As one of the most high-profile figures in the Scottish business community considers what he wants to be remembered for contributing to our society, it would seem that sport will be a major beneficiary.

As one of the most high-profile figures in the Scottish business community considers what he wants to be remembered for contributing to our society, it would seem that sport will be a major beneficiary.

After all the talk over the past 12 months or so about Tony Blair's desperate bid to improve how he will be remembered, it has become easy to sneer when the matter of public legacy is discussed.

Yet in explaining why he was backing Scottish Rugby yesterday to the tune of £2.7m, perhaps the least plausible argument put by Sir David Murray was that it would be good for his business.

It will not do the Murray International name any harm, of course, to be associated with Scotland's various national sides, but it hardly looks like a decision that his marketing people would have been clamouring for.

By contrast the more detailed reasoning given for this decision, particularly when quizzed on how he can spend this money at a time when he is looking to get out of Rangers - if and when the right buyer comes along - will strike a chord with all those who have the broader interest of Scottish sport at heart.

Asked specifically what his response would be to Rangers supporters who say the money should have gone into Ibrox, Murray bridled.

"Pardon?" he retorted. "After this week? Ask a serious question. That's a silly question. At the Rangers agm, for the record, I said we had already overspent the budget bringing in Whittaker and Cousin and on top of that again we brought in Faye and Naismith. So I don't think that is a relevant question. This is a business investment in sponsoring Scottish sport."

The expenditure involved in this piece of business would probably just about buy the right leg of a left-sided world-class footballer. Setting aside the huge difference that exists between ownership and sponsorship, for that reason alone this could be seen as money better spent.

Indeed, it is worth considering just who benefits when Murray/Rangers give a couple of million pounds to Kilmarnock. Perhaps the club will spend it in developing players, perhaps not. As a private enterprise it can do with it what it likes.

When Murray's company gives a similar sum to the Scottish Rugby Union it, as a governing body of a sport, has a duty to spend that on the development of the national game.

Yet perhaps even more useful - if Murray's message about looking to address his social responsibilities is as serious as it seems - is that this gives him a platform that can be much more inclusive than he has had in funding an organisation which, rightly or wrongly, has sectarian baggage to deal with.

Admittedly - as when some dismiss as superficial Rangers' efforts to change the club's reputation as a bastion of prejudice - there are those who ignore rugby's efforts to shed its elitist image. However, a national side that competes regularly and, for the most part, effectively, on the global stage is one the whole nation can get behind. That, in turn, makes it a brand that can be used to promote cultural change when it comes to lifestyles and civic pride.

Murray's every utterance yesterday seemed to embrace that outlook.

Of course, there will be scepticism about the way this deal has come together. No sooner had it been announced yesterday than some were making knowing references to the fact that Murray's bankers are apparently the same as the SRU's; that those bankers are also among the sponsors to come aboard under the new SRU regime; that Gordon McKie, whose appointment as trouble-shooting SRU chief executive, was endorsed by the bank, is a former employee of Murray's. Yet in many ways all that does is remind us of the tiny size of the Scottish community with all the strengths and weaknesses that has in terms of creating relationships to try to best utilise limited resources.

We all form impressions of people from afar and I cannot pretend I have always liked the way David Murray comes across, but in his words and actions he has earned the right to chastise business and political leaders as he did yesterday.

He may not be a philanthropist on the scale of Tom Hunter, his fellow Scot who announced earlier this summer that he planned to give away £1bn during the remainder of his life as he distributes the wealth he has earned, but Murray's message yesterday was no less impressive for that.

There are, of course always those who will snipe. After Murray spoke of his eagerness to help improve the health of the nation, that was summed up by a questioner who asked him: "You go on about obesity and all that - any plans to stop selling pies at Ibrox?"

"They are weight watcher's pies, they are half the size they used to be," replied an exasperated Murray. "Unbelievable. I'll end it if that is the level of trivia we're getting into."

And end it there he did. However, in terms of the national debate on sport let us hope that he was also starting something very important.

Larkham: capital move still on
Stephen Larkham, the Australia superstar, last night insisted he will be joining Edinburgh, despite the pro team's recent troubles, writes David Kelso. Speculation had mounted that the World Cup-winning utility back had turned his focus to French club Toulouse after the Scottish Rugby Union took control of the capital club back from the Carruthers Brothers last month. "I am not sure what the situation is," Larkham said, "but we've worked very hard in terms of establishing our family in Edinburgh after the World Cup. That was a big challenge for us." "I am not in talks with Toulouse or with any other team at the moment." A summer-long war of words between Edinburgh's franchise holders and the SRU ended last month with a deal returning the club to the national body. The coach, Lyn Howells, was sacked, with Henry Edwards, the SRU's head of player development, becoming the team's caretaker coach.