Scots should have an obligation to support England at sporting events.

[groovy]

Discuss.

[hr]

Remember now, there's a big difference between kneeling down and BENDING OVER!

[turnblad]

Quoting groovy from 16:55, 21st Oct 2007
Discuss.

[hr]

Remember now, there's a big difference between kneeling down and BENDING OVER!

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody should have an obligation to support anyone at any sporting event.

[hr]

The purpose of life is to die. So everyone should eat pie.

[DrAlex]

Perhaps:

Scots shouldn't route for a team just because they are playing England.

[hr]

The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

[munchingfoo]

Why not?

Surely anyone has the right to support which ever team they chose?


Would you suggest that an Englishman should not be allowed to support a team playing England? Granted such a person would be rare but I would wager that one exists somewhere who would rather the away team won. Perhaps someone who is annoyed at the manner in which (a small minority) their home fans behave?


Do you not also find it more exciting when supporters of both teams are in a venue? I would rather have people supporting the opposition, be they from that nation or not, than sit in a pub of only one team's support. Since Scotland and England do have different teams, it would seem more sensible (as a method of ensuring supporters for both sides) for each nation to support the others opposition.


Still, I support England in every game they play, excluding against Scotland/Wales/N.I., and it pisses me off when people suggest that all Scots support the English opposition.


Hmm - perhaps I contradict myself there. My point was to show that

A) Not all Scots support the opposition of England

And

B) So what if they do?

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[WashingtonIrving]

I freely admit I never/rarely support England at rugby or football, as most Scots will say when asked, its all about the media. I feel sorry for English sports teams really, either they're the best in the world or useless. Witness the complete change of opinion regarding the England rugby team after a few good results. After the first South Africa they were the worst England team ever. The football team get treated even worse.

Surely sporting rivalry is a healthy thing anyway? Its not like, for most people anyway, its anything other than good natured. I don't get the urge to go out and start a fight with the nearest english person when they win.

[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[angel_kohaku]

Apparently Scots should support England because the English would support Scotland in the same situation.
However, the English are safe because they know that there is no way Scotland are ever going to get that far.

I really get annoyed with some Scots supporting England's opposition in a match, purely because they're facing England, as happened with the football World Cup (and a lot of Scots suddenly became Sweden/Brazil/whoever else fans)

If we stop getting "OMG 1966!!!!!" rammed in our faces EVERY DAMN TIME England play ANY sport then maybe people would be more likely to support England.

[s]for the record, I've supported England at football all my life when I can be bothered taking an interest in it. Rugby I have no standpoint really, I just like it for the atmosphere, regardless og who is playing[/s]
[hr]

I may be a pretty sad case but I don't write jokes in base 13

[David Bean]

Oh dear. It would be nice if this discussion had been phrased in a sensible manner because, as has been pointed out, the idea that anybody can be obligated to take any particular point of view towards anything at all is absurd, and only a character from a George Orwell novel or a member of the New Labour government could think otherwise. The real issue surrounds the behaviour of those Scots who mean-spiritedly and narrow-mindedly oppose England in its sporting endeavours. What I find particularly galling about their behaviour is the excuses they come out with, when they claim their opposition is rooted in a dislike for the behaviour of certain English fans or members of the English media; well, anyone who's really stupid enough to believe that English fans don't extend beyond football hooligans or the English media beyond the red-top tabloids really doesn't deserve to have their views given any public credence at all, and the rest is all just hypocrisy. I don't find anything good-natured about this sort of behaviour towards one's fellow countrymen, particularly not when, in cases like my own some years ago, fairly serious bullying towards any schoolchild with apparent connections with the English nation can be essentially laughed off during any major sporting event. But all of it is despicable, and the people who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

A great many Scots will support the country playing against England not from some deep-seated animus towards England and all things English but from sheer frustration. Every time there's a sporting event of any importance, the England team becomes the lead story in every news bulletin (ahead of ALL others, economic, political, military, etc), the airwaves are filled with references to past sporting glory, interviews with the chosen messiah of rugby/football/tennis/whatever and it's all just taken so seriously and elevated to such an absurd pseudo-religious prominence, with everyone talking about it as though they have some deep, personal stake that people just want to see the bubble burst and it all end.

It's that hype people should be ashamed of, David, not their response to it.

[Cain]

For me, the important element of the England football team is the football, not that they're English.

In domestic football, I have times when there are some teams that I want to see do well because I like watching them play and want to see them rewarded. I supported Ranieri's Chelsea and, though it took a while to warm to him, Mourinho's Chelsea were a team that I wanted to see do well in his first season.

Although I don't like Arsenal at all, there was a strong sense of respect for the football that the Invincibles played and their achievement demanded to be recognised. Last season when they were playing frustrating and wasteful football, I found nothing in them to admire. This year, they're doing a bit better.

The same is with England. I liked watching Venables' England. Eriksson's England, with the mentality of "nick an early goal, then defend for the next 70 minutes" were infuriating and didn't deserve my support. Until recently, McLaren's teams were the same, but since they called up Gareth Barry (8 years too late) and played better football, I've been interested in seeing them do well.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[WashingtonIrving]

What Cain said about the football can also be applied to the rugby, quite simply the type of rugby that England usually play isn't designed to attract neutral support. Scotland are playing a similar type of game to England right now and I certainly wouldn't expect any neutral to support Scotland, because quite simply we must be awful to watch.

[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[niall]

Quoting Washingtonirving from 01:27, 22nd Oct 2007
Scotland are playing a similar type of game to England right now

not really, we adopted a kicking tactic against Italy and Argentina because that was what the game was going to need. Certainly wasn't the case against New Zealand/Romania/Portugal/South Africa/Ireland. That's the only game plan England know and have been playing it since the 80s (at least).

The media coverage extands beyond the red-top papers, it's everywhere. Did anyone watch the Argentina-France game on friday? They mentioned nothing of the game at half time, instead devoting 5 minutes to Lewis Hamilton, and the rest of the time, the final.

[hr]

do you have a tastyspoon?

http://www.tastyspoon.com/forum

[JohnMac]

I am all for the english winning things! They are, afterall British like the Scots.
BUT - they should celebrate in a British manner. Quiet, calm and dignified. Headlines about their victory should not last more than a week and it cant be boasted about 43 years after the event has happened!!!

[Griggsy]

I'm sure nearly every Scot wished to see Lewis Hamilton, an Englishman, win the F1 World Championship yesterday, but conversely very few wished to see England beat South Africa on Saturday.

And this bollocks about English people constantly referring to 1966...it's a myth.

What isn't a myth is the incessant attention paid to James McFadden's goal in France. For god's sake, well done and good goal, but it was a European qualifier in a group which you're not going to get out of anyway!

[hr]

'I run wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures.'

[munchingfoo]

????

If you looked at the national (UK) news the victory over france was barely reported with respect to the English victory - which was neither great nor surprising.

In the Scottish papers, the victory was well reported, but surely that is to be expected?

My view is that the victory against France in paris was under reported by the national(UK) news given the underdog status and the away victory. Not because it is Scotland, of course. I would expect the same level of coverage if any underdog beat such a team.


Re: the '66 point.

Well, perhaps recently people have been bringing it up less - but they made a bloody song about 10 years ago (35 years after the fact) about it!!! Hardly what one would call a myth

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Haunted]

I think there is a general bias in the media and even moreso in the commentators box but to be fair England are >80% of the UK population so it's to be expected.

Doesn't mean I can't get fed up of it and support the opposition hoping that the bubble will burst and the media and commentators will just shut up about it. Had Argentina made it through though...


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[David Bean]

Can I be alone in failing to grasp the connection between annoyance at the tone and extent of the media's celebration of English sporting achievements, and a decision to cheer, in some cases passionately, for England's opponents? Even as an Anglo-Scot I get annoyed at these media circuses as much as anyone, principally because I have very little interest in the outcome of any sporting event that doesn't involve running between two wickets, but if I was interested I still don't see why I should be supposed to "support" (a word I find fairly ridiculous in this context anyway, given most football "supporters'" idea of the word seems to involve decking themselves out with overpriced merchandise, drinking a lot of poor beer and generally being loud) opposing teams because of that. Another thing I'm fed up of is the media's exaggeration of the danger we face from street crime; does this mean I ought to start supporting muggers and rapists?

I'll not be convinced that this behaviour is anything other than ignorant and tribal, and practiced by people who are that by nature.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Odysseus]

Quoting David Bean from 18:27, 21st Oct 2007
Oh dear. It would be nice if this discussion had been phrased in a sensible manner because, as has been pointed out, the idea that anybody can be obligated to take any particular point of view towards anything at all is absurd, and only a character from a George Orwell novel or a member of the New Labour government could think otherwise. The real issue surrounds the behaviour of those Scots who mean-spiritedly and narrow-mindedly oppose England in its sporting endeavours. What I find particularly galling about their behaviour is the excuses they come out with, when they claim their opposition is rooted in a dislike for the behaviour of certain English fans or members of the English media; well, anyone who's really stupid enough to believe that English fans don't extend beyond football hooligans or the English media beyond the red-top tabloids really doesn't deserve to have their views given any public credence at all, and the rest is all just hypocrisy. I don't find anything good-natured about this sort of behaviour towards one's fellow countrymen, particularly not when, in cases like my own some years ago, fairly serious bullying towards any schoolchild with apparent connections with the English nation can be essentially laughed off during any major sporting event. But all of it is despicable, and the people who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

There speaks the voice of a man who, dare I assume, has never attended a football match in his life. Anti-Scottish sentiment is as rampant South of the Border as Anti-English sentiment is here.

England are geographical and traditional sporting rivals of Scotland and I'd suggest you examine our footballing history before making any more embarrasingly ignorant comments about the partisan nature of football.

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[David Bean]

Forgive my ignorance, and your embarassment (I assume you're the one who's embarassed by it, since I certainly am not); is it your position that this sort of behaviour is in some way a good thing, or are you merely saying that this kind of behaviour is so endemic on both sides that nothing can be done about it, and it's wrong even to object? Either argument would seem rather silly, but if, as I suspect, your point was the latter, I should think that I and any other right-thinking person would be quite justified in never wanting to go anywhere near an association football match. Frankly, however, what these people choose to get up to when locked safely away in some stadium or other is really of no concern of mine; what I object to is when they bring their intolerance out into the wider world, to the extent where a First Minister of Scotland can make laughing reference to his anti-English prejudice, to little more than the odd raised eyebrow.

The real issue as I see it is that someone who doesn't follow football can hope that Scotland, England or whoever else might do well in a general way, because they generally wish that nation well; and what we're seeing in the case of anti-English "support" is a situation where people are giving vent to quite the opposite feeling - a general sense of malice towards the place and its endeavours. That, I believe, is wrong, and ought to be frowned upon with a view to it being stamped out, not given currency by the tacit support of politicians and the media.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Al]

I don't think there is anything wrong with Scots wanting any team playing England to win. Just as I don't think, for example, a Man City fan cheering on any team playing Man Utd is anything to be ashamed of. It's not ignorant. It is tribal though. But, there again, people ARE tribal.

[Frank]

"To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

Items in this that I consider to be a significant issue :
- Anti-someone prejudice
- Being obliged (and thus scorned/penalised/frowned at/whatever) to do something that, when push comes to shove, is quite arbitrary (to me)
- Having been so immersed in the above for my life so far that I find it extremely difficult (and often making me/has me being highly hypocritical) to actually make a change in myself here at the age of twenty-one (though I've been trying for a while).


That is: The problems stems far deeper, IMO, than simple anti-English bias on behalf of the Scots and others. This is already established in other people's posts as being not anywhere near the entire problem. Rather I'd wager that the problem roots from people just acting irrationally about things. Enjoying football/sport is all well and good but when you put aside your sensibilities to do so: is that good?

Of course, that applies to alot of situations in life and in the case of sports events I find it often ties closely to alcohol (which is itself has some striking similarities with what I think I'm getting at).

The above is not terribly clear, but re-read one or twice and it might be apparent.

Anyhow, as I was getting at: Solving individual parts of this problem 'out there in the real world' don't strike me as a solution. That is: Is being anti-English/others really any better from a neutral perspective than being pro-English/others? I hardly think being obliged to support a team is of any use at all.

Really: Why should someone be frowned upon because they do/do not support their local, home, national or other team?

Of course, this still isn't the root of the problem as I see it. The bulk stems from acting irrationally or inappropriately with the above. If you can act appropriately (inoffensively/unintrusively) and rationally about your anti-Englishness then is there actually a problem?

As an example: If Jack McConnel had had some deeply impressive and insightful reasons for being anti-English then I'm sure we'd understand. Perhaps not agree or otherwise approve, but it needn't be a bad thing. As David Bean illustrates above it seems to be the case that the former Prime Minister's reasons are not deeply impressive or insightful, but born of a problem that simply seems to be a case of prejudice against the English.

Not the sort of prejudice that kills people on its own impetus (unlike religious hatred, racism, extreme anti-English prejudice), but the kind that stems from the same irrationality or unfavourability of thought that would indicate "doing something for no good reason".

I have a good friend back home (now a student at QMU in Edinburgh) who would (and indeed has) respond(ed) to such a line of argument by saying "But surely you can't be rational about everything? What about emotion and enjoyment? We're humans, not robots..." and my only further response in such cases would be: "Perhaps we can't be, but shouldn't we try?"

to be clear: If we're agreeing to be irrational about some things then surely our problems that stem from those choices can't be dealt with very meaningfully if we're founding them on irrational decisions?

To summarise: It's people acting like knobs and not thinking about things that are the problem, not the choice of whether to support a team or not.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."