I WAS absolutely certain that ostracising South Africa from the global sporting community was the appropriate response to an appalling regime which denied basic human rights to the majority.
Boycotting sporting links with the Republic, which included exclusion from the Olympic Games after 1960, proved a potent weapon in effecting radical social engineering.
It was significantly instrumental in ending apartheid, though it took time. It was not until the Barcelona Olympics that South Africa was readmitted to the movement.
Among the compelling images of the 1992 Olympics was that of Ethiopia's 10,000 metres winner Derartu Tulu and runner-up Elana Meyer (South Africa's first Olympic medallist since 1960) together on their lap of honour: ebony and ivory.
I was equally certain that British sportsmen and women should refuse to accede to Margaret Thatcher's demand for a Moscow Olympic boycott over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Athletes had invested their lives in pursuit of the Olympic dream. Yet she and US President Jimmy Carter expected them to do battle for governments which were not prepared to impose full-on economic sanctions. Sport was again being asked to go over the top first. I felt then this was wrong, and still do.
The Eastern bloc's tit-for-tat retaliation, boycotting Los Angeles four years later, was equally inappropriate. Though it did serve to demonstrate the difference between democracy and dictatorship. British competitors had a choice. Those in totalitarian Eastern Europe did not.
It's a painful truth that history forgets the absentees. The names of the medal-winners in Moscow, Los Angeles, and from the boycotted 1986 Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, are the ones inscribed in the record books. Not the identities of the no-shows.
Actor Stephen Fry suggested Russia's homophobic culture warranted a boycott of this year's Winter Olympics in Sochi.
He did not suggest the UK arts lobby shun links with the Kirov, Bolshoi, or orchestras and other Russian arts groups - or halt UK arts tours to Russia.
I shared his concern over this infraction of human rights, but not his apparent belief that sport should be in the vanguard of a campaign to overturn it.
Now we are once more faced with a similar moral dilemma. Russia's World Cup in 2018. To play or not to play? That is the question.
And I am surprised to be less sure of my feelings. How complicit was Russia in the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17? Hard to tell.
I find it easier to form an opinion on the annexation of Crimea and of their intrusion in Ukraine's democratic process: deja vu, evoking memories of the bully-boy tactics typical of the former Soviet Union, a transparent attempt to recreate around Mother Russia the kind of buffer zone which obsessed the USSR. As politicians consider where this might lead - more territory annexed? A cold war on the gas export front? - sport must surely consider its position.
FIFA, predictably, has already made up its mind. Plagued by apparently well-substantiated corruption allegations around the 2018 World Cup in Russia and Qatar, FIFA hardly stands as a bastion of ethics. But UEFA, however, has considered its options and a boycott was in a "working document discussed by the member states," according to sources last week.
Richard Caborn, the former UK sports minister, reckons there is insufficient global consensus on a boycott of the 2018 World Cup for such a sanction to be anything other than an "empty gesture". He says the apartheid era and Russian World Cup issues are not comparable.
But do we sit and do nothing, or stand up for what we believe in?
The debate is incredibly complex.
Some years ago, The Herald's former defence correspondent, Ian Bruce, told me of meeting a colonel in the Soviet army during a Nato exercise in Norway. He noted the Russian's Afghan campaign medals, and the colonel remarked that he had been engaged in a war in Afghanistan "on everyone's behalf, and now we are fighting in the Caucasus, on the southern flank of Europe, against Muslim extremists. And it will come to your door."
This statement was made more than 20 years ago.
It's an indication of how dramatically the world can change. Of how relationships can become blurred. Russia has at least as big a problem with fundamentalism as the United Kingdom. Who are our friends? Who are our enemies? And what may they be in future?
As Scotland gives intense thought to the kind of country we want to be, there are many tough questions.
If Scotland were to qualify for the 2018 World Cup finals, should we go to Russia? Boycotting the finals would break a nation's heart. In the past there would have been the succour of discussion by the Home FA's. We soon may not be a part of that. Scotland may have to take such decisions in isolation.
My greatest wish for an independent Scotland - if such proves the democratic will - is for a fairer, more open and tolerant society, one without room for prejudice; a nation which upholds what is right and decent. If that means boycotting the 2018 World Cup, so be it.
Yaya Toure and Football Against Racism in Europe raised the possibility of an African-nation boycott on grounds of Russian racism. I would be proud of any nation that stood shoulder to shoulder with them.
Do we even need to consider Russia's appalling role in Ukraine?
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