England the Brave

We're racist apparently.

So said the people who complained to Fife Police, resulting in HMV Kirkcaldy being subject to the police removing their "Anyone But England" merchandise.

Ok! Way to incite hatred.

We don't want England to win. We don't. Not because we are racist, because they would be insufferable bores if they won. We don't hate them. We don't have a line in racist slurs. We don't attack the English, we have a light hearted banter about long standing rivalries.

Why don't we support the Home Nations? We do, the others, just not England. Why? Mostly because they are infinitely better than the rest of us. Scotland has never qualified for the second round, other than the time we did by some technicality and said no. We haven't been at the last three World Cups. And it's a bit galling to see the expectations laid upon England and a complete inability to enjoy the fact that their team are THERE. The unshakeable belief that England should win everything and any failure to do so is the fault of some fall guy, or down to cheatery and being robbed. Be like the Dutch, enjoy the experience and go for it. They've never won, they're not bitter. The bitterness of the English support rankles. Where's your Tartan Army equivalent?

The English football fans have, I'm afraid, created a bad impression historically. Very few other nations have the same record of violence and discord overseas.

Necessary disclaimer: Scottish opinion of the Old Firm, and support thereof, is somewhere largely below that of the English support. They are indefensible.

Now, I can accept that 99% of English footie fans are far, far removed from those that cause discord abroad. But there's a difference in attitude between that of the English and that of, erm, everyone else.

Example A: World Cup 2002. I explained to my colleague why I would be supporting Belgium, because they had qualified from our qualifying group and so theoretically would be in Scotland's place. He was baffled, he couldn't comprehend why this didn't make me hate Belgium and wish them the worst run possible for "stealing" our place.

Example B: In 1465, when Raith Rovers last played well, they were put out of the UEFA cup by Bayern Munich. The Raith Rovers support thus wanted them to win. Each team that they beat by a lower margin than they had beaten the Rovers was equivalent to Rovers beating them by the difference. By Bayern Munich winning the cup, it would have technically made Rovers the runners up. An English flatmate could not comprehend why Bayern Munich were not Most Hated, they would have wanted them to be defeated 18-0 in the next round, and in all matches for ever more.

On more general Scottish/English rivalries:

It's not generally PC to call people by names, however accurate, that are used as an offensive term. You know the obvious ones, you wouldn't use them. Historically, we were the Scotch. Why aren't we any more? Because a certain country landlocked to us used it as a derogatory term, and so we became Scottish. Except, sometimes, it slips in. And rarely
from genuine ignorance. It annoys, always, as does the equally humorous "jock".

See, there are a few facts. We accept them. As a nation, we do drink more, we do eat more fat, we do achieve less as a country. We are much less affluent, and there is a constant exodus of the great and the good to England.

But we have a better health service, a better education system, a better legal system and we are fiercely proud of what we do well. And we don't really like being teased about being Scottish, because it's not something we're ashamed of. It's not ok, actually, to say "what??! You're not drinking??? But you're Scottish?" Yes, I am. Listen to all my vowels. Ha.

Don't. Call. Me. Jock. And actually, I'm quite generous but will be utterly offended if you come into my house and turn down my food.

Andy Murray is British when he's doing well, Scottish when he loses. Always true. Donald Dewer's death was an incidental report in England. In exchange, we have a wonky map that ends at Newcastle. We can be insular. Heh.

We have an (unofficial) anthem. It glories the fights we won against England and has a veiled threat that we will have victory once more. We happily sing that at the English, who don't have their own anthem, the sods. Not that we resent them using the British one, it's rubbish! Other nations have rousing passionate anthems, the English/British have funereal dirge. Adopt Land of Hope and Glory and be done with it.

Yeah. Love them. But really, it's banter. We don't discriminate against the English, as they don't against us. We don't incite violence or nastiness. Jock is never used to hurt, nor is Sassenach. It's all a chip on our collective shoulders and harmless banter based on years of battles. Most people don't want independence because we're not daft. Yet.

But please. We will never support the national team. Those that do, don't care about football.

A long way to go

Yes, the fact that the American electorate were unprejudiced enough to ensure the best candidate won is marvellous, it is an enormous step in the direction of eradicating prejudice and it should be heralded.

But...

Obama has not played the race card and he continues to make intelligent comment about race. Yet everyone who is celebrating his victory is celebrating his colour, the fact that an African American [sic] is to be the next President. He did not win because of his colour. He won because he is intelligent and a sublime orator, and because his policies are sound . That is what is important.

It is impossible to keep count of the number of times it has been said today: "when is Britain going to follow suit and have a black PM?" or words to that effect. (Jeremy Vine said it again and again until I threw my radio into the Forth in disgust).

What? Excuse me? Does that not COMPLETELY miss the point?

In order to be without prejudice, the colour of someone's skin, along with their gender, sexual orientation, age, disability and religious (or other) beliefs should not be relevant. People should be judged solely on their suitability for whatever in question and none of those things affect suitability unless an individual is genuinely unable to meet the requirements because of it.

Seeking to appoint someone for a position purely because of something that is entirely irrelevant to whether they are appropriate is still prejudiced. It is wrong to make it an issue, positive discrimination is still discrimination. There are many racists still about and it would be wrong to deny that, or to deny the appalling attitudes that still exist or the terrifying treatment of some people, but the way the media are carrying on today is simply continuing to make a song and dance and provide fodder for the bigots. Continuing to make an issue, continuing to highlight an imaginary difference. We have to learn that there is no difference. We all have to learn that and if we can't, we will never be without racism.

*********

A personal note: I am aware that I am incredibly bad at expressing myself and I am also aware that all of what I just wrote is likely to be taken as naive or worse.

I am writing this here so as not to embarrass myself on someone else's space, and because I can't see that look people get in their eyes whenever I try to talk about something that matters.