Supporting England

We live in a country in which there is now a pre-teen pregnancy problem. However, in the last day or so, there has been more political reaction to the news that our First Minister, Jack McConnell, won't be supporting England in the World Cup. I don't know whether to be more depressed by this fact, or the fact that I'm not even remotely surprised by it.

Anyway, the question is a valid one: should a Scotsman support the English team in the World Cup? On one level, both are parts of the UK, and so there is some sort of a tie there. On another, Scotland isn't part of England, despite the frequency with which this is conveniently forgotten by people south of the border, so why should we? Especially when our taxes are being used to support the team.

Now, one might argue that, if the positions were reversed, the English would support Scotland in the competition. However, let's consider for a moment just how unlikely that scenario actually is. In order for it to come about, Scotland would have to qualify. This places us in the realm of fantasy anyway. Secondly, England would have to fail to qualify, which hasn't happened in a good many years. It's easy to suggest that the English would support us, when there's no actual chance they'll have to test that.

The other thing that I don't think the English really understand is that the Scots are annoyed by the attitude they display. Firstly, there's the way that if any of our competitors do well, they're British, while if they fail, they're Scottish. You see this in the commentaries all the time. Secondly, whenever an English commentator is talking about a Scottish event, the condescension is sickening. This was particularly bad at the Clyde/Celtic match, in which all the focus was on Roy Keane, because he used to play for Manchester United, and never mind the fact that he played badly, his team played badly, and Clyde scored their greatest victory in decades.

And then there's the "England Expects" attitude. The news reportage we're seeing is all about how England are going to win the World Cup. Every time a competition of this sort comes round, we're subjected to every possible comparison between the current team and the one that lifted the cup in 1966. Never mind the fact that only one comparison actually matters: that team lifted the World Cup. This one has not.

Bluntly, I reckon England had no chance of winning the World Cup before Wayne Rooney was injured. They rely too much on one or two players, and don't have the strength in depth of the teams that are likely to win. I fully expected them to go out in the Quarter Finals, or as soon as they face Brazil. With Wayne Rooney injured, they have even less chance, which puts me in an odd position. You don't get negative probabilities, so how do things get worse from 0% chance? (The truth is that the odds weren't 0%. There was always a tiny chance that their opponents would be wiped out by a freak meteor strike, allowing England to win by default. Therefore, there was always a tiny chance of victory. That is finite, and so can be reduced.)

However, there is one counter argument that is worth mentioning. It does us all good if England wins. True, we'll be subjected to an endless stream of programmes telling us how this is the greatest team ever, that England are the best ever, and on and on and on. But, that's no different from now, except we'll be hit with "2006" instead of "1966". But the truth is that success breeds success. And investment in sport is a good thing, and some of that investment would come up across the border. So, there are some small advantages...

Ultimately, it has to be a question for the individual. There is no right answer. For myself, I will not be supporting England in the World Cup. In fact, I won't be supporting any of the teams, and have remarkably little interest in it. Scotland aren't there, so why do I care at all? Actually, I doubt I'll be watching many of the games at all - I just don't see the point.