As Scottish rugby picks itself up after another disappointing RBS 6 Nations, and looks to revive its international fortunes under its newly restored manager, would it not be a good time for the SRU to rid itself of at least one self-imposed handicap to success?
I refer to the dreadful, dreary, downbeat dirge Flower of Scotland which passes for a national anthem. It is supposed to inspire players, whereas it can surely only have the opposite effect. Contrast the electrifying influence of La Marseillaise and Land of our Fathers on the players and supporters of Wales and France.
Let us consign Flower of Scotland to the dustbin. Let us replace this gloomy, Eeyore-ish drone, which even before kick-off seems almost to foreshadow resigned acceptance of another impending defeat. Let us replace it with one of Scotland's traditional songs which inspire marching into battle with heads held high. Three possible choices: The Hundred Pipers, Bonnie Dundee or – perhaps best of all – Scots Wha Hae. There are lots more. On to victoree!
I am a rugby ignoramus but love to watch internationals and go to see the Warriors. Sometimes it is hard to spot who is the captain. But not when big Al Kellock is there. He is so obviously in charge, bossing the lineouts, forcing the scrums and rucks and telling people what to do.
Can someone who knows about rugby explain to me why he was used so sparingly in the last series of pathetic internationals? And why is he no longer the obvious captain of the Scotland team?
O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
Last weekend, Walter Smith was bitterly complaining about what he perceived as the SPL Gang of 10's self-interested, greedy exploitation of Rangers' present travails as a means by which to weaken the influence of the Old Firm.
Could the above possibly be the selfsame predatory, self-interested exploitation of the weaknesses of other clubs that Glasgow's very own Gang of Two has so assiduously practised for well over a century?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article