http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotlan...ast/8533791.stm

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/814688-anyone-...park-racism-row

A company selling "Anyone but England" T-shirts for this year's World Cup has rejected suggestions it is racist after police in Aberdeen visited its store.

so what do you think ?

Me personally, I am going for banter ;)

liked that post by 12th man...theres something in it...

Its as simple as A.B.C....Anyone But County :025:

liked that post by 12th man...theres something in it...

Its as simple as A.B.C....Anyone But County :025:

Now theres an idea......

What I want to know is why the English media seem to think it is compulsory for us Scots to support the English team if we're not there? After all France is a neighbour of theirs but they wouldnt support them would they? Back on topic I think someone has lost their sense of humour but I bet they sell lots after all this publicity.

But there's a difference. Like it or not, England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom whilst France is not. People from other countries find it difficult to understand why the four "Home Nations" have separate football teams rather than a single UK team as we do in the Olympics. It is a very strange arrangement and really we all ought to be behind a single UK national side. But for some reason the UK is allowed to field 4 sides and as part of a so called "united" kingdom, it is not unreasonable to expect that the bonds that unite the 4 nations would mean that we would support each other.

As things stand, England is a part of the same political state as Scotland and by supporting England you are supporting a team that is part of the same political state you belong to - that seems a reasonable thing to expect people to do. If Scotland was an independent nation then things would be different. Believing Scotland should be independent is a good reason for not supporting England but is not a good reason for wanting anybody else but England to win.

Of course the English media go OTT on the the hype and that can be irritating - but so what? Let them get on with it and good luck to them. If Scotland had a team with any chance of a good showing on the world stage there would be just as much hype.

If you can't wish your neighbours well it is a little bit sad. After all, we're more than neighbours -we share the same house!

sorry DD but I am sad. I dont wish them ill but I like to choose my own team to support at the big tournaments when Scotland are not there. Sometimes I choose on the basis that they have Scottish based players playing for them sometimes I choose just who I fancy. I know that a lot of English folk support Scotland when asked but we seem to be the junior partner politically and this leads us to probably have a chip on our shoulder mentality.To use your analagy they have a bigger house than us. Sorry but thats the way it is really.

Its only football really that makes me feel this way. I have great English friends and colleagues and like going there when on holiday.

Fair comment OCG. The important thing you said there is that you do not wish England ill - but sadly there are some who do. I think it entirely reasonable that some would support Brazil or France or whoever because of the style of football they play or because they have players who play in Scotland etc. What is sad are those who would rather support teams from countries with dreadful civil rights records or teams who play dirty and excell only in gamesmnanship. Just what point are they trying to make by supporting teams like that?

As things stand, England is a part of the same political state as Scotland and by supporting England you are supporting a team that is part of the same political state you belong to - that seems a reasonable thing to expect people to do.

If you can't wish your neighbours well it is a little bit sad. After all, we're more than neighbours -we share the same house!

That'll be why Manchester City supporters are always glad United keep winning the trophies if they can't. After all, they're all in the same country, same county and same political authority. They're more than neighbours - they share the same house. Ditto for Rangers/Celtic, Everton/Liverpool, Bristol City/Rovers, Hearts/Hibs etc etc etc.

No? Friendly rivalry is what football is about. Sure some take it too seriously. It's not a war, just a sport. England are our biggest rivals. Germany are theirs. We like to see these teams lose. It's what the fun of football's all about.

What is sad are those who would rather support teams from countries with dreadful civil rights records or teams who play dirty and excell only in gamesmnanship.

I don't see teams as representing political governments, rather the spirit of their footballing nation. For a start, it's usually the people of that country that suffer most by their governments. So who's being supported? The people of the government? If Italy plays South Africa, I'll be cheering on SA. Ok, the country may have more poverty, murders, corruption etc but I don't like the defensive style Italy has. And that's what it's all about - football.

What I want to know is why the English media seem to think it is compulsory for us Scots to support the English team if we're not there? After all France is a neighbour of theirs but they wouldnt support them would they? Back on topic I think someone has lost their sense of humour but I bet they sell lots after all this publicity.

But there's a difference. Like it or not, England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom whilst France is not. People from other countries find it difficult to understand why the four "Home Nations" have separate football teams rather than a single UK team as we do in the Olympics. It is a very strange arrangement and really we all ought to be behind a single UK national side. But for some reason the UK is allowed to field 4 sides and as part of a so called "united" kingdom, it is not unreasonable to expect that the bonds that unite the 4 nations would mean that we would support each other.

As things stand, England is a part of the same political state as Scotland and by supporting England you are supporting a team that is part of the same political state you belong to - that seems a reasonable thing to expect people to do. If Scotland was an independent nation then things would be different. Believing Scotland should be independent is a good reason for not supporting England but is not a good reason for wanting anybody else but England to win.

Of course the English media go OTT on the the hype and that can be irritating - but so what? Let them get on with it and good luck to them. If Scotland had a team with any chance of a good showing on the world stage there would be just as much hype.

If you can't wish your neighbours well it is a little bit sad. After all, we're more than neighbours -we share the same house!

Could you see England supporting Wales if they were in the World Cup - I don't think so, and there certainly would be no such thing as a UK national team, it would be made up of all English players and domonated by English politics for one thing. Keep politics out of football.

Slightly O/T, but for the 2nd time in two years an English player has snapped the leg of the star player of their qualifying group rivals. Eduardo last time, Aaron Ramsay last night. Only this time, to cap it all off (pardon the pun) the perpetrator Shawcross got instantly called up to the England squad!

Slightly O/T, but for the 2nd time in two years an English player has snapped the leg of the star player of their qualifying group rivals. Eduardo last time, Aaron Ramsay last night. Only this time, to cap it all off (pardon the pun) the perpetrator Shawcross got instantly called up to the England squad!

Surely you're not implying that Shawcross intentionally broke Ramsay's leg? I think this conspiracy theory is a bit OTT.

Slightly O/T, but for the 2nd time in two years an English player has snapped the leg of the star player of their qualifying group rivals. Eduardo last time, Aaron Ramsay last night. Only this time, to cap it all off (pardon the pun) the perpetrator Shawcross got instantly called up to the England squad!

Surely you're not implying that Shawcross intentionally broke Ramsay's leg? I think this conspiracy theory is a bit OTT.

Fae greetin faced Wenger's response ya'd think so!!

Slightly O/T, but for the 2nd time in two years an English player has snapped the leg of the star player of their qualifying group rivals. Eduardo last time, Aaron Ramsay last night. Only this time, to cap it all off (pardon the pun) the perpetrator Shawcross got instantly called up to the England squad!

Surely you're not implying that Shawcross intentionally broke Ramsay's leg? I think this conspiracy theory is a bit OTT.

No, not at all. England don't need to resort to that because they get given such piss easy qualifying groups. That's the real conspiracy!

Success breeds success. It's a pity we can't get a good run together, climb the rankings and end up in a decent pot for the qualification groups. I'm not sure who I'll be supporting at the World Cup.

Whoever is playing I hope they ban those horns from the games.

People are to sensitive now adays. We can take the **** out of gypsys and thats fine but if ppl make fun of english thats 'rasict'.

Sorry but f**k them!! Fottball is all about rivarly thats what makes the game great. So....I hope En***nd lose every game....fu*k them...

People are to sensitive now adays. We can take the **** out of gypsys and thats fine but if ppl make fun of english thats 'rasict'.

Sorry but f**k them!! Fottball is all about rivarly thats what makes the game great. So....I hope En***nd lose every game....fu*k them...

Judging by your spelling, grammar and juvenile attitude, you have the IQ of an amoeba so I will just ignore this for what it is, *****.

I think you can tell by quite a few posts on this thread that a few bright sparks are hiding behind the "it's only banter" argument, but they but hide the fact that they're suffering from the seething hatred for those who come from over the other side of an imaginary line (or is it just jealously...).

I don't want our lovely neighbours to get beaten in SA.

I sit and night and pray (as a complete non believer!) that they are subjected to total humiliation and ridicule. That and that Las Malvinas are ultimately returned to their rightful owners prior to being desecrated and pillaged by the original perpetrators of modern day colonialism :P !

Oh and that John Terry has contracted a painful STD that involves even more painful treatment.

Edited March 1, 201015 yr by Sorted

I don't want our lovely neighbours to get beaten in SA.

I sit and night and pray (as a complete non believer!) that they are subjected to total humiliation and ridicule. That and that Las Malvinas are ultimately returned to their rightful owners prior to being desecrated and pillaged by the original perpetrators of modern day colonialism !

Oh and that John Terry has contracted a painful STD that involves even more painful treatment.

Just proved your point for you Renegade.

Politics.........Football, great mix. Your post shows that it is hatred and not just banter.

Oh by the way, I'll have to give you the last part about JT. :P

PS: I think you need to read your history books.

Edited March 1, 201015 yr by Oz647

What I want to know is why the English media seem to think it is compulsory for us Scots to support the English team if we're not there? After all France is a neighbour of theirs but they wouldnt support them would they? Back on topic I think someone has lost their sense of humour but I bet they sell lots after all this publicity.

But there's a difference. Like it or not, England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom whilst France is not. People from other countries find it difficult to understand why the four "Home Nations" have separate football teams rather than a single UK team as we do in the Olympics. It is a very strange arrangement and really we all ought to be behind a single UK national side. But for some reason the UK is allowed to field 4 sides and as part of a so called "united" kingdom, it is not unreasonable to expect that the bonds that unite the 4 nations would mean that we would support each other.

As things stand, England is a part of the same political state as Scotland and by supporting England you are supporting a team that is part of the same political state you belong to - that seems a reasonable thing to expect people to do. If Scotland was an independent nation then things would be different. Believing Scotland should be independent is a good reason for not supporting England but is not a good reason for wanting anybody else but England to win.

Of course the English media go OTT on the the hype and that can be irritating - but so what? Let them get on with it and good luck to them. If Scotland had a team with any chance of a good showing on the world stage there would be just as much hype.

If you can't wish your neighbours well it is a little bit sad. After all, we're more than neighbours -we share the same house!

Other countries argue about the home nations being to play whilst being part of a united kingdom. But they have to look of it as it is. A union of countries. Much like the EU only older. Scotland, N.Ireland, Wales and England are still different countries though. Much like the Faroes are to Denmark.

I don't want our lovely neighbours to get beaten in SA.

I sit and night and pray (as a complete non believer!) that they are subjected to total humiliation and ridicule. That and that Las Malvinas are ultimately returned to their rightful owners prior to being desecrated and pillaged by the original perpetrators of modern day colonialism :D !

Oh and that John Terry has contracted a painful STD that involves even more painful treatment.

Just proved your point for you Renegade.

Politics.........Football, great mix. Your post shows that it is hatred and not just banter.

Oh by the way, I'll have to give you the last part about JT. :P

PS: I think you need to read your history books.

My mother hails from Buenos Aires

Edited March 1, 201015 yr by Sorted

But there's a difference. Like it or not, England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom whilst France is not. People from other countries find it difficult to understand why the four "Home Nations" have separate football teams rather than a single UK team as we do in the Olympics. It is a very strange arrangement and really we all ought to be behind a single UK national side. But for some reason the UK is allowed to field 4 sides and as part of a so called "united" kingdom, it is not unreasonable to expect that the bonds that unite the 4 nations would mean that we would support each other.

The UK has not competed in football in the olympics up to now because they had previously been told it would jeopardise the individual identity of their own associations if they chose to do so. The permission to compete with "special status" as 4 separate home nations was granted to the UK in 1947 as part of FIFA's constitution but many (including some at UEFA/FIFA) have commented that participating together may make that right disappear.

With the olympics being in the UK in 2012 the UK has an automatic right to participate and Sepp Blatter (verbally) confirmed that a UK team would not affect the rights of the 4 individual nations in future World or Euro Cups. Both Scotland and Wales opposed the idea and Northern Ireland, initially supportive of the idea pulled out later as they could not be given assurances that once Blatter left office this decision would not come back and haunt the associations. The FIFA executive committee eventually confirmed that for Olympic games the UK could compete as one unified entity as they had no other choice under the rules of the olympics and this would not affect their individual memberships of FIFA but Blatter seemed to backtrack a bit and said it could, whilst David Taylor said that the unique status of the Home Nations had come under attack before from other FIFA members, and that it was "difficult to see what guarantees could be given" to protect that status so everything was as usual, as clear as mud!!!

Eventually a compromise was reached, and the FAs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sent a letter of support for a team made up of only English players to play under the UK banner in 2012.

Personally, although not a Tory, I do like the suggestion that came from David Cameron about 4 months ago ..... He said he would not back the creation of a UK squad, favouring instead a home international championship to decide which team should represent Britain at the Games ... that kind of puts it on a par with curling as far as I can see where various rinks play off to decide who represents the country and we all get behind them.

It will be interesting to see whether "Team UK", full of Englishmen, gets the support of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish supporters given that all our associations were offered the chance to participate but decided to support a UK team made up from English players only.

Interestingly enough, despite no involvement from the other three home nations, early rounds of the "soccer" tournament in 2012 will be played in Cardiff, Belfast, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle.

Of course the English media go OTT on the the hype and that can be irritating - but so what? Let them get on with it and good luck to them. If Scotland had a team with any chance of a good showing on the world stage there would be just as much hype.

And that, to me is the crux of the matter. Forget about the English people as a nation/race ... Britain is such a small island that we are all intertwined regardless of where we live. There are Scots all over the Island just as much as there are English all over the island and for the most part we just get on with things in our daily lives.

Where I do get a bit of a red mist is from the media portrayal of all things English, especially in sporting terms. It is not your average Englishman (or woman) who thinks their team has a divine right to win every tournament they enter, it is the English commentators and the media. They consistently hype everything up and have no qualms when they step all over other nations to do so.

The French are garlic/onion munching idiots with stripey shirts riding around on bikes or they are striking farmers or truckers blockading ports, but either way they are lazy so-and-sos who need assistance from good old blighty when they get in trouble. The Germans, often the thorn in England's side - at football tournaments especially - are the warmongers who bombed our grannies, The Argentinians invaded the Falklands and Maradona cheated (despite his second goal being one of the best ever individual goals witnessed on the planet). The Scots, Irish and Welsh are second rate when compared with Team Engerlund .... and that same media then wonders why Scots or any other nation they have ridiculed will not get behind England !

Scotland did have its own attempt at this kind of media hype in 1978 with Ally's Tartan Army "representing Britain and we've got to do or die, cause England cannae do it cause they didnae qualify ....." but on the whole, we are just happy to qualify and our media dont go overboard as much as the national tabloids, or they do but are so insignificant that it goes un-noticed !

For the record, I am not supporting England in WC2010, but I am also not supporting ABE. I will watch the games with a level of disinterest for a number of reasons. The first is time-zones. Most games will be on during my working day, and the second is because neither Scotland or my adopted domicile of Canada is there. What England do, or how succesful they are is immaterial to me.

Interestingly enough, I am guessing that England will be well supported in Canada ! Apart from the many English ex-pats out here, most Canadians also get to see live EPL games each weekend so have an affinity for clubs in England. Fans of Toronto FC will also likely support England as we also have a similar cross-border rivalry/banterfest going here during the MLS season with every other team we play being from the USA. TFC fans hate the likes of Landon Donovan (in particular) with a passion so will probably support ABUSA.

Success breeds success. It's a pity we can't get a good run together, climb the rankings and end up in a decent pot for the qualification groups. I'm not sure who I'll be supporting at the World Cup.

Hopefully CL can pick up where Smith and McLeish left off rather than where Vogts and Burley did !

As I said above, no real interest in WC2010 but unofficially supporting Nigeria as my wife's heritage is part Scots, part Nigerian.

I don't want our lovely neighbours to get beaten in SA.

I sit and night and pray (as a complete non believer!) that they are subjected to total humiliation and ridicule. That and that Las Malvinas are ultimately returned to their rightful owners prior to being desecrated and pillaged by the original perpetrators of modern day colonialism :) !

Oh and that John Terry has contracted a painful STD that involves even more painful treatment.

Just proved your point for you Renegade.

Politics.........Football, great mix. Your post shows that it is hatred and not just banter.

Oh by the way, I'll have to give you the last part about JT. :)

PS: I think you need to read your history books.

My mother hails from Buenos Aires :023:

And? This makes you an expert on The Falklands does it? There are a lot of Germans who think Hitler did nothing wrong. Just because they "hail" from Germany does that make them right? :023:

A brief summary of the Falkland Islands

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was in 1764. It was named Port St Louis and was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, EastFalkland.

In January 1765, the British captain John Byron, unaware of the French presence, explored and claimed Saunders Island , at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont. He sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George 111. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires Colonial Administration. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770. The expulsion of the British settlement brought the two countries to the brink of war, but a peace treaty allowed the British to return to Port Egmont in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty.

It wasn't until the 6th November 1820, that Colonel David Jewitt raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate(Argentina) at Port Louis. Jewett was an American sailor and privateer in the employment of Buenos Aires businessman Patrick Lynch to captain his ship, the frigate Heroina(Lynch had obtained a corsair licence from the Buenos Aires Supreme Director Jos? Rondeau). Jewett had put into the islands the previous month, following a disastrous eight month voyage with most of his crew disabled by scurvy and disease. After resting in the islands and repairing his ship he returned to Buenos Aires.

In 1828 the Argentines founded a settlement and a penal colony. United States warships destroyed this settlement in 1831 after the Argentine governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized US seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. Escaped prisoners and pirates were left behind. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny.

In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to reassert British sovereignty. The existing settlers were allowed to remain, with an Irish member of Vernet's settlement, William Dickson, appointed as the Islands' governor. Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year and was informed that the British had no objections to the continuation of Vernet's business ventures provided there was no interference with British control.

Sovereignty over the islands again became an issue in the latter half of the 20th century. Argentina, in the pursuit of its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN resolution 1514(XV) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendem to be held on the issue.

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

On 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic. The military junta which had ruled Argentina since 1976 sought to maintain power by diverting public attention from the nation's poor economic performance and exploiting the long-standing feelings of the Argentines towards the islands.Several British writers hold that the United Kingdom's reduction in military capacity in the South Atlantic also encouraged the invasion.

The UN security council issued resolution 502, calling on Argentina to withdraw forces from the Islands and for both parties to seek a diplomatic solution.International reaction ranged from support for Argentina in Latin American countries (except Chile and Columbia), to opposition in the Commonwealth and Europe (apart from Spain), and eventually the United States.

The British sent an expeditionary force to retake the islands, leading to the Falklands war. After short but fierce naval and air battles, the British landed at San Carlos Water on 21 May, and a land campaign followed until the Argentine forces surrendered on 14 June 1982.

The War led to the deaths of 655 Argentine and 255 British servicemen.

Has anyone forgotten that our own gaffer is an Englishman?

Has anyone forgotten that our own gaffer is an Englishman?

Craig Leveins English ? :)

Has anyone forgotten that our own gaffer is an Englishman?

Though he was actually born in Singapore.

The 'we hate them, they hate us' banter has gone on between the Scots and English for as many years as we've played football. Where do you draw the line at being racist. Many will say we are all British so cant be racist towards each other. Is it racist if an English store refuses payment with a Scottish note?

In this particular case I see no racism. I see banter towards an international football team. I have many friends and colleagues who are of English origin and not one of them takes offence at my jibes, nor do I of their's. We all see it as good natured banter. Perhaps because we all believe we are of the same race. The human race.