Scottish footballers talk themselves out of business

Scottish football legends have come out today in favour of keeping the Union. I don't often speak against Super Ally, but there is an inconsistency here. It is at the very least odd for footballers who themselves have benefited from having a separate Scottish FA and leagues to be lecturing other people about having other walks of life fused together.

While some of the country's intelligentsia were coming out in favour of the Union, 100 businesses signed a statement in support of the SNP.

On a slightly separate note, I'm surprised at this latest development. I've often wondered why footballers do not use their clout more to campaign on issues of national and international importance. These guys have oodles of cash and media exposure. This intervention is quite unprecedented by an industry which by my reckoning is one of the most bloated and selfish around.

Comments

[Ted]

LOL. Do I detect a little sour grapes? Perhaps if Ally had publicly supported the SNP....

Osama, I don't think anyone would say the Lisbon Lions, for one, have 'oodles of cash' even with their 38th/38th/40th (whatever it is) anniversary dinner of the European Cup win. I think all of the signatories would be quite happy for there to be no separate Scottish league or FA, tbh. Indeed, it's a little known fact that the founder of the English League, William McGregor, a Scotsman and Unionist, called it 'The Football League' because he anticipated Scottish, Welsh and Irish clubs participating in the competition. Still, who needs Rangers-Arsenal when you have, er, Rangers-Dunfermline.

I think you're wrong about 'unprecedented intervention'. When Willie Waddell (God rest his soul) was General Manager of Rangers in 1979 he publicly put the club behind the 'No/No' vote. The problem in this country is that handwringers have dictated that politics (and, more specifically, religion) and football don't mix. In fact, they do, and are vital to the identity of many clubs, not just in Scotland. But the scoundrels have effectively silenced the debate.

[joe90]

The newspaper this article comes from proclaims itself 'Scotland's Newspaper' - owned by the usual bunch of foreigners, no doubt.

There is even a party called 'Scottish Labour', yet says it isn't, not really, ..er.

These foreign-owned newspapers wrap themselves up in Balmorality and toe-curling tartanry whenever Scottish teams and Scottish individuals do well on the international stage - when it comes to jumping on the money-making band-wagon that comes from purely Scottish endevours, there is never a squeak of criticism from these foreign parasites, and their home-grown lackeys.

When Scotland does badly, they are the first ones to stab us in the back -
- Argentine 1978, is a classic example of the psuedo-patriotism of the foreign-owned Scottish massmedia who voiced not a whiff of criticism, being the super-patriots they are when there is money and careers to be made, jumping on the Ally Mcleod bandwagon, until things started to go badly on the park.

[Noman]

Sir Alex Ferguson has always been a Labour supporter so he doesn't really count.

The best one is has to be Walter Smith. And as a Rangers fan it hurts but...

Big Walter signs his name alongside the claim that 'When Scotland calls, we answer'

Hmmm.. interesting... remind me who walked out of the Scotland manager's job in the middle of the Euro 2008 qualifying campaign?

[joe90]

This is the kind of schizophrenia that is typical of these Union Jocks - they play for Scotland but vote for England.

To continue to call it a 'union' contradicts the evidence that it is, in fact, a cultural and economic takeover. There is no 'union' except when it comes election time when Scottish 'socialists' of New Labour and Scottish Conservatives morph together to become Tartan Tories.

The English Football Association came into being in the north of England as a professional organisation, in contrast to gentlemanly amateur teams. The F.A. didn't call itself 'English' was because it contained no teams from the south of England as members, and therefore, didn't consider itself wholly representative of the various types of 'football' being played in England at the time.

The fact the F.A. didn't use 'English' in its title had nothing to do with trying to appeal to teams outwith England. In fact, it was Glasgow 'Celtic' who used the epithet 'Celtic' to try to appeal to pan-Celt sympathisers and supporters in Scotland, Eire and Cymru.

Some Scottish Football History -
Football as we know it, is Scottish, despite the all pro-English propaganda. The passing game, players positions, dribbling - all quintessentially 'football' and all invented by Scots, as reports tells us of the first international in 1873 between Scotland v England, at Partick Cricket Ground.

Until the Scots used these innovations on the field, football was basically just playing rugby with your feet.

And of course, the first world cup champions, weren't Uruguay in 1930 - but then reigning Scottish Cup Champions, Renton (Dumbartonshire) in 1888, who beat reigning English Cup Champions, West Bromwich Albion, to claim the right to be called 'world champions' outright.

And in 1950(?) it was the SFA who baled out FIFA from the abyss of bankrupcy by arranging a British Select v The Rest of the World, at Hampden Park (world's oldest national football stadium).

Also, Scotland holds all the European football attendence records
ie for a cup final match, a cup non-final game, european final, european non-final game, league game , etc

The only European attendence record Scotland doesn't hold is for a testamonial but a Scottish club was involved in De Stefano of Real Madrid's testamonial in 1968(?) - as the best player in Europe, he wanted to play the best team in Europe hence Celtic was the opposition.

Until Brazil's Maracana Stadium was opened in 1950, Scotland held the world football attendence records for all football categories, and in all sports!

How ironic, given the uniqueness of Scotland as the epicentre of a social phenomenon that swept the world, that some of its finest exponents continue to live in denial about the fact Scotland is not part of any 'union' but has been takeover -
- don't believe me, just tune into BBC bias anytime which always favours all things 'English', including some of their ex-Scotland players turned football pundits, like the anglo-holic Alan Hanson!

all the best!

[Ted]

The FA was formed in London and contained teams from the south - such as Crystal Palace. The Football League, which I was talking about, was also formed in London and contained teams from the Midlands so was not exclusively Northern. As regards the envisaged British nature of these competitions - Rangers, for example, took part in the early years of the FA Cup even reaching the semi-finals at one stage.

I think it's a great shame, and to the detriment of the Scottish league, that a Union between all the leagues was not set in those early days. And any Scotsman that denies this is simply indulging in the worst kind of 'wha's like us' hubris - rather that like you're doing just now, in fact.

"remind me who walked out of the Scotland manager's job in the middle of the Euro 2008 qualifying campaign?"

Walter Smith wasn't the first manager to walk out on Scotland for a prestigious club job and he won't be the last. Club football will always trump international football. The Scottish job wasn't enough to tempt Jock Stein, Alex Ferguson or Tommy Docherty to give up their clubs jobs at the time and that will always be the case.

[joe90]

My mistake regarding the setting up of the professional English league and confusing it with the setting up of the English FA.

It's a while since I read up on this stuff.

Midlands and north of England teams in the first English league, yes - but no southern English teams.

One of the reasons Scottish teams couldn't join the English League was due to the English league's professional status and the Scots were still were regarded as amateurs.

The amatuer nature of the game then was the reason teams were invited to play in various knockout competitions under whatever rules - all very gentlemanly and middle-class, old sport - no working class oiks allowed.

Football then, as it was evolving, was about the British class system and its attitudes to sport, and was not about purely nationalistic matters!

Also distance was a problem - the fastest you could travel in them days was about 50 mph on very windey and windy rail routes. Getting to and from matches took days then Ted. The English league was about making money, not about amatuer gentlemen meeting in knockout competitions, taking time out from their work and paying their way to the games. A professional league is a completely different beast entirely from FA and SFA Cup knockout competitions.

So, the formation of the English FA and the English League had nothing to do with Scots standing aloof from their English betters.

Where's is this proof Ted, that it's the Scots who are the ones who are prejudiced, and not the English Establishment (such as today's BBC) as you are claiming?

It seems that even when the Scots are involved in English football helping set up their first league, giving them great managers and the like, we still don't get any thanks for it. There still something wrong with us. Typical English establishment and foreign-owned Scottish massmedia bias.

[joe90]

Osama - I hope you don't mind if address a few more points of Ted's.
(sorry if this is a bit long-winded)!

And any Scotsman that denies this is simply indulging in the worst kind of 'wha's like us' hubris - rather that like you're doing just now, in fact.

This is a common smear tactic levelled at anyone who dares take pride in the cultural achievements of Scotland. However, I don't know anyone who has this attitude with regards to being Scottish. Where I do hear it, is from whinging whining Union Jocks and the assorted foreigners, who own and run Scotland's massmedia.

If some English bloke had helped set up the Scottish Football League or the Bank of Scotland, then this would be used as proof of natural English superiority, egalitarianism and generosity of spirit. When Scots do and take pride in it, its the reverse.

As far as football and Scotland are concerned, Scots have engaged directly with the rest of Europe and the world at large, at every level ie youth, seniors, women (men goes without saying !), European, World and club levels, professional and amatuer.

Scotland is completely in the mainstream in having its own FA, league structures and the like. How this could have been bettered by being run from a foreign capital and non-Scots is beyond me.

I see no evidence that Scots would be better off being run by foreigners, quite the reverse, if UK foreign policy is anything to go by (to take just a single example). No other people, around the world, thinks this way, that they should be run by outsiders based in a foreign capital, and would be horrified at the thought of outside interference in their own affairs.

This anti-Scottish bigotry, if it were applied to any other people, would be seen for what it is - pure unadulterated cultural imperialism and a form of racism. Indeed, if Scots do over-react to this pro-English Establishment propaganda then it can easily be justified as a reaction to the arrogance and parochialism of the British ruling classes and their institutions based in the capital of England.

Indeed, it is these Brits who think themselves naturally superior to Scots - but its typical that the perpetrator should accuse their victims of the crime committed against them, especially by the closeted world of the London-based British massmedia.

Nations having their own organisations and institutions is a way of reflecting cultural diversity and democracy. To support the idea that Scotland shouldn't have its own SFA, and use it express its own unique distinctiveness is anti-democratic, imperialist and bigoted. To be 'British' is just another way of saying to be ruled, owned and then ignored by English institutions based in London.

Scots, for instance, are forced to follow US orders dressed up as British foreign policy. Scots are excluded from Europe because of English chauvenism/British nationalism whose dislike of France and Germany, for instance, is a constant source of jokes and amusement for BBC English programmes for English viewers.

To be Scottish, as the SFA shows, is to be engaged with the rest of the world, due mainly to the fact Scots don't have to go via London where our interests are never recognised, properly represented, never mind acted on.

Thanks Ted for renewing my interest in football history again - to repay you I can recommend this book which I reckon to be one of the best books ever wriiten about football (read the book reviews at Amazon!)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccer-Sun-Shadow-Eduardo-Galeano/dp/1859844235/ref=sr_1_9/202-9254772-0954212?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177616731&sr=1-9>Football in the Sun and the Shade by Eduardo Galeano who I have been told is the world's most read journalist. He writes in Spanish hence he doesn't get much coverage in the English speaking world.

all the best

[Ted]

Joe, my 'wha's like us' comment was clearly aimed in the context of whether a Union of the leagues would have been a good thing or not. It would have been, for us, and anyone who denies this is simply indulging in isolationism. So we had big attendances 70 years ago and Renton or whatever were 'world champions' 120 years ago, what does that prove? Even 70 years ago, the best Scottish talent almost always headed south to the bigger league, the more competitive league and with bigger crowds. If you don't think it would have a been good thing for us to have joined the Football League in its early days then you don't watch the Scottish Premier League every week and you're unaware of the attempts by Rangers and Celtic to reverse the errors of their predecessors and belatedly join the English setup.

A long-distance league in the early days would not have been without its problems, of course, but these could have been resolved. You may have had to play a collection of away fixtures in one 'tour' as part of the league fixture list - when Rangers visited England in the 1870's they would play 2 or 3 games at one time. It would not have been insurmountable.

[joe90]

OK Ted mate,
I'll let this be my last comment on the matter, if Osama doesn't mind indulging me one last time.

You have no proof that the Scottish League and Scottish professional football was about Scottish isolationism. Indeed, I've proved the opposite, that Scotland, in footballing terms, is fully engaged with the rest of the world and is not isolated. Indeed, the SFA baled out FIFA from the threat of bankrupcy after WWII by arranging a special match at dear old Hampden, to raise money for it. However, Scotland in most other ways, is completely isolated from the rest of the world by pro-English based bias and subjection to English based institutions. This is so blatant it doesn't even need proving.

As for whether Celtic and Rangers made bad choices in joining a professional Scottish league way back then -
- well, for a start it was lamented that Scottish footballers were going to north England to play professional football because they couldn't make a living from it at home (this sounds eerily familiar stll), thus depriving Scottish spectators of their talents. As I said, the big issue then was amatuer versus professionalism Ted, not nationalism. Once the leagues got going, football was a completely different ball game.

Rangers and Celtic are buisnesses. What they want to do about their financial future is their own buisness. If they want to go and play on the moon, that's their affair. I am sure the other bigger clubs in smaller countries wouldn't mind joining leagues in bigger countries next door to them, such as Portugal and Spain, Denmark and Germany etc. This is just the structure of the world and reflect cultural diversity and democracy. Clubs that just want to make money, and be like American sports 'franchises' that just up sticks and move wholesale to other cities, I think is an awful selfish idea.

Early doors, football was an amatuer game for the middle-classes ie a hobby or a past-time. Working class clubs like Renton or the Vale of Leven couldn't go on tour Ted. Their players and staff had to make a living doing something else, and couldn't afford to take time off work - remember that working conditions were a lot longer in them days Ted.

I am sure Rangers could have arranged to go on tour, but that defeats the purpose of having a home ground and being in a league. Who gets to keep the attendence money, and how on earth were Rangers supposed to build up a fan base in Glasgow if they never played there? Or what about English teams coming to Scotland just to play Rangers for just a single game, and then having to head back south?

As for attendences, Celtic and Rangers still command huge numbers as does Hampden on occassions. As far as I am aware Glasgow is the only city thas has three 50,000 seater football stadiums. And if you scale up the 40 odd Scottish senior teams in terms of Scotland's c.5 million population - then proportionately your beloved England ought to have 800 senior football teams instead of the 80 odd it currently has.

And anyway, attendence figures don't reflect the public interest in football these days because of technological advances in electroinc communications. It's measured more in terms of radio listening and TV viewing figures, which generate the revenue - in the same way, material concerns affected the growth and early formation of football, such as better rail networks, booming nineteenth century urban populations, and the like.

All the best Ted mate!

[Ted]

A Danish club joining the Bundesliga is not analogous to a Scottish side joining the English Premiership, in my view. Denmark and Germany are not a union like Scotland and England and do not have shared cultural, religious, political and social institutions like Scotland and England. Union is a fact of life between Scotland and England which is not the case for Denmark/Germany or any other European combination that critics like to throw in the mix.

Once professionalism was introduced into the Scottish setup, there was no reason, in my view, why the Scottish clubs should not have applied to the English setup - as the major Welsh clubs clearly did. Did it affect their identity to do so? It does not appear so.

No-one is disupting the interest in football amongst Scots but merely that the potential of Scottish clubs would have been more greatly realised in the larger, more competitive market that was on their doorstep and to which they could easily have applied.

I see Alex McLeish has been the subject of complaints by irate members of the self-styled 'Tartan Army' for lending his name to this campaign. They don't like the Scotland manager getting involved in politics, y'see - at least not while he's disagreeing with them.

[joe90]

Sorry Ted but your argument was,
that it's because Scots are cliquey and full of 'scots wha hae' hubris which prevented them from joining with the precious English league. I have argued against that by mainly refuting your obvious anti-Scottish bigotry, and maintaining that football and league development were of their time and place.

This is typical of you Ted. You just repeat yourself, ignoring what people have said. You did this sort of thing with your allegations about UEFA having it in for Rangers. You just repeated your previous assertions and changed others without acknowledgment.

I think I have proved that in the specific circumstances of the time, professional football could not have been played between the northern English professional league and the Scottish amateur teams and players. Indeed, it was lamented that Scottish 'amateur' players were heading south in order to make a living, hence the reasons the 'corinthian ideals' of middle-class amatuerism were overcome by the needs of the working-class footballers to make a living, and for booming industrial urban populations to enjoy their leisure time watching football, and paying for the privilege to do so. All very industrial capitalist I'm afraid - hence the British class prejudice against football to this day, which isn't considered real 'culture' by cultural historians and the like.

I have also shown that Scottish football history has lost nothing, and gained everything, by not being run from and a foreign country. Indeed, the strength of Scottish football is in its amazing history. You can't refute this undoubted strength of the Scottish game Ted, so instead you just say it doesn't matter (as you do with appeasement and Hitler - no two events can be of comparable importance in understanding modern British history).

Why you think the northern English league, in contrast to Scottish professional league football, was bound to go on and be more of a financial success is just your natural bigotry coming out Ted. There was nothing to indicate your prejudiced assumption that England, automatically, is better than Scotland. Absolutely nothing. The English league may have become financial disaster after a while, and could have bankrupt Scottish teams which played in it.

This assumption of natural English superiority is just hindsight on your part, and of little merit in trying to understand and appreciate the forces at work behind this Scotland-north of England phenomena which subsequentley swept the world, and which no-one could have predicted. And anyway, you're judgement is comparative ie how MORE sucessful would Scottish-based clubs have been in England - and is also confined to just two Scottish club teams Rangers (mostly) and Celtic. Very parochial indeed, yet it's the rest of us who are being accused of short-sightedness and prejudice, 'Rangers fans - wha's like 'em!'

As far as Welsh teams in the English league and English FA,
I am not arguing about the effects of professional league membership on national identity - I am saying there are specific cultural and historical reasons why Association Football, in its professional and league format, first developed in Central Scotland and northern England (but not southern England). You're maintaining that Welsh football hasn't been affected by Welsh involvement in an English based professional system, and Welsh nationalism hasn't been damaged by membership of professional English football. Which is basically what I said about the early formation of Scottish football, which had nothing to do with your charges of 'anti-English Scottish nationalism'.

Is this a case of "'Wales wha hae" hubris then, that you are arguing for Ted - have you abandoned your previous arguments against the supposed deleterious effects of Scottish nationalism, as regards union with your hallowed English league and FA?

However,
as there are only 2 or 3 Welsh teams in the English league, it hasn't been a roaring success for professional Welsh football, so far, I'd say. Unlike Scottish senior football, with its 42 teams out of a population of 5 million - in proportionate terms, England ought to have 10 times the numders of teams as Scotland, as England has 10 times the population = 400 senior league teams (and not 800 as I previously stated).

Overt nationalism had little to do with early football, both in the attempts to regularise the rules (formation of FAs) and in promotion of professional leagues, which themselves were purely buisness affairs and which had to overcome the prejudices of the amateur toffs and snobs who ran the two FAs.

As for Professional League football in general -
it is about buisness Ted, and making money. Any senior Scottish team can go and join whatever league they like, and give up their membership of the SFA. Nobody's keeping them here except themselves and the fact that other FA's won't have them.

Berwick Rangers are based in England, but are members of the SFA and the Scottish league. A few Welsh clubs play in England. Monaco plays in France. There are anomolies everywhere in world football. The fact Britian has four FAs, but is counted as one state is due to the anomly that the game started here, and the subsequent development of the game hence.

It's easy to see, however, the strong forces of cultural identity which went to make up the three non-English FAs, which subsist within the 'British nationalist state' (which is merely a figment of the imagination of the Oxbridge-London subsidy junkies based in the English capital, as fas as I am concerned).

As for what we share with the English -
..shared cultural, religious, political and social institutions like Scotland and England
- such as The Church of Scotland perhaps - or Scottish Education - or Scots Law - or Scottish language, the Gaidhlig - Scots regiments - Scottish traditional musical forms etc etc

The only thing we share with England, that has been any real significance, is a land border. Otherwise, it has just been the usual straightforward cultural imperial takeover of a small country by a larger one, and then the smaller one completely ignored. There has been no union of equals at any point..

Indeed, as I have argued, football is a direct expression of cultural diversity and democracy, and is something to be treasured in itself, in contrast to your idea of the selfish ugly money making aspect by big professional football businesses and players. If it makes money then who cares about other people, tradition, history, society, identity - it's all in the past. Nothing matters but the Thatcherite here and now, financial success and what my own individual selfish wants and desires are.

As for Dernmark-Germany, Portugal-Spain,
you say they are seperate because they aren't part of a 'union' .

Professional clubs are buisnesses and are not motivated, unlike yourself, by purely anti-Scottish concerns. These countries I have pointed out (Denmark-Germany, Portugal-Spain etc) do indeed share many cross-border cultural, political and religious links. I don't know where you get the idea that these countries are completely culturally isolated and cut-off from each other. They aren't, as anybody who has travelled about Europe will vouch for! The smaller countries don't seem too eager to get together with the bigger ones, despite the allure of all that cash in their next door neighbours biggers leagues.

Internally, Germany is just a hotch-potch country put together by Bismarck in the 1860s using 'blood and steel'. - Spain is a weird collection of peoples, so is France, so is Italy. Indeed, again, it is Scotland at the cultural cutting edge, and in the representative mainstream, in having its own SFA and league structure and these other bigger countries that are unrepresentative of the peoples within their borders. Many other 'de-nationalised' Peoples look to Scotland as an ideal model ie Flems, Walloons, Bretons, Basques, Catalunyans.

Of course,
now the wheel have come full circle with the border-less EU, a shared currency (almost - the parochial Yankee colony of Britian doesn't want to join) and cheap and quick transport and communication links - we are beginning to see the first signs of a pan-European league. The paying public can have 'access' to games via TV, internet, radio etc.

Today is redolent of conditions when the first local professional leagues were being setup in Scotland and the north of England, when people were able to go along and watch their local teams play proper outside opposition, who themselves were able to use the growing and reliable local rail networks to arrive at their matches on the appointed time. In a growing industrial-urban society, time is money!

According to your own cut-off isolated parochial world Ted, the history of football has nothing to tell us about the 'modern game' today or how it will develop in the future. And there are no group of people with a longer memory than football fans, hence their epithet 'fanatics', or who revel more in their own history, albiet about their own clubs and teams mostly.

all the best!

[Ted]

"that it's because Scots are cliquey and full of 'scots wha hae' hubris which prevented them from joining with the precious English league."

No, I said that to deny it would have been beneficial for us to have formed a British league with the English and Welsh was to indulge in Scottish nationalist hubris - as you demonstrated with your meaningless drivel about Renton and the like.

"You did this sort of thing with your allegations about UEFA having it in for Rangers. You just repeated your previous assertions and changed others without acknowledgment."

I've had cause to revisit the thread and can find no proof to back up this allegation. I provided verifiable evidence of anti-Rangers lies in supposedly anti-racist literature and verifiable evidence of double standards by the media in Scotland. Your claim also misrepresents my position. I made it clear from the outset that I considered that UEFA were being led on this issue by organisations in Scotland working to their own mischievous agenda (as outlined above). The fact that you, and others, failed to disprove any of this is revealing.

"I think I have proved that in the specific circumstances of the time, professional football could not have been played between the northern English professional league and the Scottish amateur teams and players."

No-one was suggesting an amalgamation between professionals and amateurs. When the Scottish game became professional, it would have been beneficial to the Scottish game to have sought a union with the English professional clubs. To deny this is to deny the state of the Scottish game and its natural limits to growth in the future.

"You can't refute this undoubted strength of the Scottish game Ted"

I can and I will refute it.

"The English league may have become financial disaster after a while, and could have bankrupt Scottish teams which played in it."

So could the Scottish league. It should hardly need pointing out that the English league had greater population, had greater access to bigger teams and would, therefore, have provided greater competition. The domination of the Scottish league by two teams, and the absence of such a domination in the English league, more or less proves this.

"Any senior Scottish team can go and join whatever league they like, and give up their membership of the SFA. Nobody's keeping them here except themselves and the fact that other FA's won't have them."

That's a pretty big obstacle. Effectively, there is no room for Scottish teams to go anywhere, in other words. Yes, quite.

[joe90]

So you're anti-Scottish bigoted rant is rubbish as I've proved.

..meaningless drivel about Renton and the like..

Yes I know Ted, history doesn't make money at this moment in time, for you and your millionaire heroes at Ibrox. Typical greedy Thatcherite arrogant selfishness. Nothing else exists except your own ignorance. To say world-making events nearly 150 years ago are of no importance shows just how much you have the common interests of all of football at heart. A totally heartless and self-absorbed non-entity.

I think it's a great shame, and to the detriment of the Scottish league, that a Union between all the leagues was not set in those early days. And any Scotsman that denies this is simply indulging in the worst kind of 'wha's like us' hubris - rather that like you're doing just now, in fact.

The problem with this is it's just the wishful thinking of an anti-Scottish bigot, and of no importance to anyone else other than other like-minded anti-Scottish bigots.

Another problem is it doesn't address the historical facts of the case,
a British league at that time was a physical impossibility, due to the fact there was no decent mode of transport. We are talking about a time when horse and carriages were still necessary. Leagues need regular, reliable, quick communications links for them to work properly otherwise they will go bust. Buisness men generally know what they are about. So leagues were setup within specific geographical areas for good sound buisness reasons, so that they wouldn't overstretch their new, innovative, world-first, profit-making enterprise.

This is also argument from hindsight - the fact that football went on to be popular was not something people at that time would have been aware of. At the time, nobody knew what would be successful and what wouldn't, in these, the world's first professional football league setups. Again, Ted fails to address the actual real facts of history and resorts to blind prejudice against Scotland in order to hide his own ignorance of the importance of history..

Ted used Welsh teams participating in the English league as an example of a success story -
but as we see, there are only 3 Welsh professional teams in the English league. This is proof against the idea that Scottish teams would have benefited by being English, and proof against Ted's assertion that Scottish football would have thrived under English tutelage - Ted's Welsh example shows the English league has been a disaster for the development of Welsh football.

Scotland with a population of 5 million people, it has 42 senior league club sides - that is success, as compared to Ted's dire Welsh example. I won't go into the details of Scotland holding world and European attendence records at all levels (except for women - I overlooked that record!) and all the rest of it's glorious history.

England has 50 million people, ten times Scotland population but has only twice the number of senior league clubs of the Scottish game. England, unlike football-daft Scotland, is hardly the oasis of football you are trying to make it out to be Ted. England's national sport is cricket remember, not football.

As for league domination,
you seem to forget the English league is usually dominated by 2 teams for periods at a time. Lately, cheque-book Chelsea has been tending to break the Man Utd-Arsenal monoploy. The same goes for just about every other league there is - they are usually dominated by a very small handful of clubs
ie Italy- Juventus and the two Milans,. Spain - Barcelona Real Madrid, Portugal - Benifica, Sporting Lisbon
Same with Holland, same with Germany.

Effectively, there is no room for Scottish teams to go anywhere, in other words. Yes, quite.
- I recommend you take your girning, greetin, whining, whinging complaints to the proper authority, either UEFA or FIFA. Nobody is forced to be a member of the SFA, which is what your precious Rangers. It's nobody else's fault if they don't want to leave. Rangers wouldn't exist without Scotland but Scotland doesn't need Rangers.