TEMPTING as it is to use the word concocted, the row that was, let’s say, generated last week over Liz Lochhead’s comments about what she perceived as a shortage of Scottish people involved in the National Theatre of Scotland had a strong parallel in some of the debate that has led to the confirmation that world rugby is reviewing residency rules.

Unless an agenda is at play, it really is difficult to read anything sinister into the phrase that seems to have caused offence to those looking to be offended by the Makar.

“I’ve nothing against any of the people that do work there. I just wish there were more Scots, more people with a Scottish theatrical culture,” she said.

It has been argued that as a woman of words, Lochhead knew very well how that might be interpreted when senior figures at the National Theatre of Scotland are English. There is a grain of truth in that argument, albeit I would suggest that her mistake may be that as a woman of words, if she did say what was attributed to her, she should perhaps have been rather more aware of how, in the current political climate, some might choose to interpret them, which is not quite the same thing.

On the face of it, her message seems markedly different in tone to much of the campaigning that has taken place across rugby, but most particularly in Scotland, against the current qualification rules for the international game.

The way players protested and commentators railed against the selection of players who have not been products of the Scottish game has frequently been deeply distasteful, particularly coming from within a community that has done such a poor job of engaging with huge sections of its own population.

Admittedly, one or two of the players who have been recruited in that way have done themselves no favours, either by unnecessarily lamenting the fact that playing for Scotland has ended their aspirations to represent what they see as their own country, or by quitting the Scottish game in what looks like petulance because they were not being pampered in the way those they see as their real countrymen are when on international duty.

My own view is much closer to Lochhead’s in that I wish we in Scotland were better at producing rugby players. However, given that we are not, for all sorts of reasons, but principally that failure to move out of the so-called ‘heartlands’, the job of Scotland’s coaches was to find the best players available to do better.

It did not matter whose friends missed out on caps or how tough coaches felt the environment they were creating had to be, those charged with the responsibility of making best use of the sport’s resources were obliged to do everything they could to get results. The motives of those seeking to introduce factors such as love of country were always suspect.

I have met many homegrown Scots who lacked commitment, just as I have met umpteen ‘imports’ whose passion was extraordinary, never moreso than when covering the Rugby League World Cup a couple of years ago.

Admittedly, there feels like a difference between using residency rules to give an opportunity to a player who has chosen to make his life in Scotland and blossomed since arriving, than in using the prospect of Test rugby as an inducement to ‘project’ players who have either not been good enough for the country they grew up in or, worse, are prepared to switch allegiance because it is more lucrative.

However, regardless of what changes are made to rugby’s residency rules, what should be examined closely is why it is so easy for homegrown talent to be overlooked or ousted.

The only consideration for any player not selected or dropped should be to identify what he or she has to do to be seen as more effective than the rival who has won the position.

Other factors are worth examining admittedly, not least the cultural cringe which means far too many Scots feel inferior to rivals raised elsewhere or are automatically considered inferior by their compatriots or, perhaps even moreso, those from elsewhere who are selecting our teams.

That can be exacerbated when imported coaches who, through conditioning rather than deliberate prejudice, instinctively favour traits they have grown to value so prefer players whose strengths correspond with their preferences because they have come from similar backgrounds.

That probably goes some way towards explaining the bewilderment of many shrewd homegrown judges regarding the repeated omissions from Scotland squads of John Barclay, one of the most natural leaders this country has produced and now highly rated in Wales where he is plying his trade.

With the World Cup looming, however, perhaps the best example is the treatment of our last World Cup captain Al Kellock, whose qualities were too often considered inferior to those of a direct rival raised in the English game in spite of the team repeatedly performing better when Kellock was selected.

Perhaps the lesson is that Scots need to get better at recognising our own strengths rather than focussing on our weaknesses when comparing ourselves with others, but in doing so we must continue to be open to recruiting talent and expertise that can help us improve.