I apologise for the length of this. (No vulgar jokes please).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sire-Chris
Would it not? If all the segments of the UK were represented and the winner was the UK team? How odd.?
|
Not odd at all. It wouldn't be a UK team, but the winning team of a UK tournament, which is slightly different. And despite being a fan of Scottish sport, I'm not naive enough to think Scotland is going to win very often... of course it's not. Guess who will? Scots love winning, but it doesn't happen often enough, and the fun is supporting the team through thick and thin.
But there is one other very simple reason I don't want a UK team... I don't want a UK.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sire-Chris
As for devolution, not only is it a seperate argument, but the very fact of the matter is, you have it. You have your very own governing body. Im glad you took the time to measure the brain patterns of those who granted it, I didnt have the time to do that myself.
|
I didn't "measure their brainwaves" either. Devolution is not an entirely separate matter. Here comes the screed.
Consider that devolution was proposed by the Liberals in the 1860s in Westminster, and failed. Further Liberal governments didn't introduce it after then. Devolution was then mooted by the Labour party before elections, and ditched shortly after, if they won... and then it was only 1979 that a referendum came round, because of an emergency meeting of Scottish Labour, thanks to dramatic inroads made into the Labour vote by the SNP (especially in Tam Dalyell's constituency). Then the referendum was ignored on turnout, and they acted as if the non-voters voted "no" (they actually just didn't vote, but that's not the same, and doesn't affect European elections with turnouts of 30% or so). Then Margaret Thatcher's Tories claim that they'd support Scottish devolution pre-election, and never do. Thatcher is in for years, and Labour is in charge of Scottish local government but powerless. So, reluctantly, Tony Blair brings in referenda in Scotland and Wales, to counter another set of Opposition-wilderness years, in the knowledge that the Tories have little power in those countries. In private, Tony Blair says he didn't particularly support devolution. The referenda got held because of Maggie Thatcher, not because of the will of the Scottish people particularly. The will drove them through, but did not cause them to begin with.
Why are the sporting bodies like devolution? Because they have autonomy, and are not pan-UK bodies. Westminster's like a UK football team too. In theory, Scottish players can join in. But they're outnumbered by the numbers of rest of the team, who either ignore them, or vote them down. And guess who controls the ball. A UK team will be used to get rid of Scottish and Welsh teams, and promote the English team ueber alles, which will be then used to sideline the Scots and the Welsh. If you have a mixed team, then Scots and Welsh will be mostly ignored too, except for the likes of Ryan Giggs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sire-Chris
So answer this. For what possible reason would anyone undermine your sporting body?
|
I would suggest you ask why the English Rowing Association changed its name to the British Rowing Association and never bothered to ask the other national bodies. There are plenty of other examples.
The British Lions are another example. Are four Scots on a squad of forty four really proportionate and fair representation? Scottish rugby is bad, but not that bad. With football it would be even worse. The British lions even have the English lion on their shirt. Quite clearly so.
5th December 2005, 10:27
Linear Mode
Algeria
Bangladesh
Ecuador
Morocco
Nepal
Nicaragua
Puerto Rico
South Africa
Ukraine
Virtual Countries
