st,wrong again,we're just like the rest of the UK,we're English 1st and always will be.I would suggest that when you do hold your referendum for independence you include us in it then you'll definitely win,we wouldn't mind an independence referendum down here but we've as much chance of getting that as we have an English parliament.Now where's my Argentina shirt.
--------------------------------------------------------
DUMMY THROWN OUT OF PRAM ALERT!!!!
You have to love the "you people" line. Classic!
--------------------------------------------------------
Can you even read? Judging by your response I think not. I was saying I find it amusing when the camera zooms into an england fan waving a union flag while shouting Engerland. If you cannot understand the hypocristy of this then there is little hope for you in this world my English not British friend.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS