A Permanent BRITISH International Team?

Okay, Lord D brought an issue to a head a while ago in a different thread - no he didn't finally come to the final solution about the future of the Regions.  But he did twist another topic into an area that I must admit I have given thought to before on and off over the years.
From virtually the beginning of Rugby, the British Nation has been divided into the sum of its Regional parts.  And more recently these surviving Regional parts (Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales) somehow get to always have three and a quarter shots at a title in most INTERNATIONAL contests.
Lord has declared, and it is his right, that he is proud to be British and will obviously follow Team GB in the Olympics.  So far so good - no complaints from me.  

But therefore too, that exposes the truth that in the 6N or the Rugby World Cup, he always has three or three and a bit horses in the race?  If one falls, he still feels the emotional draw of being a UK citizen and can link up to the next representative to carry the flag along further still, as it were.
The rest of us - SA, Aus, NZ, Irish (Southern), USA, Japan etc, - well, we got one shot at it and then we're done

So, in emotional and political terms, you can't have it both ways.  Either Team GB represents the Nation that is the UK or fans are lying when they pretend they don't feel they have three and a bit horses in a Rugby International contest.

So  - my question - finally - well, three of them;

Should the Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish be forced now to unify into one distinct and real Rugby Nation?  

Does that one Nation (UK) have an unfair advantage in International contests by breaking itself up into Regions?  And does that also deny other Nations from entering the top ten ranking and gaining frequent-play rights against the top sides?

How many 'Rugby Nations' could the USA or South Africa or Australia throw at the World Cup if they followed the same blueprint?  And could World Rugby legally stop them if they decided they wanted to?

Discuss

And it would also create a bit more space for the Georgias, Romanias and Spains of the world. It's a brand new dawn!

We don't have unified structures at any level. We would be on much more dodgy ground if there was a single UK league and structure below that, but that is not the case.

Also given the world wide popularity of Rugby the individual units are all very competitive.

lostinwales wrote:Also given the lack of world wide popularity of Rugby the individual units are all very competitive.

You missed a little bit

I will always back a Britsh team against anyone else, Wales first, then whoever is playing. Scratch that, I would go one further and say I would always support a 6N's team playing in a WC. 

I was shouting for Scotland against Aus last time out, and in the three finals England have gotten to I have supported them as well. I am a proud Welshman, and a proud British man as well. There is nothing wrong with that.

I will also add, I will always support the home nations when watching the AI's as well.

It's all very interesting so far.... but not answers to the three questions.  It's not so much "Does it feel good and does it feel natural?"  but more so "Should it be allowed?"

Why is it that this distinct Nation - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - is the only Nation on the planet (that I know of) that is allowed divide itself into Regions to play International sport and then combine again at will to play International sport?

So are you advocating a break up of the IRFU?

If I truly thought you wanted a serious debate, SF, I would offer some points. Past posting history and the tone of your OP suggests you are, as normal, looking to make fun.

The Brits split into their various countries for the Commonwealth Games, and no surprise - it's usually Yorkshire that gets the most medals...

The thing is, SF cannot get his head around the fact, that when it comes down to it, we are Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish first and British second, I am proud of what we have achieved as a British nation over the years.

TrailApe wrote:So are you advocating a break up of the IRFU?

I'm asking a few questions Of course not only the IRFU would be affected if things were changed. So a break up/refitting of WRU, RFU and SRU would also be on the cards. no?

LondonTiger wrote:If I truly thought you wanted a serious debate, SF, I would offer some points. Past posting history and the tone of your OP suggests you are, as normal, looking to make fun.

Serious debate? I think my credentials would suggest I've had perhaps more genuinely 'serious' debates than most folks here who believe they aren't as scatty and loopy as I am

The questions are there and are seriously put. But everyone is free to have a gawk in and not feel a liberty to engage of course.

LordDowlais wrote:The thing is, SF cannot get his head around the fact, that when it comes down to it, we are Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish first and British second, I am proud of what we have achieved as a British nation over the years.

That's again more an emotion than reasoned debate on whether World Rugby should allow it. If South Africa wanted to break into four Rugby Nation Regions and have four attempts at getting a World Cup, what would you be saying on this forum?

Again, it's not about "this is how I feel therefore it should be naturally allowed".... it's about what an organisation that runs an International sport might or should think...with reference to the many emerging and improving Nations it now represents.

SecretFly wrote:If South Africa wanted to break into four Rugby Nation Regions and have four attempts at getting a World Cup, what would you be saying on this forum?

And what 4 countries are there in SA ?

???? South Africa could quite easily be divided into four distinct Regions.

Answer the question or don't Lord.

SecretFly wrote:????  South Africa could quite easily be divided into four distinct Regions.

Answer the question or don't Lord.

Regions are not countries though.

The only other place that is similar is the USA with their states.

Northern Ireland couldn't be in team GB.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:????  South Africa could quite easily be divided into four distinct Regions.

Answer the question or don't Lord.

Regions are not countries though.

The only other place that is similar is the USA with their states.

Such a big fundamental, bare-bones question on a mostly UK centric site ...yet so few prepared to engage.

"Hopefully his thread dies a quick death. We don't want thinking about this or, more dangerously, having too many other people thinking about it"

I don't know if this is supposed to be a demonstration of wit or not.  If it is, this post achieves the opposite as there is something incredibly shallow about it.  Especially given the insinuation above that Northern Ireland falls under Great Britain, which it does not.

Lets forget the 'wit' or lack thereof... and discuss the questions asked?

Or not...as the case may be.

"Should the Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish be forced now to unify into one distinct and real Rugby Nation?"

I'm not going to answer this or your other questions because the motivations behind the question are more than dubious. I don't think you have any interest in people's opinion on this and are just trying to spark certain reactions out of people. This is really tantamount to a wum and I think you are letting yourself down here quite considerably. I'm not taking any further part in this thread which I believe is designed to be divisive, something rugby in my part of the world could not only do without but has actually done a very good job of avoiding. Goodbye.

The thing is SecretFly - for some of us being 'British' is just being stuck with another label. I don't particularly feel British, if asked I would probably say I'm English and qualify that with 'Northern' (hey we all gotta come from somewhere). Are you a YooRopean before you are an Irishman?

The concept of ‘Nation’ is a very complex question. I was going to add “In our part of the World” but when you take a look at it, most countries or national groups have the same problems. We often think of ourselves as the only joker in the pack, what with our close and often bitter association since recorded history (I blame the Normans), however there are loads of countries with similar problems of identity. The Belgians are always scuffling, the Italians are often not sure who they are, the Spanish are not a Monobloc, the Italians and Germans are historically recent as countries and are not as homogeneous as we think and as for the French – well, need we say more?

As individuals we are who we want to be and that changes from day to day. A good example in our office is a bloke, who, if you met him in a bar you would think ”this is a Southern Englishman” (or perhaps middle class ) He’s a nice bloke, if he was a dog he would be a young Golden Labrador, friendly, bouncy and full of go. He’s had a good education and has the accent to prove it (God knows what he’s doing up here) However he just mentioned that he was buying his two daughters some kilts, the reason? because he is Scottish. No bloody way I said, but yes, he reckons he is a Scot.

I hasten to add – nothing wrong with being a Scot – as long as you don’t knock down any more of Newcastle than you already have, but if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats on water but then tells you it’s a Mistle Thrush then you have to wonder what’s going on.

So in conclusion it’s what’s in your head more than what’s on your passport and no way could I cheer a “insert nationality here” man on.

Artful_Dodger wrote:"Should the Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish be forced now to unify into one distinct and real Rugby Nation?"  

I'm not going to answer this or your other questions because the motivations behind the question are more than dubious.  I don't think you have any interest in people's opinion on this and are just trying to spark certain reactions out of people.  This is really tantamount to a wum and I think you are letting yourself down here quite considerably.  I'm not taking any further part in this thread which I believe is designed to be divisive, something rugby in my part of the world could not only do without but has actually done a very good job of avoiding.  Goodbye.

Jaysus!

That escalated quickly.

Y've upset the poor aul nordies now. I hope you're ashamed of yerself Secrete Flys.

It makes no sense really, in purely sporting terms it would end the 6 Nations (or the four nations as it would be) as a sporting contest. Let's not pretend any of Ireland, France or Italy would be able to compete with a joint British side.
Secondly whilst I've always viewed my nationality as British first, Scottish second and English third by an immeasurably long stretch in rugby terms I do not feel the same way. If Scotland aren't playing I tend to support Ireland because of the way they, at least used to, play with the likes of O'Driscoll, D'Arcy and O'Connell despite never having set foot in Ireland, then in recent years I've taken a dislike for Gatland and the likes of Liam Williams within the Welsh set up so I tend to support almost anyone who plays against them unless it is England because most of my friends are English and I'd rather they weren't happy if I'm honest.

Artful_Dodger wrote:"Should the Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish be forced now to unify into one distinct and real Rugby Nation?"  

I'm not going to answer this or your other questions because the motivations behind the question are more than dubious.  I don't think you have any interest in people's opinion on this and are just trying to spark certain reactions out of people.  This is really tantamount to a wum and I think you are letting yourself down here quite considerably.  I'm not taking any further part in this thread which I believe is designed to be divisive, something rugby in my part of the world could not only do without but has actually done a very good job of avoiding.  Goodbye.

International rugby is by its nature divisive... and a very healthy - healthy - divisiveness of nature it is too.  But you go ahead and denigrate anything that makes you uneasy enough to even attempt a generalised discussion on as a WUM if it pleases you and eases your mind, Dodger.

You know nothing about my motives for bringing up this topic but of course you hope to propagate the notion that I'm much too dangerous and seditious a character to be listened to anyway.

Oh boy....  I'm a rebel!     Always wanted to be one of them things...

St John The Enforcer wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:"Should the Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Irish be forced now to unify into one distinct and real Rugby Nation?"  

I'm not going to answer this or your other questions because the motivations behind the question are more than dubious.  I don't think you have any interest in people's opinion on this and are just trying to spark certain reactions out of people.  This is really tantamount to a wum and I think you are letting yourself down here quite considerably.  I'm not taking any further part in this thread which I believe is designed to be divisive, something rugby in my part of the world could not only do without but has actually done a very good job of avoiding.  Goodbye.

Jaysus!

That escalated quickly.

Y've upset the poor aul nordies now. I hope you're ashamed of yerself Secrete Flys.

Oh I'll survive St John...just have to watch my back more often for a week or two

And it just a few questions too. Little does Dodger know that I'd go to war to hold onto Best, Trimble, Jackson and the boys. I'd put the basterdes in leg clamps and force them to play the game with ball and chains attached to keep them.....

If the Italians are thrown out of the 6Ns and champs cup then i'd contend that the tv money be split evenly three ways between British, French and Irish. For the sake of meritocracy. After all the test sides are from Britain, France and Ireland while the teams in the champs cup would all be drawn from the same three distinct locations.

How are the seven's represented at the Olympics?

I've often wondered how Countries that dont have a Prime Minister or a President can be a Country playing International Rugby, but there are many out there smarter than me.

I can see an argument that it would be good for the Global progress of Rugby for you guys to combine under one Country, but it would never happen, as you would then be limited to only one vote at the top table of World rugby.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:????  South Africa could quite easily be divided into four distinct Regions.

Answer the question or don't Lord.

Regions are not countries though.

The only other place that is similar is the USA with their states.

Australia?

Do the different states have different laws in Australia ?

LordDowlais wrote:Do the different states have different laws in Australia ?

Yeah


?

SecretFly wrote:

Does that one Nation (UK) have an unfair advantage in International contests by breaking itself up into Regions?

I don't think it does tbh. As someone said above, any benefit from having multiple entries into international tournaments is comfortably outweighed by not being able to pick players from all the regions. In truth a team comprised of the best talent from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, playing together regularly unlike the Lions, would simply be much better than the teams are individually. If it's an advantage being sought then carving up your playing pool along geographical boundaries and limiting who you can select is probably not the best way of going about it.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Does that one Nation (UK) have an unfair advantage in International contests by breaking itself up into Regions?

I don't think it does tbh. As someone said above, any benefit from having multiple entries into international tournaments is comfortably outweighed by not being able to pick players from all the regions. In truth a team comprised of the best talent from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, playing together regularly unlike the Lions, would simply be much better than the teams are individually. If it's an advantage being sought then carving up your playing pool along geographical boundaries and limiting who you can select is probably not the best way of going about it.

I take on board the point, Fuzzy, but add that with such a big population though, the risks of division of labour ain't so serious ...and still does present the theoretical benefits of having a few horses in a race where other owners only have one.

Sport is about a healthy divisiveness as I've said above, or to put it more mildly for some sensitive souls, a healthy rivalry/competitiveness. But it's also about having the International kudos, to be known around the world as being a Great Nation in this or that - whether that be literature, music, sport, science etc. And let none of us say that's not all part an parcel of this word 'pride'.

Pride isn't a bad word - but fairness might suggest having three or four shots at it whilst other people only have one is indeed an advantage.

I think it's a fair set of questions to ask. 

Why aren't there separate rugby teams playing at the Olympics?  Why is there only Team GB?  And does Team GB represent the UK or just GB?

Rather than potentially offend fans from Northern Ireland, it's easy enough that things could continue as they are currently even if there was a UK team. Ulster is still a province of Ireland.  The IRFU could legitimately remain an all-island Union based on the four provinces.  Any citizen born on the island of Ireland is automatically a holder of an Irish passport, if they wish to have one, or have dual passports, dual nationality, etc. so they would automatically qualify to play for Ireland and/or the proposed UK team.  

A single UK team would be an interesting proposition in a number of sports, not just rugby.

If this is a serious debate about an International team Why is it in the Club section & not in the International forum?

Em

...cause I don't actually write many Thread Topics....
...and that damn page where one does compose a Topic can be tricky to the unfamiliar
.... so I just wrote the thing and then did a quick Preview and then did a quick Send.
...and here we are - an International Topic in the Club section.

I might now write another Topic to discuss the quirkiness of trying to get a Topic onto the correct Forum

Or.... some admin guy could just drop it into the International section for me before the riot begins.....

No

Which countries, specifically, do you think would divide their territory into 3 or 4 regions to take advantage of this opportunity?

NZ, having by far the largest pool of world class players, is the only country which I imagine would consider it, but I don't think they'd actually go for it. If you're generous and say they only have to split into something like north and south island teams, that would still have broken up Retallick and Whitelock, McCaw and Read, A.Smith and Carter and presumably a few others. Even when it works out well - Nonu, C.Smith and SBW would play for the same team - the obvious flipside is that the other team is much weakened in that position. For one extra entry into a competition it doesn't seem worth it to me, but it'd be interesting to see if any of our SH posters feel that NZ could field 2 regions with the same chance of winning as the whole of NZ.

As I said though, that's the nation with the undeniably best pool of players and only having to split them in two. Once you go beyond that the advantage just looks weaker and weaker. Would you feel Ireland have an advantage in a revamped 8 Nations if they were represented by Connacht, Leinster and Munster? Or maybe Cunster and Leinacht with just 2.

I suppose when it comes down to it I think you could ask every Union in the world whether they'd prefer the UK to be represented by England, Scotland, Wales and (partially) Ireland or merge into one and they would all answer with the former. I suppose a couple of them would hope to pick up a spot in the 6N, but the bean-counters would probably just reduce it to 4.

It is of course an anachronism that there are potentially four sporting teams under one passport. Given that England invented and regulated a number of global sports a certain latitude has been maintained, particularly as the first 'international' was often against a Scottish side.
It will continue because of vested interest and because average fans like (and pay) to wave a local nationalist flag - particularly within rugby union which for some, having relatively recently abandoned clubs and adopted artificial Union elite trials sides, they get more animated for the actual point of those sides ie. The Test side.

HELL NO.

NO.

NO.

The one thing, the one damn thing politicians here agree on, is support for the Irish Rugby team. Suddenly you'd have the same issue as in football with some players declaring for Britian, some players declaring for Ireland- the whole thing would be a mess.

For like a year there was huge controversy over whether Rory McIlroy was going to declare for Britain or Ireland in the Olympics, both sides trying to 'claim' him and him knowing he was going to get a tidal wave of sectarian abuse from numbskulls whatever he decided.

You can have your British team, but please for the love of God leave Northern Ireland out of it. I hope no Irish rugby player ever pulls on the shirt of the British 7s team either. It will politicise and split the rugby community in Ulster for good.

I think if this happened, I would not just not support the new 'British' team. I would turn my back on the entire sport of rugby union for good.

Notch wrote:You can have your British team, but please for the love of God leave Northern Ireland out of it. I hope no Irish rugby player ever pulls on the shirt of the British 7s team either. It will politicise and split the rugby community in Ulster for good.

Agree ... as indeed would a NI player pulling on the green white and gold and "declaring" for the 26 counties with the Soldiers' Song as their anthem. The Olympics are defined by sovereignty so someone who lives in the UK shuns their country by declaring for another just as much as someone who shuns their nation to declare for their country - an impossible situation.

Regarding the idea of a joint UK team in Rugby Union - it is ridiculous - as there simply are too few nations who are in any way competitive as it is. It is expedient that the nations remain split for the good of the sport. In the similar way in cricket the West Indies aren't a sovereign country that could compete in the Olympics but for the good of the sport it is expedient to allow them to amalgamate as a manufactured entity for the good of the sport otherwise. "English" Test cricket has always drawn on the four parts of the UK without any qualifying period so in effect is a 'UK' team although it is called 'England' and is run by the E&WCB. The emergence of one day cricket and especially 20/20 has allowed at least parts of the smaller national components to spin off as entities in their own right. Cricket needs more teams so it makes sense to have Scottish players playing for Scotland, rather than the already oversubscribed England.

Of course in football there is no argument for maintaining separate nations, other than historical tradition. The sport is booming and doesn't need more teams - rather the opposite. Soccer should have been amalgamated years ago into a UK team by FIFA, with associated regional and national leagues to reflect the whole demographic.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Which countries, specifically, do you think would divide their territory into 3 or 4 regions to take advantage of this opportunity?

NZ, having by far the largest pool of world class players, is the only country which I imagine would consider it, but I don't think they'd actually go for it. If you're generous and say they only have to split into something like north and south island teams, that would still have broken up Retallick and Whitelock, McCaw and Read, A.Smith and Carter and presumably a few others. Even when it works out well - Nonu, C.Smith and SBW would play for the same team - the obvious flipside is that the other team is much weakened in that position. For one extra entry into a competition it doesn't seem worth it to me, but it'd be interesting to see if any of our SH posters feel that NZ could field 2 regions with the same chance of winning as the whole of NZ.

As I said though, that's the nation with the undeniably best pool of players and only having to split them in two. Once you go beyond that the advantage just looks weaker and weaker. Would you feel Ireland have an advantage in a revamped 8 Nations if they were represented by Connacht, Leinster and Munster?  Or maybe Cunster and Leinacht with just 2.

I suppose when it comes down to it I think you could ask every Union in the world whether they'd prefer the UK to be represented by England, Scotland, Wales and (partially) Ireland or merge into one and they would all answer with the former. I suppose a couple of them would hope to pick up a spot in the 6N, but the bean-counters would probably just reduce it to 4.  

If they split NZ up into North/South Island "nationalities", and "nationality" were based on under 20 sides along the same lines as Wales or Scotland. The South Island would struggle. Most of the talent is originally from the North. The Highlanders and Crusaders success has been built on the necessity of contracting players out of School. Players like Aaron Smith, Whitelock are Read are all NI boys who moved south for contracts. Last weeks starting XV's included only 20 SI bred players in the starting XV's: 7 (Canterbury) 6 (Otago) 4 (Chiefs) 1 (Hurricanes) and 2 (Blues).

I think it would be great.  We could have a real Four Nations Championship - as originally constituted - but without any of that anachronistic Home Nation/Union terminology with just UKRU, IRFU, FFR and FIR.

Just think what it would mean for June tours each year - Britain v New Zealand; France v South Africa; Ireland v Australia and Italy v Argentina.   

Much simpler.    And they could call them the British Lions every year. 

The PRO 12 would be interesting though.....

There may not be many countries which split to compete internationally but there's a well-known case of banding together: the West Indies cricket team.

For much of the amateur era this was the case.

England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland didn't travel abroad to the SH. Players only went with the lions. When the faced them at home sure they played as England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland. The Lions sang GSTQ right up to the end of the amateur era, Scotland did too until 1989.

I think it would be difficult to not argue that it would make GB rugby much stronger. If they can compete as they do in Lions tours etc away from home and often stranger next to stranger what could they do at home if they play year in year out with familiar players?

Should it happen. In an ideal world, yes. Why because as a Unionist (as in someone who believes in the Union) I think as much as its great to play as Wales, Scotland, England, *Ireland it certainly puts a difference between what should be my fellow countrymen. Yes its nice to have an identity but often sport simply develops a them and us mentality.
Perhaps some can argue its always been there... well if so, vote to leave don't sit there and say, oh I like the NHS, the pension, the nice parts of being together. In Wales, independance is at a healthy <5% no? Scotland in 2014 stayed purely because of the benefits... yet I'm in no doubt the division which has been sowed in recent years as part of "devolution" has developed a unhealthy and inevitable difference which will never be healed. Its a shame but I feel the UK's days are numbered.

Anyhow, I think its too late and it harms us in football, rugby the lot.

Imagine a British football team in the 70s/80s. They would have been unstoppable.

Southall, Whiteside, Best, Keegan, Dalglish, Souness, Hansen, Gemmill, Archibald, Hoddle, Robson, Lineker,

They would have been spectacular.

Sorry to Question you Secret but I hope you could see where I was coming from.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:????  South Africa could quite easily be divided into four distinct Regions.

Answer the question or don't Lord.

Regions are not countries though.

The only other place that is similar is the USA with their states.

Australia?

Actually SA is a combination of former nation states.

The Cape Colony, Free State and Transvaal were separate countries until the British were "victorious" in the Boer War of 1899-1902. They formed the union of South Africa thereafter.

Persons from the Transvaal and the Cape are very different, even Afrikaners from each respected regions.