This is a family show, so the word in the title is “rubbish”. But the sentiment is something which, coincidentally, also rhymes with rubbish…
Look, don’t get me wrong – I’m as patriotic as the next Scotsman (though how you measure this, I’m not sure). I want the best for my nation, Flower of Scotland makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up and I scream bloody murder at Scottish sporting failure. Are those credentials evidence of patriotism? If not, what is? I’ve lived here – with the exception of one Masters year – all my life. When I’ve worked – sparingly, since I’m a semi-permanent student – I’ve worked here. Are those essential for patriotism? I also think we should be independent – is that important? Or can you be a patriot and a Unionist (I think yes, but I’m trying to build a case for myself here).
So, all that said, patriotism evidenced… I still think its an utterly lamentable state of affairs I’ve found myself born into. Scottish? Be damned for eternity. That seems to have been the future which fate decided for us long ago.
I’m a big sports fan – and those of you who follow me on Twitter will recognise all the frustrations that particular vice brings me. But I’m not alone, and plenty of our population of 5 million join me in despair every time Scotland take to the field at football or rugby, watching in a masochistic orgy of expectation followed by crushing despair as we continually snatch cruel defeat from the jaws of victory, finding new ways to shoot ourselves in the foot along the way. Oftentimes we’ll blame others – the referee in both the Scotland v Czech Republic football match and Scotland v Argentina rugby match rightfully got pelters for terrible decisions which changed the shape of those matches – but the truth is, if we were good enough, we’d win. That we don’t is disappointing, but hardly surprising.
Sure, we’ve historically been decent – good even. We’ve qualified for tournaments and won Grand Slams. We’ve done better in other sports too – with frequent World Champions in snooker, major champions in golf – until the rest of the world were invited to play, then we fell down the pecking order. We’ve been World Champions in elephant polo (and just where in Scotland do they train?!) and we won the Homeless Football World Cup. And while the latter is a terrific achievement, it surely points to the fact that, as a nation, we’ve bigger problems than our lack of sporting prowess.
And that’s a fact. Although I’ve styled this as a rant about how rubbish we are at sport – or rather, how the story of glorious failure is always the same – its a symptom of a wider problem: the Scottish malaise.
This is a characteristic which epitomises Scotland (and is evidenced in the title of this post). We’re constantly down on ourselves. We have a level of expectation which, in many cases, cannot be matched by our ability. Its logical extension is the “too wee, too poor” argument against independence. On the flip side of that, those arguing for independence do what we do in sport, and blame others. “We’d be a much better place if only we were allowed to be independent” is the rallying call, as if independence is the silver bullet for all of Scotland’s troubles. Its not.
Politically, we’ve been here before – standing on the edge, ready to take a leap on something which would hopefully help to change Scottish society for the better. 1979, 1992 – opportunities to take a chance with a new institution and a new government ready to deliver such an institution. But then the Scottish mentality takes over, the fear of our own ability, the opportunity to blame someone else for our failures would disappear, and we’d be left with no one to blame but ourselves.
The constitutional debate – as it has been heavily featured on Better Nation this week – needs widened. Its not just about who governs us from where and why one form of governance is better than another. Its about big ideas for Scotland. How, to put this in the context of this blog’s founding, do we make this a Better Nation? If its independence, why will that be better? How will society as a whole benefit – what will our politicians do to ensure that being free to make our own decisions makes things better for that wider society? Similarly, if we want to stay in the Union, and countless many do, why is that better? What does the Union bring that we can’t do better here – by ourselves?
I started this post talking about sport, and I think its important to note its role in identity building. When a team is on the up, it gives a nation confidence – plenty of Welsh folk assured me that, had their referendum been in a year when Wales won a Grand Slam, the margin of victory would have been much more than the slender 6,721 votes that it was. Equally, when we do badly, the nation slumps – and some argue that the failure of Ally’s Army in 1978 had an impact on the 1979 referendum. Perhaps sporting success provides a confidence to the nation, extending into other areas of society. Perhaps the conviction that we can be good at something helps to motivate the populace into productivity. Perhaps a referendum at the moment would confirm that theory – or blow it out of the water.
“We’re shite and we know we are” is a chant heard regularly in the stadiums of perennial relegation candidates. Maybe if we should look no further for a new national anthem. Unfortunately, all it would serve to do would be to help us meet rather than surpass expectations.
#1 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 1, 2011 - 10:28 pm
Well gee, thats a bit melancholy.
The primary problem here your level of expectation (in terms of sporting performance). It is so high that it can never be met.
Our sporting performance is limited by a number of things – primarily the slow death of sport & sporting activity available to and undertaken children. Have you tried having a kickabout in a street these days? Or any ball hame? Umpteen neighbours complain if a single petal on one of their flowers in their precious gardens gets hit by a ball.
And if a group of kids walks to the park it is likely to been seen as a prelude to anti-social behaviour as opposed to the good-natured 20-a-side kickabout/mini riots I played in my youth.
And the number of hoops that parents need to jump through to even get close to coaching kids in any sporting activity put off many. And have you seen the cost of the coaching badges in Scotland? Of course persuading kids to run around in the rain is harder when they are not bored as they have PCs & consoles to play with instead.
I dont expect anything when it comes to sporting success so am always pleasantly surprised when we get a positive result. I find life is much easier that way (and frankly I dont understand anyone who thinks we are going to get the win anyway – we have fewer players, even fewer world-class players and the last time we did have a track record in these sports was when the players had grown up in the 70s and early 80s when childhood was different).
But I have to disagree with you about the Scottish malaise. I actually think it is receding at a rate of knots. The cry is not so much we will be better as an independent nation but instead I detect a much more refined “let us try stand on our own two feet because if we fail it will at least be our own failure”.
#2 by Richard on October 2, 2011 - 5:31 pm
Douglas – I agree with every word, especially the last paragraph.
I think Malc needs to take a deep breath (or 5) between any sporting event and posting here, lest his view is uncharacteristically distorted!
#3 by Jeff on October 2, 2011 - 6:05 pm
To be fair to Malc, he wrote this post well before the England game even kicked off (though how soon it was to the end of the Argentina game I’m not sure!)
#4 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 2:47 pm
This was written on Wednesday. I’m not an unthinking, post-first, think-later blogger. At least, I hope I’m not.
#5 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 2:49 pm
Douglas – I agree with your first point, to an extent. Sporting performance is entirely limited by a lack of availability.
And I don’t think I can ever be described as expectant. Ask Jeff – the amount of times I’ve watched matches with him where he’s been the optimist and I’m the guy who says we’ll get whacked 5-0. Seriously – I’m a pessimist.
I do think we have a tendency to blame others though.
#6 by Craig Gallagher on October 2, 2011 - 12:49 am
Had you posted this in April of this year Malc, I would have agreed with you. As much as I laud Scotland as a wonderful country and its people as chipper as any around, I have always felt a secret heartbreak at our spectacular ability to do ourselves down and our hesitation – even condemnation – about getting too big for our boots. Whether in sports, politics or just culturally, the malaise you mention harks back to a form of Calvinist self-flagellation that other nations just don’t seem to take as seriously as we do. Historically, the Dutch have been just as Calvinist, just as spartan, yet they remain one of the pioneer nations in the world in so many areas.
After May, though, I’m not so sure. I well remember the wide-eyed incredulity I felt that day as I watched Scotland finally – for the first time in my life – make a definitive statement about what we want to be as a nation. Whatever you think of the SNP – and as a member, I think very highly of them – I think it’s impossible to deny that their election was a paradigm shift. Yes, independence blah blah blah, but it was also a wholesale rejection of the argument that Scotland IS too wee, too poor and too stupid, and guilty always of overreaching itself. That’s the line the Labour party spun and the Coalition forced on us and I think explains why so many voted SNP when they have have before. They were so much a positive alternative as to be irresistable.
(A special mention for the Greens here, who I think also fought a positive campaign but were ultimately brought short by the Nationalist surge – no fault of their own).
Anyway, this is all to say that I don’t feel quite the sense of heartbreak I used to. Scotland stood up for itself on May 6th and delivered a damning indictment to those who would talk us down. Whether you interpret that as a protest vote or a genuine urge for a better society, we are the national talking point these days. In many ways, we are setting the agenda. And that was the choice we made.
#7 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 2:51 pm
People voted for a positive vision on May 6 that much is true. But here’s the expectation versus ability to deliver thing again: can the party of government deliver it? Or were they returned simply because no one else had anything positive to offer?
#8 by Barbarian on October 2, 2011 - 1:13 am
I don’t believe that there is a Scottish malaise, another invention by ultra-nationalists to go with their Scottish cringe.
You’ve summed it up: it’s everyone else’s fault and once we are independent everything will be great.
The truth of the matter is that little will change, apart from the oft-rolled out phrase “we will be masters of our destiny”.
Well, not really. We will be able to elect our leadership, but with politics all about show it’s down to who makes the best impression.
There is plenty to be positive about Scotland. What riles me is that anytime something is wrong: our health, our sporting disasters, our job losses: it’s the fault of the Union.
This negativity just might be what is holding independence back, and it comes more from nationalists than unionists.
It’s about time the message was positive (and realistic). The SNP has to tell the electorate exactly what they will do, what really will change and how that will affect the average person.
#9 by Roll on Sausage on October 2, 2011 - 12:24 pm
What riles me is the Unionist argument is that all that is good about Scotland comes from its membership of the Union, the financial aid we receive from taxpayers in the other countries of the Union. That is such a relentlessly positive argument, I don’t think. A far more widespread argument in Unionist orthodoxy than any “negative” nationalist equivalents.
Oh, and that Scottish cringe, was given its greatest credence and articulation back in 2004 by that well-known ultra-nationalist, Jack McConnell.
#10 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 2:52 pm
I’m not an ultra-nationalist of any stripe. But other than that, I agree – make a positive case about our constitutional future, someone, please.
#11 by Indy on October 2, 2011 - 9:00 am
I am trying to think of what sentiment you could be expressing that rhymes with rubbish. Indeed I am trying to think of any word that rhymes with rubbish. You have set us a conundrum there.
I think you miss the whole point of independence.
You say we need Big Ideas but what you don’t say is that we can only have Big Ideas provided the area we have the Big Idea about is devolved. So you start off constrained. That is not a good position to start from when you are wanting to have some Big Ideas. Especially since the Big Ideas that will be coming from the people who are in charge of the economy & Scotland’s role in the wider world are pretty much guaranteed to be diametrically opposed to what most Scots want.
Independence is a magic bullet. It is not a magic wand – it will not, at one sweep, solve all of Scotland’s problems, but it will give the Scottish Government and Parliament the same decision making powers as most other countries. Is there any guarantee that whatever government the Scottish people elect will use those powers wisely? No. But that is the same the world over. What is so special about us that we want to have some guarantees about what the future will bring with independence when no-one else gets a guarantee?
Maybe it is the same rather childish mentality that thinks it is somehow unfair that Scotland gets beaten by other countries at sport. Why do people imagine we ought to win? And why do they think it’s important anyway? It is only a game. It doesn’t really matter. It certainly isn’t a substitute for nationhood.
I would suggest in fact that Scotland might become rather better at sport if people started caring about it less.
#12 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 2:58 pm
“You miss the whole point of independence”.
That old chestnut again. What a wonderful country we’re going to build if everyone who questions the ability of independence to make big changes to society is told they “don’t understand”.
“I would suggest in fact that Scotland might become rather better at sport if people started caring about it less.”
Forgive me, but that’s patently ridiculous. We’ll get better at things if we simply ignore them? Please. Does that work for politics too? Maybe people will stop being poor if we care about them less?
#13 by Indy on October 4, 2011 - 8:02 am
Do you really think it is patently ridiculous?
I don’t.
I don’t really watch rugby or indeed football but I have watched Andy Murray’s career from the start and the burden of expectation that has been placed on his shoulders is ridiculous. And it’s got to affect him.
There are enough pressures on athletes to perform – add in some weird we have to win to prove ourselves but we won’t because we’re doomed mantra on top of that and what effect do you think that has on players or do you think they are immune from it?
Stop that crap and they might just get better.
#14 by Malc on October 4, 2011 - 10:25 pm
If we stop watching rugby or football we stop going to the matches, meaning the teams don’t have any money, therefore they can’t spend it developing talent, meaning far from getting better, they in fact get worse. That’s where your logic fails. Take away the interest and we take away any chance of the teams improving.
Of course I accept that interest brings with it added pressure. But at the top levels of any profession, expectation of improved performance increases as well. Its part of life.
#15 by Indy on October 4, 2011 - 10:44 pm
I’m not saying stop watching it, I’m saying the whole we’re going to win oh no we’re doomed mantra could be a self-fulfilling prophesy. If fans eased up a bit surely it would take some of the pressure off the athletes. As I said there enough pressures on them in terms of individual performance. Why tell them they are carrying the whole weight of a nation’s hopes on their shoulders as well?
#16 by Malc on October 4, 2011 - 10:49 pm
I get that with Andy Murray, but its hardly like I’m doing the same with football/rugby teams. If you ask Jeff, he’ll tell you its pretty rare I have anything positive to say about Scottish football or rugby. I’d never say they’ve the hopes of the nation. Nevertheless, I take your point a bit. But you did say that if we were to “care about it less”. If you care about it less, you’re hardly likely to go watch it though, are you? Which was my point.
#17 by Indy on October 4, 2011 - 12:46 pm
With regards to your comments about independence at the risk of getting a cyber-slapping you still don’t get it.
I would draw your attention to two recent articles that kind of illustrate why independence is itself the Big Idea, indeed the only really big idea in Scottish politics at present.
The first one is in today’s Scotsman titled “New Holyrood powers will be meaningless†and relates very much to what the Burd is talking about in her post today. Martin Sime, the head honcho at SCVO (and not a nationalist) is quoted as saying “”Aspects of reserved powers can, and are, being used in ways which impinge on the ability of Scottish ministers to exercise devolved powers.”
The Burd is spot on in what she says about the Coalition welfare policy which is, on the face of it, in some respects quite reasonable but, underneath, is a brutal and absolutely ruthless cost-cutting exercise. So here’s a Big Idea on that one. How about we say no? And here is an even bigger idea, how about we don’t give the Tories room to try and impose these policies on Scotland in the first place?
The second article, which I came across simply because someone posted it on facebook, is about a paper written by Sir John Elvidge published in the Guardian titled “Lessons from Scotland on streamlining governmentâ€. As you probably know Sir John was the head of the civil service in Scotland during the first SNP administration but something tells me he is probably not a card carrying SNP member.
He has subsequently written a paper about the changes that were put in place when the SNP came to power. It is a model he is recommending to the rest of the UK and is based essentially on “aligning the entire Scottish public sector around a single framework of national purpose that would be tracked and measured.â€
So here is another Big Idea for you. How about a Scottish Government which has the power to align every single policy area around a single framework of national purpose – not simply those areas which are devolved?
Is there actually a bigger idea than that in terms of how a government operates?
#18 by Jeff on October 4, 2011 - 1:33 pm
That’s a very good comment indeed.
Shame it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker though as not many people will have read either article.
#19 by Malc on October 4, 2011 - 10:05 pm
Of course I don’t understand independence Indy. I’m only into the third year of my PhD examining the constitutional settlement in Scotland & Wales. Maybe they’ll cover that in fourth year… If they don’t, can you keep giving me lessons?
Seriously though. I made the point that independence isn’t a silver bullet – yes, it gives us the opportunity to make decisions for ourselves. Fine, I don’t argue with that, that’s what it means.
The point I was trying to make is that we don’t know whether that will make Scotland a “Better Nation” or not. The point is that a bad decision is a bad decision, whether it is made in London or Edinburgh (or Brussels for that matter). Where are the big ideas for what we do WITH independence?!
#20 by Indy on October 4, 2011 - 10:48 pm
Yes but Malc no country in the world knows whether having the opportunity to make decisions for themselves will make their country better or not.
But do you see any of them asking someone else to take the decisions for them?
As an individual you don’t know that the decisions that you will take about your own life are going to be right. But does that mean you would give someone else power of attorney to take them for you?
#21 by Malc on October 4, 2011 - 10:52 pm
We’re going round in circles again. I don’t propose to have the same argument with you again.
#22 by Indy on October 5, 2011 - 6:25 am
OK but here is something to think about. In many years of canvassing people and asking them about whether they might vote for indepedence I have heard all the cliched responses from Scottish people – could we really afford to be independent, could we manage if we were independent, would we survive if we were independent. Seriously – people actually ask could we survive if we were independent.
But when I have canvassed people from an Asian background or a refugee background I have never heard that. Not one single time. And they generally think it is a good idea.
And that’s interesting because someone who is a refugee, for example, comes from a country which has by definition gone hideously wrong. If anybody could be expected to say well hold on a minute, you need to think about whether independence is such a good idea because things can go tits up very easily, you need to be absolutely sure of what would happen instead of just blindly relying on people in Scotland to vote sensibly and take the right decisions in future, surely it would be them? But they don’t say that.
So what is it that makes some Scottish people fear independence so much when other people don’t? It’s almost like a prisoner fearing their release day. I’m not saying that being in the Union is like being in prison but the mentality is similar. When you are in prison someone else takes all your decisions for you and maybe some people find that easier and as the day approaches where they have to start taking decisions for themselves it scares them because they don’t think they can handle the responsibility.
Now I don’t think that the fact that some people feel that way means that Scotland is rubbish – and fewer and fewer people feel that way anyway, despite the best efforts of opposition parties and the valant Scottish press corps to make them believe that being born Scottish makes us less capable of self government than everybody else in the world. But something in our culture, the thing that makes some people believe that we could not actually survive if we ran our own country, is rubbish and I think you can guess what I see as the solution.
#23 by Malc on October 5, 2011 - 8:43 am
Right. I do get what you are saying – not least because you’ve now said it about 5 times in various different ways (you should give Ed Miliband tips by the way – he just says the same thing the same way over and over). And I understand it. You think the ability for us to make decisions for ourselves will make Scotland better. Believe it or not, I happen to agree. I do think being independent will bring with it a change in Scottish psyche, and a feeling of bigger responsibility – I guess your prison simile is apt.
What I’m asking though, is what next? You’re smart enough to know independence isn’t the answer to everything. It won’t stop us from having a distinct lack in social housing, or NHS waiting lists, or funding shortfalls in higher education – or our sports teams from being rubbish. And I know it will obviously be up to future independent Scottish governments to decide on policy directions etc. But surely you too must recognise that, as I said, a bad policy is a bad policy, whatever its origins? Whether its PM Cameron or FM Murdo Fraser (ha!) who passes legislation saying we’ll never build more social housing… that’s going to make Scotland a worse nation rather than a better one, right? That’s not going to happen, but you see the point?
So, I’m asking this. What can we do with independence to improve some of these things. I’m really asking. Constitutionally, great – it unlocks doors previously unopen to us. What are we going to do? Because if we have the powers, and it makes Scotland worse, what’s the point? THAT’S what I’ve been trying to get an answer to.
Look, I know independent countries don’t go back if it doesn’t work out – and I’m not saying it won’t. I’m just asking – how do we make the place better when we get the powers? That’s what is missing from the independence debate currently: a vision for improvement. I know the SNP want to keep it as vague as possible to attract as much support. But what do you think? How could an independent government really make a difference to Scots? In what policy areas in particular?
#24 by Alwyn ap Huw on October 2, 2011 - 9:51 am
Don’t be disheartened, you could have been born Welsh!
The last time, the only time, that Wales qualified for a Soccer World Cup was in 1958 – and we only got in then because Israel and Palestine had been drawn to play each other so both jibed out! We never had enough elephants to take part in the elephant polo competition, and on top of that we are the only bit of these islands that still has a Labour government.
So count your blessings!
#25 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 2:59 pm
In true Facebook style, “Malc likes this”.
Its true, we should compare ourselves to others and count our blessings. We should look to places like Somalia or Libya, and then consider how great it is to be Scottish. But we don’t.
#26 by M G on October 2, 2011 - 12:13 pm
In the 50’s my Dad was Dux of a rural school.He was then sent to ‘The Academy’where he got into a debate with a teacher regarding latin. Dad refused to study it and the teacher refused to accept Dads reason for not studying it. Dads argument was, in the life he perceived he would be living ,he would not require latin . He came from a rural life, the family lived in a tied house on a farm,there was no money and the accepted view wasDad (despite his potential ) would be a farm labourer ,the same as his Dad, Grandad etc.Any earnings would help sustain the family- that was the norm.
The teacher maintained , through understanding latin, Dads life would be enriched, opening doors to other ways of thinking.
My point is,its not rubbish being Scottish (although you don’t say compared to who ), but 50 years ago, it was one way of life or the other, today,we have the opportunity to say to future generations, you can have access to education (no tuition fees) , there is opportunity despite the background not because of it.
Dad then got sent off for his national service. Again, we need the opportunity to say why and what our foreign policies are
The other big drawback was and still is .an almost societal self regulating unspoken code. You can’t do that, or no one in our familys done that, or your getting too big for your boots (I don;t know how else to describe it ). We need to give future generations some kind of belief that ,they are worth something,valued, not just this is the unspoken path laid out for you.
As I look at decisions being taken at Westminster ,the path they are taking is at odds to what I would like for my kids,be that discredited foreign policy or the esteem ‘the city ‘ was held in as an aspiration.
I would like to think we’ve moved on from the 50’s but in my view in all honesty,has the politics of the union?
#27 by Andrew BOD on October 2, 2011 - 1:03 pm
In a sporting context it’s very hard for us to look at ourselves objectively. Perhaps we should listen to opinion about us from a similar-sized nation. Maybe we’d learn something from that.
We seem to be more passionate about national sport than many nations, perhaps because it gives us the opportunity to be successful as a nation against other fully independent nations like we are trying to prove something, or perhaps it’s the one time when Unionists and Nationalists, Protestants and Catholics, East Coasters and West Coasters, Highlanders and Lowlanders, actually come together. There’s a greater feeling of unity, and it actually feels good. And when that unity is dashed by defeat, we revert back to type.
And because of this disunity, which stretches back to the wars of Independence and throughout history to this present day, we seem to be incapable of working together to improve anything. I mean let’s face it: all of the political parties in Scotland are pretty close to the centre ground, yet the minor details of any argument lead to an immovable entrenchment. In other countries where a PR system of voting is in place, you can regularly see socialists or right wingers ‘compromising’ with centrists.
Perhaps the people of Scotland recognise this; perhaps they are fed up of it and maybe that’s one of the reasons they voted for the SNP in greater numbers last May. Maybe they want Scotland to move forward and achieve things which are not possible when policies end in stalemate. I’m not sure and it’s really just a theory, but it’s probably one of the reasons why I voted SNP.
Getting back to where I started: we’re probably pretty average as a nation in terms of sporting prowess, but if we really want to excel at football or rugby or whatever, we need to work together and AGREE radical solutions to achieve this. New Zealand are a similar-sized nation to Scotland, yet we all know they excel in one particular sport. Do our politicians and society leaders have the bottle to work together to get this nation to excel in a popular national sport? Do we?
#28 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 2, 2011 - 4:17 pm
No we dont have the bottle because so many beholden to the idea that “they got money & support why dont we” and the much worse “everybody and every interest group deserves all the money they ask for”. Every sport in Scotland has access to a pot of public money (not saying its a lot or easy to get but its there).
The pots of money available for cultural and sporting development are spread so thin that it is hard to get the structures in place to enhance elite performance. And by definition that elite performance will only be achieved by an handful of sportspeople so the egalitarianism that so many feel is a key aspect of Scottish-ness will have to be ditched. Andy Murray & Chris Hoy were both trained outside Scotland at elite centres concentrating on the very best. I think that is something to consider.
#29 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 3:01 pm
Fair point about Messrs. Murray & Hoy. Also, some of Scotland’s best rugby players improved because they went to the English Premiership or the French league. Its structural.
#30 by Observer on October 2, 2011 - 1:13 pm
Perhaps people shouldn’t make posts immediately after watching their team lose?
I think Scotland is a fairly positive place at the moment.
#31 by Jeff on October 2, 2011 - 6:09 pm
Again, worth noting that Malc wrote this before the England game kicked off.
#32 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 3:02 pm
Do you mean as a society or in sporting terms? Either way, I’m not convinced.
#33 by Jeff on October 2, 2011 - 6:14 pm
I’ll be honest, I initially thought this was a way too negative post until I realised you were linking it to the expectations game over independence and I ended up fully agreeing with what you’re saying Malc.
It is tricky to judge the Scottish mentality against other nations’ mentalities but my own contribution is this – I was watching a Swedish World Cup qualification game with a group of Swedes. I think it was against someone of the ilk of Macedonia/Lithuania and the group was precariously perched with Portugal/Hungary well placed to take 1st and 2nd. The Swedes watching this game had the constant belief that ‘we’ll qualify, we always do’ which of course is the mirror opposite of Scotland’s ‘we won’t qualify, we never do’.
Sweden didn’t end up qualifying in the end but I can’t help but think that if the team and even the fans had the same positive expectations, then they would be more likely to do so.
And that can, and hopefully will be, applied to Scots in their day to day business and, to be fair, it does seem to be coming through with the SNP’s relentless positivity being rewarded at the polls.
#34 by Craig Gallagher on October 3, 2011 - 1:45 am
Plus, the way the team’s been playing lately, even if we don’t qualify for the Euros this time around, we’ll have a pretty decent shot of qualifying for Brazil 2014. There are a hell of a lot more creative players available to Scotland than there were even at the start of the campaign, which is to Levein’s credit for resourcing/using them.
I think we might be pushing it to make Poland/Ukraine 2012 but we can face the WC Qualifiers with optimism, I think. The group isn’t insurmountable.
#35 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 3:08 pm
Craig – ?????
We’ve 2 matches to go in Euro 2012 qualifying, in Liechtenstein & Spain. We needed a 97th MINUTE winner against the minnows at home to beat them, and they also beat Lithuania – what makes you think we’ll win that? And even if we do, we’ve got to beat the World Champions and hope the Czechs slip up. Unlikely doesn’t cover it.
And as for Brazil 2014 – Wales have world class players who light up the Premiership every week (Ramsay, Bale, Bellamy). Despite being ranked last, they’ll be a big problem for us. And Croatia & Serbia? Which of those are we going to surpass for second?
Expectation is one thing – but there’s a limit.
#36 by Colin on October 4, 2011 - 12:30 pm
We don’t need to beat Spain. If the Czech Republic lose to Spain and Lithuania, a win in Liechtenstein would put us on 11 points and them on 10. “Unlikely” is exactly the right word.
#37 by Jeff on October 4, 2011 - 1:32 pm
So, assuming Spain complete an easy 100% clean sweep, all we’re really relying on is Lithuania beating the Czech Republic at home, even though they have already beaten them in Prague?
Rather than “unlikely”, I’d say we’re as good as through….!
#38 by theshooglypeg on October 2, 2011 - 9:56 pm
I agree with Indy: the key question here is not whether we are pants at sport, whether we ought to be independent, or whether the two issues are related. The key question is, what on earth rhymes with rubbish?
#39 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 3:08 pm
Artistic licence and a half-rhyme means “pish” rhymes with “rubbish”.
#40 by Colin on October 4, 2011 - 3:29 pm
I thought this was a family show.
#41 by Jeff on October 4, 2011 - 7:14 pm
Sluggish and punish ‘kind of’ rhyme.
Rather appropriate too, if you’re a glass empty Scotland supporter that is. e.g. We shall be sluggish in Madrid and Spain shall punish us.
I think we’ll whoop them 3-0 personally but then I have unlimited reserves of optimism.
#42 by Malc on October 4, 2011 - 9:44 pm
Money where your mouth is Jeff. I’ll take a tenner off you if we don’t win 3-0, and will pay you the same if we do.
#43 by Jeff on October 4, 2011 - 10:18 pm
I get better odds on Betfred. I’ll go with that instead (honest).
#44 by Malc on October 4, 2011 - 9:43 pm
They asked.
#45 by Niall on October 3, 2011 - 1:00 pm
When watching sport its is rubbish being Scottish, fact! Even when James McFadden single handedly beat the French we still went and lost to Georgia away.
It’s great being Scottish most the time, but when it comes to sport it is 80/90 minutes of torture!
#46 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 3:09 pm
Exactly my point(ish).
#47 by setindarkness on October 3, 2011 - 8:44 pm
I’d just like to applaud the commentators and Malc for no one bringing up the Murray winning = British losing = Scottish trope in a sporting / independence debate.
Football wise – I think Scotland are in a downward part of a cycle, but it is combined with a long long tailing off from the benefits of being part of Britain (Home Nations/ Scottish players in the English 1st Div) and an even longer tailing off of being part of the birth of football. That, and a terribly noncompetitive top flight.
Rugby – no excuses – learn how to score some tries !
#48 by Malc on October 3, 2011 - 10:00 pm
I wasn’t going to mention the Murray thing related to a political debate… but I did note the BBC website banner led “Britain’s Andy Murray wins Thailand Open”. It does drive me nuts that the Beeb change his nationality to suit their ends though.
In rugby – 3 matches & no tries is poor. Only Georgia & Romania scored fewer than us at the World Cup. Its just not good enough.
#49 by Doug Daniel on October 4, 2011 - 12:16 am
I would say “well, at least they tried”, but as you’ve pointed out already, they didn’t.
#50 by Indy on October 5, 2011 - 9:06 am
Well Ok but if you take the example of social housing we all know what has caused that problem – Right to Buy, which reduced the stock of available housing and exacerbated the housing debt to such an extent that councils stopped building houses. And the opposition parties in Scotland at the time predicted that and opposed right to buy for that reason. So, had Scotland been independent, it wouldn’t have happened because there was no majority political support for it. An independent Scottish Government may have screwed up in other ways of course, but not in that particular way. So that’s an example of a legacy we are dealing with because of Westminster rule. And it is being dealt with – right to buy has been abolished, councils are now building again. If we were independent we would also have the ability to write off the remaining housing debt (as has been done for councils like Glasgow where the housing stock was transferred) which would increase the level of investment that local authorities could make and a government with borrowing powers would be able to lever in additional investment as well, which would help buoy up the construction industry as well as building more houses.
#51 by Malc on October 5, 2011 - 10:48 am
Indy – that’s history. We’re all aware that there were decisions made by Westminster which were detrimental to Scotland. That’s not really disputed. That it wouldn’t have happened in an independent Scotland, given the opposition by majority Scottish parties, is also not disputed. That’s one – I guess, rather badly chosen by me – example. And I did say what I suggested wasn’t going to happen.
But by focusing on that, you didn’t answer my question.
Which policy areas in particular do YOU think an independent Scottish government could make significant improvements to the lives of ordinary Scots?
#52 by Indy on October 6, 2011 - 5:43 pm
Well the answer is all of them for the simple reason that the government will be elected by and accountable to ordinary Scots – and only to ordinary Scots.
Now it could be that ordinary Scots get it spectacularly wrong on some things. That’s quite possible.
But we would never end up in a situation such as yesterday’s debate in the Scottish Parliament which was just so depressing because, as the Burd wrote, some awful things are going to happen that would never happen if it was up to a Scottish Government of any hue because they wouldn’t be elected with an agenda like that. Yet even if the parliament does refuse a sewel motion it won’t stop it, it will just kick of a cycle of protest which is futile and pointless and won’t get us anywhere.
That’s a negative reason for supporting independence if you like – I don’t want us to have to be in that position in the future because we’ve been in that position so often in the past.
I want our Government to stop being powerless and bystanders in decisions which affect the lives of the people they are accountable to. If the welfare system needs to be reformed – which it cerainly does – we should be able to reform it, we shouldn’t have it done in a way which the vast majority of MSPs disagree with but are powerless to prevent. And the same applies to every area of policy.
#53 by Malc on October 6, 2011 - 8:01 pm
I understand that you are unconditionally in favour of independence. That’s taken as read now (mainly since you’ve been saying it for a year).
My question was one policy area – but I guess I’m not going to get an answer. Can you tell me one thing you’d like to see an independent Scottish Government do that would improve people’s lives? Can be as big or small as you like. Just one thing, one policy?
#54 by Una on October 5, 2011 - 9:12 pm
Well done on trying to open the debate up Malc. I’m already bored of the bickering about mechanisms – the tired old ‘unionist/nationalist’ name-calling. We need a far broader discussion about what kind of nation we want to be. But as for the rugby – well I’d like a mature Scotland with less importance given to the results of silly ball games played (mainly) by boys, please!
#55 by Malc on October 5, 2011 - 9:36 pm
Pessimistic Malc is on the go tonight – and I’d suggest that you’ve more chance of us forgetting about sport than you have of a nice grown up debate about Scotland’s future direction. Though neither is particularly likely.
The “it’s rubbish” bit was intended to draw out why people think its great to be Scottish, or why it perhaps not great at the moment, but how it could be better. But all people wanted to do was call me out for being negative and depressed ‘cos my team are rubbish at sports. Therein, I’d suggest, is part of the problem – we’re quite happy (to use a sporting metaphor) to play the man and not the ball: we’d rather shoot the messenger than engage in real debate. And that’s no way to conduct a constitutional debate in my view.
So yes, I guess (to use another sporting metaphor) it was a swing and a miss on my part…