Idea of Team Scotland at Olympics might not be so ridiculous after all

IN practical terms, Chris Hoy may have been correct to say that the notion of a Scottish team in the Olympic Games is "at this stage . . . ridiculous". The cyclist, a triple gold medal winner in Beijing, has first-hand knowledge of the poor facilities we have here in some sports, and is aware that a series of political hoops would have to be jumped through before Scotland came close to competing in its own right.

But are those obstacles insurmountable? Or could something which might now seem ridiculous become, with the passing of time, a whole lot more realistic?

Up to the present, the debate has been less about the feasibility of a Scotland team, and more a reflection of the political preferences of those involved. Supporters of independence have suggested that the success of Hoy and others serves to show that Scottish sport can be successful, while backers of the union prefer to point to the success of Team GB as an example of the benefits of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all working together.

In other words, the issue of Olympic representation is in danger, to muddle a metaphor, of becoming a political football. As on more fundamental social and economic issues, the pro- independence camp says "We can do it" and the pro-unionists say "It'll never work". A large percentage of both groups has little interest in the facts, and a whole lot more interest in punting their prefabricated opinions.

If we attempt a more dispassionate look at the matter, we are likely to come up with a formula which is a lot less simplistic than "We can do it" or "It'll never work". A formula such as "We can't do it right now, but it could work in future given certain conditions".

The first condition, as First Minister Alex Salmond surely knows well, is that Scotland must achieve independence before it will be admitted as a participating member of the Olympic movement. Yes, there are some exceptions to the rule that only sovereign countries can take part in the Games – Hong Kong's inclusion in Beijing as a team in its own right being one – but in general the International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not rush to recognise a country whose independent existence has yet to be acknowledged by the outside world.

As a former economist, Salmond is well aware that the independence debate is far more likely to be won or lost on down-to-earth issues of everyday life rather than public feelings about a sports event which takes place for a fortnight every four years. All the same, he is not going to turn down the votes of anyone who decides that the Olympics have become a make-or-break issue for them. If even a handful of previously apolitical people decide they so want a Scottish team at the Games that they are prepared to back independence to get it, that will make the argument worthwhile as far as the Scottish National Party leader is concerned.

Once Scotland became independent, and was recognised as a sovereign state first by other countries and then the IOC, how would we fare? Would our team be a success or an embarrassment?

That depends to an extent on how you define success. It is inconceivable at present that Scotland on its own could come anywhere close to the 19 gold medals which Team GB brought back from Beijing yesterday, but then not so long ago it was inconceivable that Great Britain would do anything like as well as it has done this time. The medal tally from the 1996 Games in Atlanta, for instance, was a meagre one gold, eight silver and six bronze.

Since then, of course, Lottery funding has helped massively, and an independent Scottish government would have to ensure that the money did not dry up. But it is at least an indication that in the right circumstances things can change.

And in any case, the biggest multi-sport event at which Scotland does compete in its own right, the Commonwealth Games, has shown that our athletes can already thrive. The depth of opposition there is not what it is in the Olympics, but our swimmers who did so well in Melbourne, for example, had to get the better of their rivals from Australia and England, to mention just two countries who are pretty strong at the sport.

Only four Scots won medals in Beijing – Hoy, his cycling team-mate Ross Edgar, rower Katherine Grainger and canoeist David Florence. But more Scots would get into a Scottish team than have been selected for a British one, and smaller countries than our own have shown that it is possible to punch above your weight.

Back in 1996, Ireland (with a population of four million compared to Scotland's five) won three gold medals to Britain's one. This year, around three million Jamaicans were able to celebrate six gold medals and 13th place in the table.

Would a similar tally represent success for Scotland? Might we go all Corinthian and decide that simply taking part in our own right was more important than winning?

Nationalists might be tempted to take the latter approach, at least at first. Unionists would, by definition, be more likely to long for the days when Team GB was indeed united.