Gracious, but it is rugby

Published on Thursday 27 November 2003 00:00

THE opening line of the story in a Sunday newspaper was a declamatory Shakespearean speech: "Cry God! For Jonny, England and St Clive! England are rugby kings of the world." It went on: "No-one can argue with England’s right to be called the best team on the planet." Heartfelt praise and remarkably not an early indication of English gloating. It was how Scotland On Sunday recorded the world cup victory.

A certain mentality might have sought for congratulations and clenched teeth irony, like, for example, the Sunday Mail’s editorial: "Well done England . . . There, we’ve said it!". But it was apparently sincere - and a template. Something alien stirred in the Scottish media - an ability to be gracious toward the English.

On the morning of the game, it had looked as if we were in familiar territory when the Daily Record declared: "The English are prat it again!" reporting on the England coach being dismissive of Scotland’s rugby squad and taking a swipe at the national soccer side. A day later, the media was awash with admiration.

Such awe is surely a sign the Scots are "growing up"; or perhaps not.

There were apparently five reasons for our apparent maturity.

(A) Rugby does not truly matter. (B) It is not football. (C) It is played by "gentlemen", who regarded victory by the northern hemisphere team to be more important than ersatz nationalism and consequently (D) try as it might, the media was unable to engender serious criticism of England. Scotland and former British Lions coach, Ian McGeechan, hailed the win as "a major step for the northern hemisphere." Finally (E), it would have been nasty even for the Scots not to applaud the compellingly dramatic nature of the victory.

It was left to columnists to express perhaps a truer "national" feeling. In Monday’s Herald Ruth Wishart wrote: "The morning after the morning before, it was a nation of two halves ... we have been down this road before. The statistically minded might try this: How many seconds after the Poms bashed the Ozzies did it take before someone mentioned 1966? It was possible to believe with the head that the better team won while feeling the heart sink at full untrammelled gloating rights being awarded to neighbours not generally overburdened with modesty."

This was exemplified when the Daily Telegraph Scottish edition trumpeted: "We are champions … of the world". Disgruntled of Carnoustie may not have concurred.

Tartanised versions of other English newspapers, notably the Sun and Daily Mail were conscious that Scots are different from the English. Their English editions carried respectively 20 and 28 separate pieces on the game, while the same papers’ coverage in Scotland was far more muted to a degree that prompted a Radio 5 commentator to suggest that finding significant coverage of the event in Scotland was difficult.

That was not fair or entirely accurate, nor was the optimistic note of some commentators.

Professor Tom Devine, a historian and authority on Anglo-Scots relations, suggested devolution might be behind an "increasing tendency to support English teams".

Professor John Eldridge, a specialist in sociology and media at Glasgow University, said: "Let’s see what happens if England win the European soccer championship. If we’re giving out stars to the media, they should be silver, not gold. Rugby, as a sport, is in an altogether different context. There is a British team, which shifts emphasis. People in rugby - players and spectators - are a different breed, which shows far greater tolerance toward competitors, even England."

Professor Philip Schlesinger, the director of the media research institute at Stirling University, agreed. He said: "Rugby, unlike football, does not touch that primeval nerve. Because of that, we escaped the reflex of criticism; thinking about Scottishness in relationship to Englishness."