What makes someone Scottish? Whatever it is, the rules need tightening
WHAT makes someone Scottish? Or any particular nationality, for that matter? For some, it’s where they were born, for others it’s where they grew up or where they now live.
In a sporting sense, nationality has become far more of a paperwork issue than about any sense of belonging to a particular country.
It’s why the comments of Craig Chalmers last week caught my eye.
Chalmers is a great of Scottish rugby, winning 60 caps as well as playing for the British Lions in a decade-long international career which saw him win the Five Nations in 1990 – achieving the Grand Slam – and 1999.
As well as being a great fly-half in his day, he is someone who has never been scared to speak his mind.
In a wide-ranging interview in The Times, he talked about the current Scotland rugby team, noting that Finn Russell is the only player who really sounds Scottish.
“The current squad, a lot of them are Scottish but a lot of them aren’t,” Chalmers said. “The only person who speaks with a proper Scottish accent is Finn Russell.
“Scottish rugby needs a reset. We have relied a lot on grandparents and three-year residencies. We have relied on the SpringJocks.”
It is, of course, an exaggeration to suggest that Russell is the only one who sounds Scottish but his point, that the current fly-half is one of the few players in the national team who was born and brought up in Scotland, is worth considering.
First, does it actually matter if those pulling on the Scotland jersey have close connections to this country?
Scottish Rugby has certainly looked to all corners of the globe in order to bring players into the international fold through ancestry or residency rules, rather than working to have a team full of players who were developed within the Scottish system.
Similarly, the Scottish men’s football team is packed full of players who qualify for Scotland through their grandparents rather than any connection they personally have to this country.
As far as the rules go, this is entirely legitimate. And it’s arguable that were Scotland not to maximise these rules, we would be putting ourselves at a significant disadvantage compared to other nations who are wringing everything out of these eligibility rules.
But while knowing that having a team chock-full of “foreigners” is legal and what many other countries do, and despite not necessarily agreeing with Chalmers that “Scottishness” should be judged on the accent of an individual, I’m not happy about how easy it is to switch nationality and how much the essence of the Scottish national team, and national teams in general, are being lost.
International sport is distinctive from club sport for a reason and by drastically eroding what nationality means, its magic is also being lost.
Yes, allowing a national team to be selected from a bigger pool of players may increase the quality by a tiny percentage but what is lost as a result is far more significant.
At some point, the trend of loosening and chipping away at the eligibility rules has to be halted because while it might cause shortterm pain, there will definitely be long-term gain.
AND ANOTHER THING
THE omission of Guy Learmonth from GB’s squad for the World Indoor Athletics Championships, which begin in Glasgow on Friday, came as a shock when the news emerged last week.
The 31-year-old failed to meet
British Athletics’ qualification standard for selection but, as a result of his placing on World Athletics’ “Road to Glasgow” ranking list, he was ruled eligible by the global governing body.
It’s an invite that was promptly declined by British Athletics.
Learmonth’s anger and devastation, which he talked about in these pages yesterday, was understandable; to have the opportunity to compete for major championship silverware on home soil is rare and being deprived of this chance has resulted in Learmonth being heartbroken and disillusioned.
I’m all for selection for major events being tough – no one wants to see athletes pulling on a GB vest purely to make up the numbers. But to omit Learmonth is a baffling decision.
He is a world-class athlete at his best, he is a sub-1.45 runner and already this year, he’s run 1:46.80 indoors.
He attributed his second place at last weekend’s British Indoor Championships to a chest infection he picked up in the days leading up to the event, in which he was pipped to gold by one thousandth of a second.
Certainly, it seems that had he chosen not to put himself on the line and instead sit out the British Championships, he might well be headed to Glasgow. Instead, he will be at home.
Elite sport is a brutal environment, everyone knows that. But it can’t be forgotten that elite athletes are human beings and treating them like commodities has consequences.
It remains to be seen if Learmonth has the motivation to continue in a sport that he feels has treated him so badly.
I hope he does, and even better, I hope he qualifies to make his Olympic debut in Paris this summer, which would be the perfect riposte to those who haven’t supported him this year.
International sport is distinctive from club sport for a reason and by drastically eroding what nationality means, its magic is also being lost