I am EMBARRASSED to be Scottish!

First topic message reminder :

After this years 6N, its fair to say that my country have let me down and made me EMBARRASSED which has been case for FIFTEEN years!

Not one player should be allowed to play for Scotland again and its time for change at SRU and head coaches position to because we are WORSE than ever before and tbh, I am dreading world cup!

Why the Frak are we so bad and how are our fortunes going to change because I am sick fed up of all this misplaced optimism going into 6N.

All I can say is thank god for our football team and a certain Andy Murray.

Thoughts?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Course it should!

Its not black and white. There is case for both sides.

Perhaps each situation should be assessed on its own merits. Do you think South Africa would have rejected apartheid without international sporting sanctions? This may be an extreme example but it showcases how sport does mix with politics and how it can be used for the greater good. If you believe sport should be used to make a political statement, surely those within it have a right to make their own political statement? Does that then mean that contracted athletes, players and drivers have a right to withdraw their labour based on politics? Have the commercial organisations that fund the sports and their celebrities handsomely for visibility, earned the right to have their say too?

Sportsmen and women should definitely have the right to voice or indicate it how they choose.

Just thought of the perfect replacement for Clarkson - Rowan Atkinson!

Loves fast cars and all Clarkson's witticisms were essentially repackaged Blackadderisms anyway!

Oh...and people like him.

Just watch the Sky show with Hammond, Clarkson and May which will be coming at the end of the year!

Have any of you watched Invictus ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sportsmen and women should definitely have the right to voice or indicate it how they choose.

Because?

Personally, I think its very wrong that a sportsperson, who can potentially influence public opinion, for example, in a vote on independence, should be voicing their personal opinion on the matter.

Because they are human and everyone should. I'm sat hoping we get a load of sportspeople speaking out about the awful laws in Russia and Qatar etc.

Jimpy wrote:

Because politics and sport should not mix.

I completely agree with you on that 100%. However, Murray isnt just a sportsman. He is a human too. I would be very against him wearing vote yes for Scotland teeshirts when playing a tennis match for example. However, he should be allowed be a human like everyone else in his spare time, no?

englandglory4ever wrote:"All I can say is thank god for our football team and a certain Andy Murray."

A. Murray is a tool too. Not much comfort their I'm afraid.

Murray...accurate big hitter.... can he kick ? Anyway try him at 10.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because they are human and everyone should. I'm sat hoping we get a load of sportspeople speaking out about the awful laws in Russia and Qatar etc.

And if they did, they'd be vilified, because it hasn't got anything to do with them. That is how its always been.

Some would applaud them. I'd be one of them.

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Because politics and sport should not mix.

I completely agree with you on that 100%. However, Murray isnt just a sportsman. He is a human too. I would be very against him wearing vote yes for Scotland teeshirts when playing a tennis match for example. However, he should be allowed be a human like everyone else in his spare time, no?

Part of being human, and an adult, especially when in a position of influence is knowing when not to offer an inflammatory opinion, no?

rapidsnowman wrote:Just thought of the perfect replacement for Clarkson - Rowan Atkinson!

Loves fast cars and all Clarkson's witticisms were essentially repackaged Blackadderisms anyway!

Oh...and people like him.

Good choice I like it.

Though Rowan Atkinson would need to bring his Blackadder persona not Mr Bean.

Sounds much better than the Chris Evans rumour doing the rounds.

no 7 & 1/2 I doubt you'll see that happening with formula one drivers for example As a sportsman if you want to maximise revenue - politics needs to not mix with sport.

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Because politics and sport should not mix.

I completely agree with you on that 100%. However, Murray isnt just a sportsman. He is a human too. I would be very against him wearing vote yes for Scotland teeshirts when playing a tennis match for example. However, he should be allowed be a human like everyone else in his spare time, no?

Part of being human, and an adult, especially when in a position of influence is knowing when not to offer an inflammatory opinion, no?

Having a vote and exercising your right to voice your opinion on that vote is not an inflammatory opinion, its his right.

beshocked wrote:

rapidsnowman wrote:Just thought of the perfect replacement for Clarkson - Rowan Atkinson!

Loves fast cars and all Clarkson's witticisms were essentially repackaged Blackadderisms anyway!

Oh...and people like him.

Good choice I like it.

Though Rowan Atkinson would need to bring his Blackadder persona not Mr Bean.

Sounds much better than the Chris Evans rumour doing the rounds.

no 7 & 1/2 I doubt you'll see that happening with formula one drivers for example As a sportsman if you want to maximise revenue - politics needs to not mix with sport.

Rowan Atkinson would do just fine being himself. Because that's the Rowan Atkinson that has the knowledge and interest in cars. Anybody who has seen him 'as himself' will also know that he's plenty funny enough without sticking a codpiece on. Acting up would probably have people turning off, not turning on.

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Because politics and sport should not mix.

I completely agree with you on that 100%. However, Murray isnt just a sportsman. He is a human too. I would be very against him wearing vote yes for Scotland teeshirts when playing a tennis match for example. However, he should be allowed be a human like everyone else in his spare time, no?

Part of being human, and an adult, especially when in a position of influence is knowing when not to offer an inflammatory opinion, no?

Having a vote and exercising your right to voice your opinion on that vote is not an inflammatory opinion, its his right.

It is absolutely, but as has been pointed out already, it also showed him in a negative light to a lot of people. He has to weigh up the consequences of his actions, and that should probably include not biting the hand that feeds you.

Yes I'd agree beshocked. But it should be up to the individual to decide. Even internal politics can cut your revenue as Paula Radcliffe is about to find out.

beshocked wrote:

rapidsnowman wrote:Just thought of the perfect replacement for Clarkson - Rowan Atkinson!

Loves fast cars and all Clarkson's witticisms were essentially repackaged Blackadderisms anyway!

Oh...and people like him.

Good choice I like it.

Though Rowan Atkinson would need to bring his Blackadder persona not Mr Bean.

Sounds much better than the Chris Evans rumour doing the rounds.

no 7 & 1/2 I doubt you'll see that happening with formula one drivers for example As a sportsman if you want to maximise revenue - politics needs to not mix with sport.

Not sure about his left jab, right cross though, slow & feeble.

I always thought that JC was brilliant for the BBC, I know he was very opinionated but thats what made things even funnier when the other took the urine out of him.

But if he is going to be replaced, I think there is only one person for the job, Chris Evans.

LordDowlais wrote:I always thought that JC was brilliant for the BBC, I know he was very opinionated but thats what made things even funnier when the other took the urine out of him.

But if he is going to be replaced, I think there is only one person for the job, Chris Evans.

Nope, Jodie Kidd please.

In that case can we ask Jeremy to replace Jiffy on the rugby show ?

I'd put forward John Inverdale, Craig Doyle and Wayne Barnes as the new Top Gear team. Get them away from rugby.

Oh Jesus!  Look out for plenty of litigation if Clarkson was commenting on rugby games.  He'd even be tongue lashing some of the English players.
Inverdale:  "Jeremy.  Jeremy!  Those are our guys in white.  White is the England colours.....  NO!!  NO, Jeremy don't - don't say anything!!!! - Ring Jiffy quick, this guy is going to blow!"

yes, but have they a decent right hook between them ?

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Because politics and sport should not mix.

I completely agree with you on that 100%. However, Murray isnt just a sportsman. He is a human too. I would be very against him wearing vote yes for Scotland teeshirts when playing a tennis match for example. However, he should be allowed be a human like everyone else in his spare time, no?

Part of being human, and an adult, especially when in a position of influence is knowing when not to offer an inflammatory opinion, no?

Having a vote and exercising your right to voice your opinion on that vote is not an inflammatory opinion, its his right.

It is absolutely, but as has been pointed out already, it also showed him in a negative light to a lot of people. He has to weigh up the consequences of his actions, and that should probably include not biting the hand that feeds you.

Hah! The hand that feeds him. I think he feeds himself.

Prize money and endorsements; winning Wimbledon was worth £1.6million in prize money alone not to mention the global profile it gives him in terms of his potential earnings from branding himself. The hand that feeds him would appear to be money generated from the global audience for tennis. Even if people in the UK decide not to support him, are they going to stop watching Wimbledon? Are the BBC and Sky Sports going to stop showing tennis? I don't think so. And thats just one prestigious tournament amongst many lucrative tournaments spanning the globe. The money will keep rolling into the pot and so long as he is able to compete at the top level he will keep taking home his share, and the UK isn't even nearly the biggest market for what is a genuinely global game. Even his formative years in Spain were funded by his parents not the LTA. He owes British sports fans nothing for his success and they do not provide a large proportion of his income. The only thing he gets from UK sports fans is 'support', which in the UK just as often translates to people sneering at him and putting him down as opposed to genuinely appreciating his talent.

No, I wouldn't say that he should become a bland, self-censoring modern sportsman for fear of upsetting the sensibilities of middle England. He can live with that. Rather his self-censoring is generally a defence mechanism to avoid being hounded by the tabloid press, but he's a proud Scot with a right to his own opinion.

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Because politics and sport should not mix.

I completely agree with you on that 100%. However, Murray isnt just a sportsman. He is a human too. I would be very against him wearing vote yes for Scotland teeshirts when playing a tennis match for example. However, he should be allowed be a human like everyone else in his spare time, no?

Part of being human, and an adult, especially when in a position of influence is knowing when not to offer an inflammatory opinion, no?

Without getting into the actual specifics the opinion is not usually inflammatory - just people's ability to be rational and hear it often becomes inflammatory

Having a political opinion is not inflammatory.... or to be more precise, being inflammatory in your political beliefs is certainly not remotely a reason for keeping those opinions to yourself - as the new slogan of Je Suis Charlie asserts.

Murray ain't the King.  He has his beliefs and he's entitled to air them regardless of any counter-belief anger.

PS - even the Queen lapsed and proffered an opinion.

Portugal knocked Scotland out of the U18 competition which is currently taking place in France. It was 0-0 at full time, then Portugal won the shoot out.

Scotland will play Ireland as the 2 bottom placed teams. Shocking effort from both teams. Ireland got knocked out in a penalty shoot out by Georgia who then knocked out Italy in a shoot out!!

profitius wrote:Portugal knocked Scotland out of the U18 competition which is currently taking place in France. It was 0-0 at full time, then Portugal won the shoot out.

Scotland will play Ireland as the 2 bottom placed teams. Shocking effort from both teams. Ireland got knocked out in a penalty shoot out by Georgia who then knocked out Italy in a shoot out!!

What on earth is with all of these shoot-outs? Is this an April Fools shoot-out story?

Notch wrote:

profitius wrote:Portugal knocked Scotland out of the U18 competition which is currently taking place in France. It was 0-0 at full time, then Portugal won the shoot out.

Scotland will play Ireland as the 2 bottom placed teams. Shocking effort from both teams. Ireland got knocked out in a penalty shoot out by Georgia who then knocked out Italy in a shoot out!!

What on earth is with all of these shoot-outs? Is this an April Fools shoot-out story?

Nope not April fools. Ireland drew with Georgia 8-8. Georgia drew with Italy 6-6. Scotland drew with Portugal 0-0. England beat Portgual 85-5 in the first match. The final is between France and Georgia.

a penalty shoot out?

Am I going slightly or mostly mad or have I never heard of that concept ever being used in a rugby context before in my entire life ?????? Maybe I have a very vague idea of it happening maybe once in the past that I can remember but I don't know when or between who.

How does that go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Under-18_Rugby_Union_Championship

Found this off wiki. Looks like Profitius is right.

Oh he's right alright. But dammed unusual to hear about 'penalty shoot outs' in rugby.

nice to see the SRU developing rugby at grassroots level

PORTUGAL FFS !

all true

http://www.rugbyeurope.eu/archives-competition-72.htm

0-0 games must be very rare

lostinwales wrote:0-0 games must be very rare

Exactly!

If I was a conspiracy theorist................................... and I'm of course not...................... .................. I'd be saying such low scoring draws and non-scoring games is a bit of a gimmick to open up the idea of 'Portugal just beat the schidt out of Scotland in a nil all draw!!!!' headlines. Gives the game a wider appeal just when everybody wants all of Europe TV people to join in the WC fun....

To be fair to Portugal their 7's team is OK. Its possible they have some reasonable age group players. Might not be quite as embarrassing a result as it appears

lostinwales wrote:To be fair to Portugal their 7's team is OK. Its possible they have some reasonable age group players. Might not be quite as embarrassing a result as it appears

wales playing portugal in next round for fifth spot.

prediction : wales by 60 !!!

It's be a 3-3 draw and Portugal will take it on penalties.

RubyGuby wrote:Clarkson is a dangerous racist sycophantic bigot - A true Thatcher's child in all his glory. He'll move on to any even better paid job and continue his bigotry and insults elsewhere whilst sucking up to the good and the great - Welcome to the UK and its democratic process.

No idea how Clarkson got mentioned here, but have a from me for this comment

On Murray. I bought into the whole 'he hates England' thing and disliked him. But I feel slightly embarrassed about it now. He's obviously a bit shy and a bit moody, and I think he probably has a ruthless streak I'd probably not like, but other than that he seems a decent enough guy. Hard working, cares about his family and community, quite a dry sense of humour. I like him.

To be fair to Andy Murray he said it when he was much younger. No reason why we should expect our athletes to be mature adults ahead of the rest of us.

He's a nationalist, but so are circa. 44% of Scotland. For most (sadly not all) the whole anti-England thing is just banter (for want of a better word), and most of my English friends see it that way thankfully. That's certainly the way I see it, although I sure when I was a teenager I said a few silly things about the English around Calcutta Cup time as well.

Re: Clarkson I've enjoyed many of his programs and articles, and he can be very funny indeed. Sadly, like many comedians, he crosses the line and at times the line is left on the horizon. He punched a co-worker, whilst on a second warning from his employers, and was rightly fired. I will miss Top Gear, albeit I'm not a regular viewer, and hope to continue to enjoy his articles in the Sunday Times. I hope this episode has taught him to control his temper, in much the same way as prior episodes should have informed him that rascist remarks are likely unwelcome and unfunny. He's better than that, and has no need to stoop to that sort of 70's/80's humour.

funnyExiledScot wrote:To be fair to Andy Murray he said it when he was much younger. No reason why we should expect our athletes to be mature adults ahead of the rest of us.

He's a nationalist, but so are circa. 44% of Scotland. For most (sadly not all) the whole anti-England thing is just banter (for want of a better word), and most of my English friends see it that way thankfully. That's certainly the way I see it, although I sure when I was a teenager I said a few silly things about the English around Calcutta Cup time as well.

Re: Clarkson I've enjoyed many of his programs and articles, and he can be very funny indeed. Sadly, like many comedians, he crosses the line and at times the line is left on the horizon. He punched a co-worker, whilst on a second warning from his employers, and was rightly fired. I will miss Top Gear, albeit I'm not a regular viewer, and hope to continue to enjoy his articles in the Sunday Times. I hope this episode has taught him to control his temper, in much the same way as prior episodes should have informed him that rascist remarks are likely unwelcome and unfunny. He's better than that, and has no need to stoop to that sort of 70's/80's humour.

Dave were showing back to back (to back) Top Gear specials yesterday. Apart from being sad enough to have watched a few of them on such a glorious day (hang over don't you know), then it showed that in the absence of any ill-conceived or glib racial (or otherwise) slurs, Clarkson is an enjoyable individual to watch on TV. Knowledgeable and witty. Its a pity he felt the need to cross the line so publicly on so many occasions - but, some of the blame has to go to the producers of Top Gear for not ensuring such obviously inflammatory statements didn't end up on the cutting room floor.

The person that Scotsman should be embarrassed of is their fellow countryman Tony Blair whose been shooting his mouth off today......

beshocked wrote:The person that Scotsman should be embarrassed of is their fellow countryman Tony Blair whose been shooting his mouth off today......  

How that man hasn't been had up for war crimes in The Hague I'll never know.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:The person that Scotsman should be embarrassed of is their fellow countryman Tony Blair whose been shooting his mouth off today......  

How that man hasn't been had up for war crimes in The Hague I'll never know.

He's probably greased too many palms for that to ever happen!

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:The person that Scotsman should be embarrassed of is their fellow countryman Tony Blair whose been shooting his mouth off today......  

How that man hasn't been had up for war crimes in The Hague I'll never know.

I'll never be Blair's biggest fan but calling him a war criminal is just plain silly. The war in Iraq was never popular, but when you see what the regime was up to before western intervention it really does bring stuff into a perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

upsetting images in this article.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:The person that Scotsman should be embarrassed of is their fellow countryman Tony Blair whose been shooting his mouth off today......  

How that man hasn't been had up for war crimes in The Hague I'll never know.

I'll never be Blair's biggest fan but calling him a war criminal is just plain silly. The war in Iraq was never popular, but when you see what the regime was up to before western intervention it really does bring stuff into a perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

upsetting images in this article.

Mate, I've been to Iraq. Believe me, the death toll since the west's 'intervention' makes Hussain's regime seem positively benign. We had no business being there other than Bush Jnr's mission to finish Bush Snr's half done job, and Blair was his poodle. Blair and Co have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands - not to mention the overspill that includes such darlings as IS.

So peace through tyranny is preferable than the foundations of democracy? Despite the death toll Iraq has had free elections since.

Even our own country had to go through a bloody transition to have the democracy we enjoy today.

I'm with Radge on this. Whether you agree with the decision or not, or the manner and process followed which resulted in the Western intervention in Iraq (and remember that Blair went to great lengths to seek further ratification from the UN), the intervention does not make him a war criminal, unless you adopt a pretty radical interpretation of international law.

I think Blair gets a pretty bad press these days, and the continuous bashing of Blair, as with Thatcher before him, often overlooks the fact that (a) he won three general elections outright (none of this coalition nonsense) thus having a proper democractic mandate and (b) re: Iraq the other main party fully supported him.

Perhaps we digress a tad!