THE scheduling of the Scotland game against England at Hampden this weekend wouldn’t have entered Theresa May’s thinking when the Prime Minister called a general election for Thursday, June 8, back in April.

Yet, could going to the polls two days before Gordon Strachan’s side take on Gareth Southgate’s team in a crucial Russia 2018 qualifier - instead of after it - have been serendipitous for May and the Conservative party nevertheless?

A victory for the home side tomorrow will almost certainly lead to a sudden and dramatic upsurge in patriotic fervour. What difference would that have made to the Scottish National Party had the election been held next week or the week after? It is tantalising to speculate.

Dr Neil McGarvey, a senior teaching fellow in politics at the University of Strathclyde, points out that how Scotland have fared on the football field is widely considered to have had a direct bearing on weightier issues elsewhere in the past.

“There was a suggestion at the time of the Scottish devolution referendum in the March of 1979 that Scotland’s failure at the World Cup in Argentina just nine months earlier had played a big part in the result,” said Dr McGarvey.

“Ally MacLeod had engendered such hope among the support beforehand. It seems crazy now, but people did genuinely believe we could win. National confidence took such a dent as a result of the debacle in South America.

“With regards to this general election? It is a hypothetical question because the election was this Thursday and the game is on Saturday. But I am not totally sceptical of its impact. It could make a difference. Scotland will vote differently from England whether the election was held this week or next week. But politicians will all tell you that events do matter.”

The oldest fixture in international football – which was first played at the West of Scotland Cricket Ground in Hamilton Crescent, Glasgow, way back on November 30, 1872, when the two rivals drew 0-0 – has always been more than just a game of football.

“Historically, Scotland v England has always been really important aspect of national identity, which still has an importance to this day,” said Richard McBrearty, curator at the Scottish Football Museum at Hampden.

“Devolution has added a new dynamic to national identity. Society and the world has moved on and this fixture is evolving within that dynamic. Okay, this game is a qualifying match, but it stands far, far higher in terms of public interest. The outcome has huge significance for supporters.

“Scotland is a smaller country than England. Sport is a way for us to stand up and say: ‘Actually, we’re as good as you’. Hence the enormous crowds the fixture attracts and the reason why winning has always been such a big deal in this country.”

McBrearty continued: “Exactly the same thing is true elsewhere. In South America you’ve got Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay bordering each other. There is huge rivalry there. Uruguay is a relatively small country of three million and they’re dominated by their larger neighbours in all walks of life.

“For them, football is an opportunity to stand up and say: ‘We might be a small country and you might be a huge country, but we can beat you on the football field’. Football puts them on the map.

“It was the same within old British Empire. Look at India with cricket, the colonial game. People from India adopted cricket and now they love it. It is a hugely important sport there.

“Games against England were seen as an opportunity to beat the so-called colonial masters at their own game. If you beat them at cricket you are showing people you are as good as them. It was seen as an opportunity to push for self-determination. Sport has all of these wider characteristics.”

A win for Scotland over England in the Group F match this weekend will increase their prospects of making it through to the World Cup finals next summer – something they have failed to do on four consecutive occasions since being involved in France ’98 some 19 years ago now.

But for a long time getting one over on their near neighbours in the annual showdown – it only ceased being played every year after a 2-0 win for England at Hampden in the Rous Cup in 1989 - was actually viewed as more important than qualifying for major tournaments to many members of the Tartan Army.

“Back in the 1960s Scotland never qualified for the World Cup finals even though we had world-class players, genuinely outstanding players,” said McBrearty. “But it didn’t seem to be that big an issue because we beat England regularly (they drew three, lost three and won four of their 10 meetings during that decade). That made everything okay. There was a little bit of an issue in the Scottish psyche.

“In some respects, this particular fixture has had such an influence over Scottish football and international football that sometimes it is an escapism. If we’re not doing well, if we’re not qualifying for the final of a competition, as we aren’t just now, then winning this game somehow makes it alright for football fans.

“That shows you how big the game is and what it genuinely means to people. But there is a wider argument. Personally, I would rather lose to England and qualify for the finals of a major tournament? France ‘98 seems a very long time ago now.”

Hamish Husband of the West of Scotland Tartan Army, who will be attending his 28th Scotland match against England this weekend, agrees. He believes the importance of the game has diminished as football has changed in the modern era.

“I am old enough to remember when it was the main event in my year,” he said. “But after we started qualifying for European Championships and World Cups that changed. The Wembley trip has been replaced by jaunts to Prague and Split and Zagreb. The England game is still special, but nothing like it used to be. I would rather we made it through to a World Cup.”

McBrearty added “Scotland refused to go to the World Cup in 1950 even though we had qualified. Under FIFA rules, the first and second placed teams in the British International Championship got in. Scotland finished second, but the SFA decided that they would only go if we won.

“The World Cup was just emerging, the domestic game was far more important. It started to increase in significance in the 1950s and 1960s, but the Home Internationals and the game against England were still the big thing. That dominated our world. If it was good to watch and we won the odd game then who cared about the wider world? That changed to an extent in the 1970s as we started to get into the World Cups.

“But to fans of the Scotland national team it is obviously still huge, still a massive game. The media coverage in the build-up to the game this week is a good indicator of that. The frenzy of anticipation has been comparable to going to a World Cup.”

Hopefully the outcome won't be the same as Argentina.