NI Passports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

It is an unfair advantage, as it is the only country that is given multiple teams. The UK has 4 representatives, and thereby 4 separate cracks at their country having a qualifiier at a major tournament. The success of those teams in pursuing those slots is only a secondary issue.

---

I don't see how it's an advantage. Again as I said before the larger the pool of players to choose from especially in a footballing country like Britain the greater the advantage on the field of play. Four seperate associations means more blazers but has no footballing advantage. How many Scots support England! How many Welsh! I know a Linfield fan from East Belfast who'd support the Republic of Ireland against England, he hates the English that much.:D

Quote:

---

There have been World cups in the past were the UK has had 2 or 3 representative teams present (e.g. 3 teams in 1982 and 1986). How can that possibly be considered fair, when every other political state in the world is allowed only one representative ?!? Because of this ridiculous rule, 2 additional countries/states were effectively excluded from participating in those World Cups.

---

The "historical quirk of faith" as you call it is due to the fact that the Brits invented the organized sport of association football. None of the countries denied places in the places in the world cup would have association football teams if it wasn't for the Brits.

Quote:

---

First and foremost - this is an issue about football and equity of treatment, not one of narow-minded politics. Your objections seem to owe more to petty nationalist sentiments than to questions of fairness in world football.

---

I am see myself as a liberal nationalist not a "petty nationalist" as you call it. I'm such a liberal nationalist I was called mealy mouthed by someone on this thread when I suggested Ireland after unification should join the Commonwealth. (An idea voiced before by Eamon O Kuiv (Caoimh) and Jim McDaid members of the Republican wing of Fianna Fail.)

Quote:

---

Secondly - I am one Irish man who would like to see a British team, because it is grossly unfair to have it any other way.

---

I can't agree with you. Especially when the English are becoming more aware of their seperate identity from the Scots and the Welsh. Evidence of this is increasing number of English St Georges crosses instead of Union Jacks. I actually much rather see England win the World Cup than the UK. My father was the son of an Englishman like Patrick Pearse.:D

Anyway must people in England call themselves English not British and only ever used the term 'British' out of regard for the Scots. As an Irish Nationalist I believe the sooner "Scotshire" takes it's place among the independent nations of the world as Scotland the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

BTW I have no doubt that Scotland would leave the UK rather than have a joint national side with the shower on the other side of Hadrians Wall.

---

I agree with you. I think the British establishment would rather see the present situation with a crap Scottish national side.

I remember reading a Scottish national newspaper not popular with Celtic and Rangers fans called the Daily Record where there was an an article on the links with Scottish Nationalism and the success of the SNP. It seems whenever the Scottish football team is successful SNP support tends to increase and drops when they are unsuccessful. It was at it's peak in 1974 when Scotland were undefeated in the World Cup. As long as Scotland don't win the World Cup the Union is safe.

Would the Basque situation have been as bad if they had their own football team? There is an argument that international football is a substitute for warfare. Would the result of a UK team be a Scottish equivalent of ETA and IRA campaigns.:eek:

Quote:

---

I knew someone would mistakenly mention the Faroe Islands in this context...they are self-governing/independent in every way bar defence & Foreign Affairs, which Denmark administers on their behalf. They are likewise much more autonomous than the UK nations - and likewise have a football team to recognise that. They are therefore not a valid comparison with the UK representative sides

---

Heh. Yes, they're independent in everything bar foreign affairs- but the definition of foreign affairs is probably more elastic in Torshavn than Tobermory. Basically, given their size, isolation climate etc. the islands are hugely reliant on the outside World- Denmark, largely- for almost everything which needs to be imported.

They aren't a separate country and in practice aren't any more autonomous than Scotland, Wales or NI in many ways. Much of their autonomy is purely due to distance from anywhere else.

Andorra isn't a separate country. Its heads of state are the French president and a Spanish bishop acting as proxy for the King in Madrid. Liechtenstein and San Marino are in effect glorified poste restante offices. I very much doubt anyone there would claim everyday life was more autonomous than in the Creggan estate, but next time I'm in Vaduz I'll ask.

Quote:

---

First and foremost - this is an issue about football and equity of treatment

---

Aye, right. Poor old Romania's and Sweden's human rights were terribly infringed by their failure to take part in the World Cups of 1986 and 1982. Alternatively, if the useless bsatards hadn't managed to lose three qualifiers to British teams, or scored nul points against Bingham's bluffers, then they'd have been there. The law ignores trivia, Steve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

That cannot be asserted as fact CTID. The UN's current plans appear to be for a self-governing Kosovo - not one absorbed into Albania. The Kosovans themselves may chose that route at some future point (though their large Serbian population will doubtless have something to say about that, and I suspect they'd be isolated within Europe if they chose to do so. I also suspect their formal successiosn talks would involve guarantees that they won't create a greater Albania), but you cannot say with any certainty that there won't be either an independent Kosovo, or therefore a Kosovan football team.

So the historical anachronism/absurdity of only one political state being represented by multiple teams still stands. Hence why it is the only part of the world where, under FIFA's rules, a single passport would entitle you to play for any one of 4 teams.

---

What Large Serbian population? They've been exiled by a form of ethnic cleansing!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

Exactly; brokered by Sir Stanley Rous, the proceeds from a Great Britain XI v Rest of the World XI in 1946 were donated to FIFA in order to refinance it after the Second World War/"Emergency"/whatever you call it. In return, Rous arranged i) a Vice Presidency for the Home Nations (in rotation, I believe) and ii) recognition of the separate and "special" status of the four home Associations. Both concessions were conferred in perpetuity. Like it or not Steve, dem's de rules.

---

Dems may be the rules now PP - but as we all knowm rules are both made and changed.

There is continual pressure on FIFA for this situation to be addressed. The Welsh even had to create a national league 14 years ago to ease the pressure on themselves. The recent vote in Catalunya to elevate the legal status of that region formally to one of a 'nation' within Spain will almost inevitably see them try to get recognition for their own football team at some point. This may well be the issue that brings all of this to a head - as powerful UEFA members like Spain, France and Turkey (and possibly the Belgian officials) would vehemently oppose a Catalunyan team, whilst the Catalans themselves wouldl point to the 4 representatives from the UK to justify their inclusion. This would force UEFA/FIFA to tackle the issue one way or another for good - refernec back to a rule brokered in some smokey back-room over 60yrs ago just won't wash with anyone. To suggest that world football will always forever and a day be be-holden to a unique and patently unfair deal done last century is ridiculous. Rules change to reflect changing realities.

As for the Vice-Presidency going in rotation. It does - and was actually meant to rotate every one or two years. However, Harry Cavan decided that he quite liked being a FIFA bigwig, so stayed in the VP position for over a decade ! It's rotated much, much slower since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

What Large Serbian population? They've been exiled by a form of ethnic cleansing!:rolleyes:

---

There are 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo. That is a large number of people.

It amounts to over 5% of the total population. The Serbian population of Kosovo is, for example, 250% higher than the black population of Britain.

So its simply wrong to claim they've all been driven out/ethnically cleansed. Their numbers are down, but they still have a clear presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

I don't see how it's an advantage.

---

I'll explain it again. The UK has 4 attempts at having representatives from it's state represented at major tournamnets. Every other political state has only 1. The fact that different parts within the UK may or may not support the others is irrelevant.

What if UEFA just decided tomorrow to give Spain 4 times as many entrants into the Champions League and UEFA Cup. Not for any defensible reason like performaces etc - but just because Spain helped them out a bit in 1911. Would the fact that Barcelona fans would rather see Real Madrid or Espanyol do badly suddenly make that rule fair ? No. Do you think such a rule would be accepted by fans of club sides in other nations ? No. So why should it be accepted in international football ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaddyRamone

The "historical quirk of faith" as you call it...

---

Where did I call it that....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paddy ramone

is due to the fact that the Brits invented the organized sport of association football. None of the countries denied places in the places in the world cup would have association football teams if it wasn't for the Brits.

---

Absolute nonsense - the real reason for this rule was explained earlier. This sounds like the sort of sentimental yarn your ageing English grandad would tell you in front of the hearth one night when you were a young lad. I believe the English would label such a story 'poppycock'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

I am see myself as a liberal nationalist not a "petty nationalist" as you call it. I'm such a liberal nationalist I was called mealy mouthed by someone on this thread when I suggested Ireland after unification should join the Commonwealth. (An idea voiced before by Eamon O Kuiv (Caoimh) and Jim McDaid members of the Republican wing of Fianna Fail.)

---

Good for you. Now, can you try and keep nationalist sentiment out of a core issue of equity of treatment within world football. Resort to nationalistic sentimentality is no reason for or against such a rule - and certainly won't wash with other footballing nations, who frankly don't give a flying feck about parochial issues such as Scotland's relationship to England in the context of the world game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pady Ramone

I can't agree with you. Especially when the English are becoming more aware of their seperate identity from the Scots and the Welsh. Evidence of this is increasing number of English St Georges crosses instead of Union Jacks. I actually much rather see England win the World Cup than the UK. My father was the son of an Englishman like Patrick Pearse.:D

---

Tell that to an African team and see if they give a sh!t.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Anyway must people in England call themselves English not British and only ever used the term 'British' out of regard for the Scots. As an Irish Nationalist I believe the sooner "Scotshire" takes it's place among the independent nations of the world as Scotland the better.

---

Sorry - I thought this was a football thread......?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Heh. Yes, they're independent in everything bar foreign affairs- but the definition of foreign affairs is probably more elastic in Torshavn than Tobermory. Basically, given their size, isolation climate etc. the islands are hugely reliant on the outside World- Denmark, largely- for almost everything which needs to be imported.

They aren't a separate country and in practice aren't any more autonomous than Scotland, Wales or NI in many ways. Much of their autonomy is purely due to distance from anywhere else.

Andorra isn't a separate country. Its heads of state are the French president and a Spanish bishop acting as proxy for the King in Madrid. Liechtenstein and San Marino are in effect glorified poste restante offices. I very much doubt anyone there would claim everyday life was more autonomous than in the Creggan estate, but next time I'm in Vaduz I'll ask.

---

But there is one huge key difference - and that is that the states you've mentioned do not define themselves, nor are they legally established, in terms of, and including, their relationship with those secondary entities.

Denmark is legally established as 'The kingdom of Denmark'. Note the lack of any reference to its crown territories of Greenland and Faroe Islands - they are not established as integral parts of that nation or political state.

Likewise, Spain/France do not define themselves in relation to, or including, Andorra. The same goes for Leichtenstein, San Marino etc.

However - the UK is legally estlished as 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Great Britain comprises of England, Wales and Scotland. The 4 British home nations are therefore recognised and established as integral parts of the UK. Without it's relationship to the Faroes, Denmark would still be Denmark. Without the co-relationship between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK would cease to exist. If only one member of the 4 left (e.g. NI), the state would have to be legally redefined. That is the key difference.

As an aside - so San Marino is no more autonomous than the Creggan Estate ? Well, San Marino is the world's oldest constitutional Republic. It issues it's own stamps, and has its own military and police force. Despite the fact that is is surrounded on all sides by an EU nation, it has chosen to not officially be a member of the EU itself. Despite that, it has chosen to use the Euro, under special agreement, and even mints it's own national version of the coins as well. A very peculiar lack of autonomy indeed. I'll get straight onto the Creggan Co-op to demand parity of treatment immediately........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by totalfootball

Do the Faroes, Andorra, Lichtenstein and San Marino issue their own passports? Surely this is the key question. The abnormality with the four British 'countries' is that they don't, hence all the problems which have led to this thread. Do these other 'countries', which FIFA permits to participate in international football, issue their own passports, or do for instance the Faroese have Danish passports?

---

Well - the Faroese issue their own passports and visas, though they are also entitled to Danish passports. They also produce their own currency and stamps, and have their own indepdendent fiscal policies (e.g. tax-free shopping), which goes way beyond any supposed form of autonomy within the UK. The only thing they don't do is look after defense and foreign policy - whish is not unusual amongst tiny nations with histoprical ties to much stronger powers.

San Marino is unquestionably an independent and soverign state. It is recognised by the UN as such, and has consulates around the world. End of story.

Leichtenstein is a constitutional Monarchy that is independently run in every way. It remained neutral durign WWII, and only give women the vote in 1984 ! It alsoontrols its own entry status (though it shadows the Swiss in this).

Andorra is likewise a full UN member - meaning it is recognised as an independent country. Spain and France look after its defense, just like the Danes do so for the Faroese. But that does not stop them being independent.

I'm surprised by the level of snobbery towards these countries on this thread. The UN is happy to accept these states as genuine countries, yet some people on here think they know better. All either fully independent, or as good as. All have levels of autonomy/soverignty leaps and bounds beyond what Scotland, Wales and NI have.

So we're back to the original point of the UK being the only cohesive political state to have multiple representatives in World football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

the Faroese... produce their own currency

---

Only notes. So do Scotland and the North so that's not really relevant here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Only notes. So do Scotland and the North so that's not really relevant here.

---

Come back to the table when they can produce their own passports........ :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by totalfootball

I was not being at all snobbish. I didn't express an opinion, I asked a question.

---

Apologies TF - that was a general comment, and not aimed at you (hence why i didn't refer to you).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Dems may be the rules now PP - but as we all know rules are both made and changed.

---

Indeed they are Steve but, as part of the Rous deal, the four home Associations hold the equivalent of a "golden share" (i.e. they would jointly and severally have to back such a change themselves for it to happen). Consequently there's much less chance of the change you champion actually happening. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

There is continual pressure on FIFA for this situation to be addressed. The Welsh even had to create a national league 14 years ago to ease the pressure on themselves.

---

You're conflating two different stories here. The Welsh situation had nothing at all to do with FIFA and everything to do with UEFA. Without a national league no Welsh clubs would have been allowed to participate (I won't say compete) in the Champions League; the League of Wales was formed in direct response to this.

In any case, you have so far failed to address the issue of domestic football. A United Kingdom team would need a United Kingdom league. Adding Celtic and Rankers to the Premiership wouldn't be enough; there would need to be a wholesale integration of the leagues from the four countries and there's no way a UK league could start without including Welsh and NI representatives. Linfield v Liverpool? Cwmbran v Celtic? Can you just imagine these fixtures? Complete mismatches that would render UK football a laughing-stock in world terms.

Likewise, the four Associations would need to become one, and it's hardly likely that the four oldest associations in world football would sacrifice their individual histories nor their positions of power in the world game just to come into line with what "lesser" member Associations may want.

Whilst you have a fair point in highlighting the anomaly of four-in-one, there's just too much interest in the status quo to ever let it happen; on top of the four separate Associations and their desire to preserve their own identities, there's the Premiership and its members wishing to keep the money to themselves. For those reasons alone, your idea is a non-starter.

:ball: PP

If dfcsteve gets his way and there was a UK side all the players with Irish passports in NI (mostly nationalists) would play for Ireland while the players with British passports (mostly unionists) would play for the UK. That doesn't sound great for cross community relations. Oh oops I mentioned politics on a football forum which dfcsteve doesn't like. But then he did tell Paisley that he could "feck off with his blinkered attitude". It seems he can't obey his own rule. I only brought politics in this debate because it overlaps with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

I'll explain it again. The UK has 4 attempts at having representatives from it's state represented at major tournamnets. Every other political state has only 1. The fact that different parts within the UK may or may not support the others is irrelevant.

---

But the four countries in the UK are quite clearly different entities in football even if they all have the same passport. It's not four UK teams, each representing the whole of the UK but four teams representing the four parts of the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Absolute nonsense - the real reason for this rule was explained earlier. This sounds like the sort of sentimental yarn your ageing English grandad would tell you in front of the hearth one night when you were a young lad. I believe the English would label such a story 'poppycock'.

---

The English FA is the oldest governing body in the world which is why they just calls themselves the "Football Association". The England v.Scotland international is the oldest international in the world. Once they had they had their international teams and associations established they were hardly going to scrap them.

Quote:

---

Sorry - I thought this was a football thread......?:confused:

---

Sorry for bringing politis into it, but your idea wouldn't be so bad if pushed the Scots to vote for independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

There are 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo. That is a large number of people.

It amounts to over 5% of the total population. The Serbian population of Kosovo is, for example, 250% higher than the black population of Britain.

So its simply wrong to claim they've all been driven out/ethnically cleansed. Their numbers are down, but they still have a clear presence.

---

There used to be 4 times that number before the KLA got started !:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Denmark is legally established as 'The kingdom of Denmark'. Note the lack of any reference to its crown territories of Greenland and Faroe Islands - they are not established as integral parts of that nation or political state...likewise, Spain/France do not define themselves in relation to, or including, Andorra. The same goes for Leichtenstein etc.

San Marino...has chosen to use the Euro, under special agreement

---

I don't think the lack of references is relevant. As well as what you say above, the smaller areas don't define themselves as minor regions to the larger countries- but in practice that's what they are. The Faeroes issue equivalent to Ulster banknotes, but they're in Danish knonor. I imagine you might struggle to spend one in upcountry Jylland or Bornholm.

San Marino hasn't really "chosen" to use the Euro. Its small size means an equivalent to the Swiss Franc (which is, incidentally, closely linked to and arguably dependent on, the Euro as it was previously to the Deutschmark) is impractical.

Quote:

---

If only one member of the 4 left (e.g. NI), the state would have to be legally redefined. That is the key difference

---

It's a legal nicety, but it's got little to do with football. In reality, there's no legal reason why NI and Scotland shouldn't play international football in the same way as the Faeroes or Andorra. Nor indeed why the NI or Scottish FAs should, or shouldn't, have a FIFA sinecure. There's nothing to stop FIFA renegotiating how the committee to consider changes to the laws of the game is appointed.

Before I begin PP - thanks for being one of the few people on here capable of tackling the issue itself, rather than getting into misty-eyed notions of politics and nationalism, or side-tracked irrelevant details such as currencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

Indeed they are Steve but, as part of the Rous deal, the four home Associations hold the equivalent of a "golden share" (i.e. they would jointly and severally have to back such a change themselves for it to happen). Consequently there's much less chance of the change you champion actually happening. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

....it's hardly likely that the four oldest associations in world football would sacrifice their individual histories nor their positions of power in the world game just to come into line with what "lesser" member Associations may want.

---

At the core of this issue is the politics of international football. And as history has shown when it comes to politics, turkeys often do vote for Christmas - when it becomes no longer politically tenable for them to refuse to do so.

Politics is full of examples of vested interests agreeing for change that is against their own narrow interests. Take the UN. It's only genuine function - security - is effectively in the hands of a closed-shop Council of 5 permanent members. They are ever-present, and not only have a veto, but that includes a veto on removing the veto. Hey presto - about as entrenched a position as you can get. But I fully expect the P5 of the UN Security Council to accept other permanent members at some future point - possible even within the next decade. This is because it is becoming increasingly untenable politically to have a P5 that only includes the victorious nations of WW2. A P5 with France, but not Germany; China, but not Japan; and Russia, but not India (or even a large nuclear Muslim country like Pakistan) is becoming increasingly untenable in the modern world. The world has changed - eventually the UN Security Council will as well. It will undoubtedly take time, but at some point the turkeys will vote to diminish their own power and influence by accepting new members.

World football is no different. There could be any number of issues on which the privileged status of the UK reaches a point of untenability within the world game, and FIFA either realises that or has the change forced on it. Even something as minor as a FIFA Presidential candidate making a promise to do so to secure a crucial block of votes from developing nations could be enough to force the change, if that candidate then got elected. We've seen candidates allegedly involved in vote-rigging, corruption and fraud to get elected - sacrificing the 'home nation's would be an easy price to agree to for key electoral support.

I see two key events in the next 6 years that might bring this whole issue to a head :

CATALUNYA
It will be interesting to see if the leading Catalan nationalist parties, buoyed by their positive referendum vote on ascending to 'nation' status within Spain, decide to push the concept of a separate team. I don't think they will, as that really would be a massive political can of worms in Spain - much bigger than the greater political autonomy they've gained. But you never know - it would only take one of the more separatist-minded coalition parties to make it a key issue in giving their support to the current left-wing government.

2012 OLYMPICS
I see this as a bigger threat - and judging by the initial reactions of the Scottish and Welsh FA's, so do they ! The government wants a Team GB, as does the GB Olympic Committee. The English and Norn Irish FA's are keen on the idea - the Scottish and Welsh are not. There can be no doubt that any combined UK team would soner or later be used to threaten the Home Nation's position within FIFA. Scotland and Wales clearly understand that.

If the positon of the Home Nations in world football is indeed as cast-iron and concrete-safe as you suggest, then why are the Scots and Welsh so worried about a proposed UK Olympics Team ? This is very telling. Is it because they understand the politics of international football and the repercussions a GB OLympic team could have - regardless of what the turkeys wanted themselves.......?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlasticPaddy

You're conflating two different stories here. The Welsh situation had nothing at all to do with FIFA and everything to do with UEFA. Without a national league no Welsh clubs would have been allowed to participate (I won't say compete) in the Champions League; the League of Wales was formed in direct response to this.

---

I don't think I am PP. The reason why the Welsh League was created was explained to me in person last year by Alun Davies - who was President of the Welsh FA at the time, the man who set the league up, and the Home Nation's formal rep on the FIFA steering committee.

Also, here's a quote from a BBC webpage on the history of the Welsh Premier League :

Quote:

---

"This situation was being exploited in FIFA circles by African and Asian nations who resented the independent status of the four British associations, and who saw the participation of the senior Welsh clubs in English football as a contradiction of that status".

---

Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/matchofth...lsh_prem.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plasticpaddy

In any case, you have so far failed to address the issue of domestic football. A United Kingdom team would need a United Kingdom league. Adding Celtic and Rankers to the Premiership wouldn't be enough; there would need to be a wholesale integration of the leagues from the four countries and there's no way a UK league could start without including Welsh and NI representatives. Linfield v Liverpool? Cwmbran v Celtic? Can you just imagine these fixtures? Complete mismatches that would render UK football a laughing-stock in world terms.

---

Firstly - I'm not convinced of the necessity for a single UK league if there was a single UK team. Wales had an international team for decades without having had a single welsh league. As mentioned above, it was only meddling from developing nations about broader issues (i.e. the multiple UK teams) that brought an end to this situation. If Wales could have multiple, non-national leagues - why also couldn't the UK ?

Secondly - if it came to the crunch, this issue would be a red herring. I have absolutely no doubt that even if a single league was required - if the Home Nations were prepared to rescind their privileged international position, they would be allowed to keep their individual leagues if they made that a condition of doing so. Absolutely No doubt whatsoever. The developing nations wouldn't care one-jot about the leagues, and if it was the clincher to get the turkeys to vote for Christmas then it would happen. So I don't believe that this issue would ever really arise.

Thirdly - as if in any Uk league the likes of Liverpool and Cwmbran would ever be put into the same division immediately !! It would be like saying there should never be a European League because no-one would want to see St Joseph's Boys v Barcelona from the start........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

But the four countries in the UK are quite clearly different entities in football even if they all have the same passport. It's not four UK teams, each representing the whole of the UK but four teams representing the four parts of the UK.

---

I understand that fully thanks. But it is irrelevant. Each individual part of Spain - with much more autonomy than the UK's 'nations' for example - don't get to have their own teams. That is why it is unfair. I don't know why you're not grasping this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

The English FA is the oldest governing body in the world which is why they just calls themselves the "Football Association". The England v.Scotland international is the oldest international in the world. Once they had they had their international teams and associations established they were hardly going to scrap them.

---

Thanks for the primary school history lesson. See above for response on this - contrary to popular belief, vested interests often do vote in ways that run contrary to their narrow interests....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Sorry for bringing politis into it, but your idea wouldn't be so bad if pushed the Scots to vote for independence.

---

Football anyone.....? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

If dfcsteve gets his way and there was a UK side all the players with Irish passports in NI (mostly nationalists) would play for Ireland while the players with British passports (mostly unionists) would play for the UK. That doesn't sound great for cross community relations.

---

You're talking out of your arse PR - where did I even begin to suggest anything like that ?:rolleyes:

Considering that anyone born in the Republic is entitled to a British passport, and anyone born in the north (to Irish parents) an Irish one under the GFA, you'd be wrong anyway, as they could play for either side if they wanted to.