To many, Scotland is a land of misbehaving drunkards, who live in clans, wear kilts, guzzle Scotch, and speak in thick accents. The country is cold, dark, and unforgiving. The football is similarly abject: the national team has been crap for ages, and Scottish sides regularly get boyed off in Europe. All in all, Scotland seems grim.

However, if you dig deeper, you’ll see that Scotland’s not what its detractors—mainly the English—have made it out to be. It’s a belting place, with a rich legacy of culture and prestige. Also, Scotland’s clubs were once able to go toe-to-toe with Europe’s top sides. Unfortunately, recent predicaments—poverty, homelessness, mass emigration, and poor football—sully its image.

What is Scotland’s legacy? Why has the country been in perpetual decline? How did Scottish football go from Jimmy Johnstone, Billy Bremner, and Denis Law, to Oliver McBurnie and Grant Hanley? And, despite this drastic decline, why do I still back the Scots to make a run in the 2024 European Championship?

In this article, I’ll shine some light on Scotland’s greatness. The Scots have done bits for the British Empire, various developing countries, and world football. They’re an understated, proud group of people. However, this isn’t charity: the Scots can fend for themselves, as history has proven. Rather, it’s an ode to them. God bless the Scots, Scotland, and Scottish football.

General History

Early History (10,800 BC - 1025 AD)

To start, let’s look at Scotland’s makeup. As alluded to earlier, Scotland is a dark, cold place for most of the year. However, it wasn’t always like this. In fact, for the majority of history, it was worse. During the Last Ice Age, Scotland had temperatures of negative 60 degrees Celsius, and its land was covered by a sheet of ice that was around a mile-deep. Even after the ice had melted, Scotland remained a frigid tundra, and few were able to create permanent settlements.

But, during the Classical Era, various groups established themselves all across Scotland. The Britons, a Welsh-Celtic group, settled on the Clyde. The Picts—a mysterious group of warriors, likely coming from northern Germany—lived far north, beyond the Forth and Clyde. Little is known about them, aside from the fact that they weren’t Gaelic. But, we do know that they were far more aggressive than the Britons, as they regularly launched raids into the south. Additionally, the Gaelic Scots settled in the west, creating the Gaelic kingdom of Dalriada. Many came from Ireland, but the Scots were distinct from the Irish, as much of their culture was home-grown and specific to their needs as Scotsmen.

These groups were formidable. After Rome conquered most of Britain in the early 1st century AD, they had a go at the north. The Britons struggled, eventually ceding portions of land. But, the Picts and the Scots endured the Roman advances and counter-raided on numerous occasions. Eventually, the message got through. Roman Emperor Hadrian built his famous wall in 122 AD to consolidate Rome’s southern possessions (e.g. England), as these northern groups were far too resillient.

However, these groups also fought amongst each other. They’d form alliances to fight off enemies, break these alliances to fight one another, and then recreate these alliances to fight new enemies. As a result, for centuries, power oscillated amongst the Picts, the Gaelic Scots, and the emerging Northumbrian English. It was chaos. Order only came in the mid-9th century, when Scottish leader Cináed mac Ailpín united the Picts and Scots to form the Kingdom of Alba, or Scotland. This formalised a singular Scottish identity across northern Britain, albeit centuries of inter-marriage and inter-settlement had laid the seeds.

The unification came just in time. The Vikings began raiding, and a unified force stood the best chance at resisting. From about 800 to 1050 AD, the Vikings sailed off to various foreign lands—like Scotland, Russia, England, and Ireland—and relentlessly pillaged everything in sight, demolishing villages and enslaving many. These chaps were steely and ruthless.

However, so were the newly-unified Scots. Whilst Viking raids were frequent, Scottish groups resisted. Much like the Romans, the Vikings found it difficult to breach the Scots’ defences. They were able to plunder the Island of Iona and destroy a few monasteries, but true Viking settlement and damage was limited to the islands—e.g. the Isle of Man and Iona—and the far north.

The English, however, struggled, ultimately letting the Vikings conquer ¾ of its kingdoms after fifteen years of conquest. By the 11th century, the majority of England was ruled by Vikings, after successful expeditions by Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut the Great. In Ireland, the Vikings destroyed most monasteries and enslaved many. These newly-enslaved men were then sent to Dublin, where they were sold to the Moors.

As the Kingdom of Alba entered the 2nd millennium, it was a uniquely Gaelic realm, populated by no-nonsense, gritty men. Although invaders—e.g. the Romans, Vikings and Northumbrian English—did damage, the damage paled in comparison to that done to the English and the Irish. Additionally, whilst the Anglos, Jutes, and the Saxons dominated England during the 9th century, they struggled to assert themselves in the Kingdom of Alba. These disparities put the Scots in a unique position, strengthening their culture and identity.

Middle History (1025 AD - 1700 AD)

As these lads entered the later stages of the Middle Ages, external influences crept in. The Normans, who were prominent in England, expanded their influence. After William the Conqueror became England’s first Norman king in 1066, Norman settlements spread across England and, to a lesser extent, Scotland. King David I of Scotland (1124-1153) promoted Norman settlement by offering land and financial incentives.

As a result, a sizable Anglo-Norman contingency grew, especially in Moray, Mearns, and Gowrie. As they did in England, they promoted feudal landholding systems, which were adopted all across the Lowlands. So, Scotland began to Anglicise, albeit notable distinctions remained, especially in the Highlands. The Highlanders resisted feudalism and stayed true to their Gaelic Scottish roots, even as James II and James V sought to impose their rule. Clans, kinship, and chieftains remained. Scottish kings, realising the futility of compulsion, were forced to negotiate with earls in the Highlands and the Islands to maintain their influence.

Furthermore, as the Kingdoms of England and Scotland strengthened, their relationship became more strained. From the 11th century onwards, the Scots and the English quarreled over spheres of influence. Certain Scottish kings had peaceful relations with England—such as Alexander III—but others—like Malcolm III—were more bloodthirsty, frequently raiding England’s northern posessions, like Northumberland and Carlisle.

The relationships between the Kingdoms' kings varied over time. Some kings were more aggressive than others, especially early on. In 1173, Henry II forced William the Lion into vassalage and made him give up castles in Edinburgh and Sterling. In 1296, John Balliol surrendered Scotland to the English, allowing them to tax and patrol the Scots. However, thanks to the efforts of William Wallace and Robert I, Scotland regained its independence in March 1328. Later, Robert I’s son married the daughter of Edward III, the English king, which reduced quarrels. There were still infrequent raids, mainly under Henry IV, but the Scots endured them, and relations remained (mostly) stable.

In the end, England’s early meddling helped the Scots cement their unique identity. In the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, written to persuade the pope to denounce England’s aggression, Robert I portrayed the Scots as a proud people, who were able to resist the Danes, English, and Norse, and who had the right to govern themselves. It didn’t work, but it strengthened the Scottish resolve, and they promptly won independence in 1328.

Eventually, with James VI’s ascension to the English crown in 1603, England and Scotland were, on paper, united, marking the Union of the Crowns. It didn’t end the tensions between the Scots and the English. It also did not stop internal discontent, as seen by the regular clashes between the Jacobite Highlanders and the Anglicised Lowlanders. But, the countries were balanced, and the 17th century saw an increase in productive relations.

Golden Era (1700 AD - 1914 AD)

However, as the 18th century approached, Scotland’s situation was dire. The Scots, having seen the success of the British East India Company, created their own imitation—the Darien Company—in hopes of replicating England’s glory. The Darien Company raised around £400k, much of which came from the Scottish government, with the intention of colonising Panama. Unfortunately, the expeditions, which took place in the 1690s, failed. Famine, disease, and poor yields were rife, and the Scottish economy was bankrupted. Concurrently, there were poor harvests back in Scotland, causing many to starve. Scotland’s grave predicament, as well as bribes by the English, made many call for stronger ties to the powerful English. Thus, in 1707, England absorbed Scotland, and Great Britain was born.

Trade

But, the Union was a blessing. Although most of Scotland’s autonomy was lost—for example, Scottish Parliament disappeared—Scotland’s ties to the affluent England created avenues of trade. According to Tom Devine, in 1758, “Scottish tobacco imports” from America were greater than those of “London, Bristol, Liverpool, and Whitehaven” combined. Ireland, however, had little to no stake in the prospering American markets due to the Act of 1696, which was passed by the English and banned most American imports into Ireland. As a result, both England and Scotland held quasi-monopolies over American trade.

Similarly, the Scots dominated the West Indian sugar trade. “Sugar princes” became millionaires, and organisations, such as Alexander Houstoun & Company, surged. Scotland’s economy was on the rise, and Glasgow, Clyde, Edinburgh, and other cities benefitted.

Innovation

Scotland's thriving economy was accompanied by a surge in innovation, a development rooted in the nation's longstanding emphasis on reading and education, driven by a desire for widespread Biblical literacy. The University of St. Andrews, for example, was founded early—in 1413—and was immensely cheaper than Oxford University and Cambridge University, meaning you didn’t need to be posh to be literate. University of Glasgow and Edinburgh University followed in 1451 and 1583, respectively. Further, the Calvinist belief in doing your best work—all the time, for the glory of God—ushered the Scots towards self-improvement, mainly via education.

With educated upper and middle classes, along with its booming economy, Scotland grew. Edinburgh and Glasgow, in particular, prospered. Their populations surged—especially in the midst of the Industrial Revolution—which increased urban development, employment, and immigration. Eventually, immigration forced Edinburgh to expand, so the Edinburgh Town Council built the northern, Georgian New Town, which was connected to the Old Town via the North Bridge. The bridge still stands, adding to Edinburgh’s distinctive charm.

As a result of their growth, these cities became melting pots for ideas. Many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers—such as David Hume, William Robertson, and William Ferugsson—lived close to one another, often crossing paths. This drove the Enlightenment, as these chaps were able to draw inspiration from and bounce ideas off one another. Such interactions elevated the likes of Adam Smith, Francis Hutcheson, Henry Peter Brougham, and Henry Home to higher levels of understanding. As a result, Edinburgh and Glasgow gained lofty reputations, prompting Voltaire to remark that “it is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation.”

The rest of Scotland developed, too, with roads and bridges connecting the isolated Highlands to the rest of Scottish society. The Caledonian Canal, for example, opened the Highlands to commercial traffic. Despite the controversial Highland clearances, the Scots began taking more interest in their Highlander heritage. Even the likes of Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson—who, respectively, founded the modern fields of economics and sociology—saw the value of the Highlanders. In particular, Smith appreciated the health and courage benefits associated with Highlander-esque militias. Coupled with the influence of Walter Scott, whose work about the Highlands increased global interest, Scotland’s tourism industry boomed.

Impact on America

Scottish impact extended beyond Scotland. For centuries, Protestant countries—like Norway and Sweden—relied on Highlander military support. For example, in the 17th century, Gustavus Adolphus recruited the military services of the Highlander Clan Munro, whose power helped transform Sweden into a global superpower. Further, Scots were involved in the Rotterdam stock exchange, founded in 1598.

During the Industrial Age, Scottish influence multiplied. As mentioned earlier, the Scots shaped America. They arrived in the United States, bringing valuable skills and knowledge. Clyde shipbuilders, with their civil engineering expertise, played a key role in American engineering development. Scottish doctors and politicians also helped modernize the nation. In the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly 3 million Scots emigrated to America. Notably, between 1717 and 1776, around 250,000 Ulstermen, most of whom had Scottish roots, made the journey.

One of Scotland’s most important influences, though, was education. Many American universities—like Princeton, William & Mary, Columbia, and Brown—were influenced by Scottish education. In particular, Princeton had a deep connection to the Scots, having been (partially) founded by Ulsterman Samuel Blair. Many of its early presidents were Scottish. One of them, John Witherspoon, modelled its curriculum off Edinburgh University. Later, James McCosh founded the graduate school and schools of science, and erected numerous buildings around campus.

Scottish investment was also omnipresent. The Scottish government invested millions into American railroads. In addition, Scottish entrepreneurs boosted the United States’s economy. Andrew Carnegie, for example, founded the Carnegie Steel Company and employed tens-of-thousands. When J.P. Morgan bought the company in the early 20th century, Carnegie became one of the richest men ever and proceeded to construct pools, auditoriums, libraries, etc., all over the country.

All in all, the Scots were key to America’s development. Whilst many were proud of their Scottish heritage, they quickly assimilated and attached to the American identity, partially why people are unaware of Scotland’s impact on America. The Irish, on the other hand, maintained their links to Ireland, establishing large Irish communities (e.g. Philadelphia and Boston) and bringing over Irish politics, as seen by the Orange Riots of 1870 and 1871. Coupled with their poor living conditions—many lived in ghettoes—and lack of education, anti-Irish sentiment was, unfortunately, rife. The mistreatment of the Irish in the North was even used by Southerners to defend slavery, as they argued that slaves were treated better in the South.

Empire Builders

Beyond America, the Scots were crucial for the British Empire, helping consolidate its holdings. After the Revolutionary War, the British were weak. Despite incredible naval power, and the deployment of Highlanders, they’d lost their richest colony. Further, British loyalists were bombed-out of the United States, fleeing to Canada. All in all, they looked like jokes. However, 30 years after the Revolutionary War, Britain became Europe’s most powerful state. How did Britain undergo such a remarkable turnaround? You know the answer.

After losing America, the Brits consolidated their holdings in Canada. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) and the Northwest Company (NWC) heightened their dominance over the fur trade. The HBC—run by Sir George Simpson, a Highlander from Ross-shire—grew to trade across “3 million square miles of territory.” Incredible. The HBC and the NWC employed loads of Scots, often from the Orkney Islands, as these chaps were gritty enough to survive in Canada’s unforgiving cold; they also employed the services of the loyalist Highlanders. With Scottish influence, these companies helped turn Montreal and Halifax into prosperous trading centres.

Also, Scottish muscle helped the British defeat the French in Trafalgar and Waterloo. By finishing the belligerent Napoleon, the Empire cemented itself as Europe’s strongest state. Further victories—such as in the 1840 Opium War, a war started by Scottish opium traders—were backed by Scottish muscle and ingenuity, with John Laird’s iron ships playing a key role in demolishing opposition.

After these battles, Scottish regiments, like the 42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment, received heroes’ welcomes. To commemorate their bravery, citizens created graffiti, songs, and symbols. However, this was nothing new. For example, in Ulster, a country comprised of ethnic Scots, people had been memoralising the Siege of Derry for years. In later years, the 36th (Ulster) Division’s efforts in Somme were treated similarly. All in all, the Scots are a proud people. It is imperative to stand up for what’s right, make sacrifices, and fight back against oppressors, as the Romans and Vikings can attest.

Further, the Scots helped urbanise Australia. Originally, Australia was a country dominated by uncouth, violent prisoners, but the Scots helped modernise it. One of Australia’s early politicians, the Hebridean Lachlan Macquarie, built schools, roads, and churches, which boosted education, development, and prosperity. Further, as the Empire accumulated more-and-more land, sheep farming became a massive industry, with Scottish entrepreneurs cashing in. Unfortunately, much of this land was at the expense of the Aboriginals, who were massacred by disease and hostilities.

Scottish influence was largely positive, though, and Scots migrated with good intentions. By the early 1800s, they started exploring Africa. Expeditions were spurred on by ministers, like Thomas Chalmers, who urged people to spread Christianity for philanthropic purposes. Macgregor Laird and David Livingstone were receptive to this call-to-arms and went off on expeditions. Few had explored central and western Africa before, as many believed it to be a disease-ridden, violent place, but Livingstone proved them wrong.

Livingstone spent decades in Africa, fighting tigers, malaria, and (initially) hostile populations. His persistence paid off, and he assimilated. He converted many to Christianity, modernised towns, and brought wealth. After spending time in African communities, he came to despise the slave trade. To combat Arabic slave traders, he armed African chiefs and encouraged trade among the chiefdoms to reduce their reliance on the slave trade. However, in 1873, he succumbed to malaria.

His legacy influenced the European “Scramble for Africa” in the 19th century. But, many Africans appreciated his efforts. Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda called him the “first freedom fighter,” and various African cities have kept the names he gave them—such as Malawi’s Livingstonia and Blantyre, and Zambia’s Livingstone.

Decline and Modern Period (1914 AD - Present)

However, Scotland began declining after World War I, as centuries of emigration dwindled its pool of skilled workers, hurting domestic industries. Despite progress via the National Services Scotland (NHS), television, and improved housing, low wages drove emigration to places like Australia, England, Jamaica, and, surprisingly, Eastern Europe, where Scots have an interesting history—from 1691 to 1703, Aberdonian Alexander Chalmers served four terms as mayor of Warsaw. Between 1951 and 1981 alone, over 753,000 Scots emigrated, nearly half of them to England.

Further, Scotland’s domestic industries took a nosedive, and not just because of the dwindling workforce. Barring temporary rises during World War 1 & 2, the global demand for jute, coal, and ships declined, hurting places like Clyde and Dundee. The increase in tertiary work—the services sector—also propelled the decline, hurting the agricultural and industrial industries. It wasn’t just Scotland though; various countries felt the decline. It even pushed Yugoslavia to its violent break-up.

After World War II, Scotland shifted away from traditional industries, leading to widespread factory closures and job losses. Labour governments stepped in to ease this transition, working with unions and providing grants to companies like Chrysler UK and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. Their goal was to safeguard the economic security of working-class families, aiming to reduce the impact of industrial decline on local communities and create new opportunities.

However, under the Conservative tutelage of Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, deindustrialisation accelerated. Edward Heath minimised state support for Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and Thatcher notoriously waged war against unions and encouraged privatisation. Following closures in Timex plants, Dundee lost 1,675 industrial jobs. Also, after the closure of a massive car plant in Linwood in 1981, over 4,800 workers were made redundant. Within the span of a century, prospering cities had turned into bastions of unemployment and poverty.

The Linwood closure underscored a significant trend during Thatcher's neoliberal era: privatised companies shuttered and relocated, impacting thousands. By 1971, Glasgow's shipbuilding workforce had dwindled to around 11,000, just 10% of its Edwardian peak. Despite sit-ins and work-ins, like those at Clydeside in the '60s and '70s, deindustrialization persisted. Conservative support for deindustrialisation spurred the Scottish National Party's rise and the Conservative Party's decline, while Anglophobia grew, as London-based decision-makers (“faceless men”) became targets of resentment.

These days, poverty and unemployment persist. From 2014 to 2017, approximately one million Scots, including around 230,000 children, were living in poverty. Many, particularly in the Scottish Labour Party, attributed this to UK government cuts and placed the blame on the Tories. After a brief decline, child poverty has been rising in recent years. Although relative poverty had been decreasing since 1995, it started increasing again, reaching 24% in 2023, mainly due to the impacts of COVID-19.

As for what the near future holds: who knows. We’re living in strange, strange times, and change takes ages. But, the Scots have bounced back from worse, so I have faith in them. They have far too much knowledge, steel, and spirit. If anyone can bring about such a drastic and positive change, it's the Scots. Eventually, they’ll be back.

Now, onto football.

Football

Overview

I had written a long, drawn-out draft, but sod it. I’ll keep it simple: the Scots love their football. Much like the English, they had an early start. The Factory Acts of the mid-19th century freed up time for the working class, which encouraged the creation of football clubs. Queen’s Park was founded in 1867, Rangers in 1872, and Hibernian in 1875. A bunch of others—Hearts in 1874, Celtic in 1887, and Cowdenbeath in 1881—followed, and the game became popular.

Again, like the English, early discussions about the game were dominated by debates over professionalism, whether player wages would sully the sport. Queen’s Park drove the amateur initiative, whilst various others supported professionalism. Eventually, the English meddled (as per) and concluded the debate; they began luring talented Scottish footballers to England with hefty wage packets. To plug the talent drain, the Scots legalised professionalism in 1893.

Quickly, Scottish football became a duopoly of Rangers and Celtic. Celtic were founded in 1887 by Brother Walfrid, headmaster of St. Andrew’s School, as well as builder John Glass and doctor John Conway. Celtic’s early goal was to raise money for the Catholic poor in Glasgow’s East End. Many Irishmen lived in the East End, after heavy migration following the potato famine of the 1840s. It was a ghetto, struck by disease, poverty, and epidemics. To provide support, Celtic would play invitation matches, donate to charities, and host dinners. It was a popular club, with arguably the biggest support in Britain by 1900. Celtic's stadium, Parkhead, was built by volunteer supporters, demonstrating the strong connection between the club and its fans.

Rangers were founded in 1872 by 4 teenage boys, looking for a jolly. Unlike Celtic, Rangers were nomadic. The club moved around plenty, from Burnbank, to Kinning Park, to Ibrox, all within its first 3 decades of existence. But, this nomadism secured them a large, widespread fanbase. Unlike Celtic, Rangers weren’t explicitly founded for religious reasons, although they quickly became known as a Protestant football club. Most of Rangers’s players, managers, and board members were Protestant, and Ibrox was filled with masonic imagery, with the chequered flooring and pillars resembling King Solomon's Temple.

Ninety-five percent of Scottish football history is marked by alternating periods of dominance between Celtic and Rangers. For example: Rangers won 4 league titles in a row from 1899 to 1902. Immediately after, from 1904 to 1910, Celtic won 6 league titles, along with 5 Scottish Cups from 1904 to 1912. I could copy-and-paste these two sentences another 6 times, alter the dates and trophy quantities, and I’ll have produced an accurate history of Scottish football. But I’ll keep it simple. After Celtic’s 6-in-a-row, Rangers won 14 titles during the inter-war period. Their dominance continued after World War Two, albeit Hearts and Hibernian had good runs, until Jock Stein joined Celtic in 1965. Stein’s Celtic won 10 titles in 13 years, including 9-in-a-row from 1966-1974.

1960 to 1984 was the Golden Age of Scottish football. Not only were Celtic a threat domestically, but they also did bits in Europe. In 1967, they won the European Cup in Lisbon, beating Helenio Herrera’s famous Grande Inter. Celtic’s side, all of whom were born within 30 miles of Celtic Park, were then dubbed the “Lisbon Lions.” They were the first British side to win the European Cup, and remain the only Scottish side to do so. Celtic also made the final in 1970 and the semi-finals in 1972 and 1974. During the '60s and '70s, they were one of Europe’s finest sides.

Rangers, however, struggled in the European Cup. Their best run was in 1965, when they lost to Inter Milan in the quarter-finals. Their best player, Jim Baxter, had his leg broken earlier in the season, which screwed their chances. But, Rangers did bits in the Cup Winners’ Cup: they won the competition in 1972, and made the final in both 1967 and 1961. Unfortunately, they played the 1967 final a few days after Celtic had won the European Cup. Since Celtic are Rangers’s bogeyman, the players were distracted, so they lost to their opponents, the glamorous Bayern Munich.

For Celtic and Rangers, that was as far as they’d go. In the late 70’s and 80’s, Dundee United and Aberdeen rose. Ferguson came into a poor Aberdeen side, turned the likes of Alex McLeish, Gordon Strachan, and Willie Miller into top footballers, and won the league 3 times. Jim McClean, along with assistant Walter Smith, won the league in 1983, as well as the League Cup in 1980 and 1981. Not only did these sides (temporarily) break the Old Firm duopoly, but they had great runs in Europe. In 1983, Alex Ferguson’s Aberdeen beat Real Madrid in the Cup Winners’ Cup final. An incredible accomplishment. Dundee United also made the European Cup semi-final in 1984, unjustly losing to a cheating Roma side. 3 years later, they made the UEFA Cup final, narrowly losing to a strong IFK Göteborg.

Additionally, during this time, Scottish footballers were incredible. Denis Law revived Manchester United after Munich, winning the FA Cup, two First Division titles, and the European Cup, as well as bagging the Ballon D’or for himself in 1964. Kenny Dalglish arrested Celtic’s decline and later became Liverpool’s best ever footballer. He was the head of Liverpool’s feared Scottish triumvirate—him, Graeme Souness, and Alan Hansen. These 3 lads were world-class footballers, and, together, won 5 First Division titles and 3 European Cups. For Leeds United, Billy Bremner, Eddie Gray, and Peter Lorimer were crucial. With them, Leeds won 2 First Division titles, an FA Cup, and 2 UEFA Cups, and they also finished runners-up in the European Cup. I could go on-an-on with other sides, e.g. MacKay, Brown, and White’s Spurs, or Robertson, Burns, and O’Hare’s Forest.

Unfortunately, none of the individual quality translated to international success. In his book, Colin Bell, Manchester City’s greatest footballer (1963–1979), remarked that Scotland’s failures shocked him, as they had great, great players. He was right. As seen above, the Scots were class. During Bell’s time especially, the Scots were unparalleled. They had Dave Mackay, Denis Law, Billy Bremner, Jim Baxter, Billy McNeill, and Willie Johnston, as well as various other mavericks, but they didn’t qualify for a single World Cup or European Championship. Scotland were bottlers, no question about that.

Beyond on-pitch performances, everything surrounding the national team was shocking. For one, the Scottish Football Association (SFA) were toxic. The likes of Paddy Crerand and Jimmy Johnstone said that the SFA were heavily pro-Rangers, to the point where any Rangers player on a decent run of form would be guaranteed a call-up. Beyond the SFA, the Tartan Army were also predominantly Rangers supporters. Johnstone, voted Celtic’s best ever player, said he wasn’t entirely comfortable playing for Scotland, because “his” supporters would give him dog’s abuse and call for Willie Henderson, a Rangers player, to take his place. Celtic’s Bobby Lennox, a world-class footballer, only got 10 caps for Scotland, whereas David Hay was also jeered for displacing Rangers’s Sandy Jardine.

Further, the Scottish media killed anyone who played in England, dubbing them “Anglos.” Mackay, Law, Gilzean, Crerand, and McLintock all got it at points, but Law had it the worst. When Scotland drew 2-2 with England in 1965, and Ian McColl lost his job, Denis Law was ruthlessly slandered in the media, despite scoring Scotland’s first. He didn’t play when Scotland had beat Italy 1-0 later that year, which, in the minds of the media, vindicated their rancor. If Scotland’s best ever footballer was getting stick, then that tells you everything you need to know.

Similarly, club football was—and still is—a cesspit. As mentioned earlier, Celtic are a Catholic club and Rangers a Protestant one. These two also happen to be the biggest clubs in Scotland. You can probably imagine how clashes between the two go. It's relentless alcohol consumption, sectarian conflict, brawls, parcel bombs, and general violence. Celtic, to be fair, aren’t discriminatory. Two of their best ever players, Kenny Dalglish and Danny McGrain, are Protestant, as was Jock Stein, the club’s greatest manager.

Rangers, however, operated under an infamous anti-Catholic policy for more than a century. In 1912, Ulster-based shipbuilding company Harland and Wolff loaned Rangers £90,000. Harland and Wolff was crucial to Belfast’s economy, but the company was known for its blatant sectarian policies. Peak employment was more than 30,000 men, with only a couple hundred being Catholics. One of the loan’s stipulations was that Rangers remain Catholic-free, as they had been for (most of) their existence. Ralph Brand, Rangers player from 1954 to 1965, exposed the club after his departure, clueing everyone in on the world’s worst kept secret. He also lambasted the club for its “Iron Curtain”-esque policies, where nobody affiliated with Rangers was allowed to mention the club’s policy; the club operated under an omertà. (Reading his quotes, you’d think the club were the Mafia!)

The policy was broken when Graeme Souness controversially signed the Catholic, ex-Celtic Mo Johnston in 1989. Even then, that didn’t stop the sectarian feeling throughout the club. Immediately, many Rangers fans gave up their season tickets, and effigies of Souness were burned in Ulster. Both Johnston and Souness had to be followed by security for six months. Terry Butcher says that Rangers’s kitman discriminated against Johnston, and a few of his teammates didn’t sit with him during meal-times. Shocking. And sectarianism still pervades. As recently as 2019, Rangers received a stadium ban for sectarian chants against Gibraltar-based St Joseph’s.

It’s not just the fans. As said above, Rangers players partook in the discrimination whilst Johnston was at the club. It was consistent with Rangers’s history. Some of the club’s most important figures—Andy Goram, Bill Struth, etc.—encouraged sectarian nonsense. For one, Goram was photographed with an Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) flag. For the uninitiated, the UVF were a paramilitary group in Northern Ireland, responsible for killing hundreds of Catholic civilians and escalating the Troubles from the 1960s to the 1990s. Beyond that, he wore a black armband—traditionally worn when someone’s in mourning—after the death of Billy Wright, a UVF member who carried out many brutal murders. Goram passed recently, so, out of respect for the deceased, I won’t go any further. But, he was culpable, as were many of Rangers’s legendary figures.

Overall, the Old Firm derby is nasty. Some praise its high-octane, emotional nature, but it’s hard to look past all the discrimination, sectarianism, paranoia, and violence. Many English players, including Ian Wright, Terry Butcher, Chris Woods, and Ray Wilkins, were surprised by the intensity and hatred of the rivalry when they played for Celtic and Rangers. Graeme Souness, who’s effectively an Englishman, had to quit the job after 5 years, because of all the stress that came from the Old Firm and with being Rangers’s manager. There’s nothing like it in England, and (arguably) nothing like it on the continent. You’d have to go to South America to find anything comparable. I think only the Superclásico (Boca Juniors vs. River Plate) outdoes the Old Firm.

Anyway. These days, Scottish football’s in a dire state. After strong stints in the 90s and 2000s, when Rangers were outspending every side in Britain, it’s taken a steep decline. Celtic reached the Europa League final in 2003, and Rangers in both 2008 and 2022, but European success has remained non-existent. In 2017, Rangers lost 2-0 to Luxembourg-based Progrès Niederkorn, which was described as the club’s most embarrassing result ever. The year before, Celtic lost 1-0 to Gibraltar’s Lincoln Red Imps. Compared to Scotland’s heights in 1967, 1972, and 1983, the game’s clearly shriveled.

Why is this? For one, the funding. The Scots receive maybe 5% of the TV money that the English receive, so they struggle to compete with their neighbours. A mid-table Championship side has comparable spending power to Celtic and Rangers. Further, Edinburgh-based Hearts and Hibernian, both big football clubs, have had discussions over merging due to their perilous finances. It’s a sad state. Massive, historic clubs are being left behind.

Secondly, Rangers underwent administration in 2012 after two decades of lavish spending. Like Portsmouth and Leeds, they gambled on future success with foreign, extravagant signings—like Brian Laudrup, Paul Gascoigne, Tore André Flo, and Gennaro Gattuso—but they won nowt in Europe. In fact, most of the time, they were cannon fodder, receiving beatings from giants like Barcelona, United, Ajax, AEK Athens, and Grasshoppers. After Rangers’s administration, Scottish football weakened. No longer was the Scottish League a duopoly; Celtic could walk their way to the title. Good for their trophy cabinet, but poor for their performances. You can’t compete with European opposition if you’re smashing the likes of Cowdenbeath and St. Mirren 5 or 6 nil every week; you need to be challenged to improve.

Thirdly, there’s been a sharp decrease in player quality. Scotland regularly produced world-class footballers from the 1950s to the late 1980s, but it has dried up the last few decades. Whilst the current Scottish squad are decent, they don’t compare to sides of the past. I love McTominay, but he doesn’t compare to Bremner or McStay. Ryan Christie is also good, but would he get a game over John Robertson, Jim Baxter, or Gordon Strachan? I don’t think so. The Scottish League’s declining quality plays a large role in this, because young Scottish talent aren’t facing challenging opposition, so they stagnate.

But, in recent times, there have been positive signs. Rangers are back in the Scottish League. In 2022, 10 years after being wound up, they made the Europa League final, only losing on penalties. Motherwell, Aberdeen, and Hearts have improved in recent times, with Motherwell having finished runners-up in the Scottish League in both 2013 and 2014. Celtic remain strong in the domestic realm, albeit they get boyed off in the Champions League. But things look decent. I don’t know where they go from here, but the Scots are not a million miles off. Perhaps they find their own Rupert Murdoch, who revives interest in the game and puts in millions. The English game was in an embarrassing state prior to Sky’s money, so it’s not implausible, especially when you consider the size of Celtic and Rangers. But who knows. In the end, I hope things go well for the Scots.

Influence on England

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Scots shaped the landscape of English football. Perthshire’s William McGregor spearheaded the formation of the Football League's First Division in 1888 and became Aston Villa’s first president. Further, Villa’s first manager, George Ramsay, was a Scot, and he managed the club for 40 years. He won 6 FA Cups and 6 First Division titles. In the FA Cup, he finished runners-up twice; in the First Division, 6 times. Villa’s dominance during this period made them one of England’s biggest football clubs. Only 71 years later, under the tutelage of Ron Saunders and Tony Barton, did Villa reach similar heights. That side had plenty of Scots too, such as Ken McNaught, Allan Evans, and Des Bremner. In honour of Villa’s Scottish roots, their crest displays the Scottish lion.

Blackburn were another club that waited ages before replicating their pre-War successes. Between 1914 and 1994, Blackburn were cack, barring an FA Cup win in 1928. Only when Jack Walker began pouring in his millions, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, did Blackburn resurge. They won the Premier League in 1995, with Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton leading the way. However, this success did not match that of their dominant pre-World War One era. They won the FA Cup 3 times in a row from 1884 to 1886 with a squad of Scots, namely Jimmy Forrest, Jimmy Douglas, and Fergus Suter. Then, the Doonhamer Thomas Mitchell took charge in 1887 and won the FA Cup two more times in 1890 and 1891, with plenty of Scottish talent, taking advantage of Scottish football’s amateurism.

Blackburn weren’t the only club to lure the Scots in. Preston North End brought in players like Jimmy Ross, George Drummond, and John Gordon, who led them to a historic Double and an undefeated season in 1888-89. Similarly, Sunderland, established by Scotsman James Allan, signed John Auld, William Gibson, and Jimmy Millar, clinching the league title in 1892, 1893, and 1895. Other northern clubs, including Manchester United and Liverpool, also tapped into Scottish prowess. Liverpool secured their first First Division title in 1901 under the captaincy of Scotsman Alex Raisbeck. Finally, the Scots spearheaded Newcastle United’s golden era, in which they won 3 FA Cups and 4 First Division Titles. Hughie Gallacher was the most popular, but Frank Watt, Jimmy Lawrence, and Tommy McDonald were also incredible.

Beyond the North, the Scots also drove football in the South. John Cameron led Tottenham Hotspur to their first major trophy, the 1901 FA Cup. Chelsea benefited from the long-term coaching of David Calderhead and the design expertise of Archibald Leitch, who built Stamford Bridge. Leitch also helped build White Hart Lane, West Ham Stadium, Old Trafford, Ibrox Park, and Goodison Park. Further, Arsenal’s rise was largely due to Scottish playmaker Alex James, whose creativity secured their first major trophy, the 1930 FA Cup, and initiated a run of four league titles. All in all, in the early days, the Scots did plenty for English football.

Their work continued after World War Two. Manchester United, for one, would be nothing without Matt Busby. When Busby came into the club, Old Trafford was in tatters, having been bombed by the Nazis, and the club had just come off of a 20-year period of mediocrity. Through his steel, bravery, and wisdom, he turned it around. During Busby’s 24-year reign, United won 5 First Division titles, 2 FA Cups, and the European Cup. His Scottish stalwarts, like Denis Law, Paddy Crerand, and David Herd, were key to establishing United as England’s greatest club.

Most importantly, Busby rebuilt the club twice. First, after World War Two; second, after half the squad had died in the 1958 Munich disaster. There’s plenty that I could write here—about Busby’s youth policy, the work of Louis Rocca and Jimmy Murphy, the aftermaths of the disaster, and how Busby rebuilt the side—but I’ll keep it short: Busby is the greatest figure in Manchester United's history. The only person that comes close is Sir Alex Ferguson, another legendary Scotsman.

Spurs were another side transformed by Scots. After their 1951 First Divison triumph, they trailed off, becoming an inconsistent cup team. They had talent, but they lacked backbone and consistency. Only when Dave Mackay joined in 1959 did Spurs put everything together. They won the Double in 1961, as well as two further FA Cup victories in 1962 and 1967. Further, they won the Cup Winners’ Cup in 1963, becoming the first English side to win a European trophy. Mackay’s fellow Scots, John White and Bill Brown, were also key to Spurs’s successes. Unfortunately, after Mackay broke his leg twice, and after John White got killed by lightning, Spurs began languishing. But, the signing of Dundee’s Alan Gilzean arrested their decline, and they won a further 3 trophies, including the 1972 UEFA Cup. Since then, Spurs have bagged the occasional cup trophy, but they’ve struggled to reach their heights of the ‘60s and ‘70s.

Liverpool, like Spurs, were transformed by a Scot. For the longest time, Everton were the biggest team in Merseyside, especially in 1959, when Bill Shankly arrived at Liverpool. They had won 2 FA Cup trophies and 5 First Division titles and were one of England’s biggest clubs, dwarfing the inconsistent Liverpool. Shankly changed that. He took Liverpool out of the Second Division, won 3 First Division titles, 2 FA Cups, and the UEFA Cup. He also took Liverpool to the European Cup semi-final in 1965, barely losing to Inter. His Scottish players—Ron Yeats, Ian St. John, Billy Liddell, Peter Cormack, and Tommy Lawrence—were all key to Liverpool’s successes at various times. By the time he left in 1974, Liverpool were one of England’s greatest football clubs. His successor, Bob Paisley, carried the mantle and pushed Liverpool to new heights, winning more First Division titles and bagging 3 European Cups. As mentioned earlier, Alan Hansen, Kenny Dalglish, and Graeme Souness were all key to Paisley’s success.

I can write more. Leeds had plenty of Scots, like Bremner, Gray, and Lorimer, as did Clough’s Forest. Basically, if you look at any club’s golden era, you’ll find plenty of Scots driving the success, whether as manager or as superstar footballers.

Unfortunately, in recent times, the Scots are less prevalent. The relationship between England and Scotland has changed. Instead of English clubs bringing in superior Scottish talent to drive success, it’s the opposite. Celtic owe much of their current success to imports from England, like Scott Sinclair, Moussa Dembélé, and Leigh Griffiths. Rangers are similar, with John Lundstram, Ryan Kent, Connor Goldson, and James Tavernier thriving in Scotland after being unable to hack it in England. Meanwhile, English sides are increasingly looking overseas for talent, and the Scots are being betrayed. Currently, Manchester City and Arsenal have 0 Scottish footballers. Both United and Liverpool only have 1. Shocking, considering their histories.

But, all in all, the Scots have a great legacy in England. Whilst it hasn’t continued into the modern era, the Scots built many English clubs and pushed them to great success. These days, whilst the likes of Robertson and McTominay have helped their clubs reach finals and win trophies, it’s not the same. If the Scottish League becomes more competitive and wealthy, and players begin playing in a more difficult environment, then maybe English clubs will start drawing on their northern neighbours again. But, as for now, the Scots are being marginalised.

2024 Euros

Competition

This year, Scotland’s biggest competitors are England, Spain, Germany, and Portugal. Some would put Italy, Holland, and Belgium into that list, but I’m not going to. Whilst those sides have pockets of talent, I don’t rate their depth. For example, look at Belgium. They’ve got Kevin de Bruyne, a magician. But, simultaneously, they rely on Romelu Lukaku, a serial bottlejob, to lead their attack. He nullifies De Bruyne’s quality. Belgium have also lost incredible footballers—like Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Nainggolan, and Hazard—in recent years. As a result, I don’t rate their chances. They’re top-heavy.

But, top-heaviness is not always an issue. Sir Alex Ferguson once claimed that he could win the European Cup with Zinedine Zidane and 10 planks of wood. But De Bruyne is no Zidane. He doesn’t have Zizou’s grace. Obviously he’s a world-class footballer, but everything about him is mechanical: the dribbling, passing, etc. There is no rawness to his game. He’s like a robot: everything’s refined and manufactured; there are no rough edges, none of the imperfections that drew people to the likes of Thierry Henry, Günter Netzer, and George Best. You need some rawness to your game, a burst of spontaneity, or else you become predictable. Unfortunately, he has none.

But, his refined state suits him: he plays for Manchester City. Just like how De Bruyne is a manufactured footballer, City are a manufactured football club. Neither have impurities; there’s no risk of jeopardy. Ergo, there’s no glory in either of their accomplishments. So, if Belgium win the Euros off the back of De Bruyne’s quality, it’ll mean nothing. Effectively, they’re not contenders.

As for Italy, I think they have decent depth. But, they’ve weakened since their 2021 triumph, with Jorginho, Chiesa, and Bonucci having declined; also, Chiellini has retired. These are big losses. With this much degradation, it’s hard to say Italy have a chance.

Finally, Holland have great players, such as Van Dijk, de Jong, and de Ligt. But, like Belgium, their attack is spearheaded by a dilettante: Memphis Depay. As a United supporter, I know all about Memphis Depay. His attitude is shocking. Whilst at United, instead of learning to beat a defender or pass the football, he sulked and clashed with the media. He showed no inclination towards improving or trying to make it work at United. Instead, he wanted to look flash. He bought himself an all-black Mercedes G-Wagon, with “M7” emblazoned on its headrests. Nauseating.

When Cristiano Ronaldo had originally signed for United, he immediately multiplied his previous efforts, understanding that he still had a long way to go. His attitude was spot-on. Like Mikhail Gorbachev once said, “If you don’t move forward, sooner or later you begin to move backward." Depay moved backward. He was happy to take his foot off the accelerator, shift his priorities, and indulge in customised headrests. Hence, he was quickly bombed-out of United. Since then, he has only succeeded at one club: Lyon (where, still, he won no trophies). He was poor at Barcelona, and he’s hardly impressed for Atletico. I wish him the best, but he’s not the one to lead Holland to success.

Now, onto the top sides. England are strong. I think Kane, Bellingham, Foden, and Alexander-Arnold are world-class, and that Saka, Rashford, Rice, and Stones are great. Off squad quality alone, they are easily the favourites. However, when it comes to the Auld Rivalry, squad quality goes out the window. Emotions triumph, and the Scottish fans and footballers raise their game. As a result, Scotland fair well against the Auld Enemy. These days, Scotland rarely get battered by England; it’s unlikely there’ll be another 9-3. If the two sides meet, I reckon it’ll be a slugfest, with McTominay scoring the winner.

As for the Iberian Peninsula, Spain have a great squad. Oyarzabal, Rodri, Grimaldo, Carvajal, and Merino are all class. Spain won the Nations League in 2023 and dominated their Euro Qualifiers, even beating Scotland in Spain. However, the Scottish won the reverse fixture in Glasgow, with an inspired McTominay scoring a double. Another side that are good, but not miles ahead of Scotland. If the Scottish players’ attitudes are spot-on, then they have a great chance to beat Spain.

Portugal are also great. They won all 10 of their Euro Qualifiers, smashing the likes of Bosnia and Luxembourg in the process. However, as Slovenia proved in March, these lads aren’t infallible. Portugal regularly field geriatrics and immobiles—Ronaldo, William Carvalho, Pepe, and Danilo Pereira being prime examples. It’s fine to field one or two—France had Giroud in 2018—but when you field five or six, it’s a big, big problem.

Part of Spain’s issue in 2014 was that they were too slow and stiff. Xavi, Iniesta, Casillas, Xabi Alonso, Busquets, David Villa were all incredible footballers, but in 2014, most of them were immobile. As a result, they got boyed off in the group stage. Against Holland, Robben had free rein to sprint around and take the piss. As a result, Holland won 5-1, and Spain were on an early flight home. If they had younger, mobile lads on the pitch, that wouldn’t have happened.

If Portugal surrounds Ronaldo and Pepe with younger, faster players, like Rúben Dias, Bruno Fernandes, Rafael Leão, and Bernardo Silva, they have a good chance of succeeding. However, Portugal are amongst the biggest bottlers in world football. Outside of their 1966 World Cup run and Euro 2016 victory, they've historically underperformed. In 1986, they finished bottom of their World Cup group, albeit they beat England. In their ranks, they had the likes João Pinto, Manuel Bento, Paulo Futre, and Fernando Gomes; they should’ve cruised to the quarter-finals, at the very least. Instead, internal strife led to poor performance, prompting the Portuguese Parliament to intervene and restore order to the squad. It made France’s 2010 debacle look minor. Further, from 1970 and 1998, Portugal only made the World Cup once. While their current team is strong, history often repeats itself. And, with Roberto Martínez at the helm, it probably will.

Football's Decline

All in all, I don’t rate many international sides. I think that football has declined massively the last decade-and-a-half. For example, look at Italy’s 2006 World Cup squad. It’s filled with footballing royalty: Luca Toni, Fabio Cannavaro, Gennaro Gattuso, Alessandro Del Piero, Mauro Camoranesi, Filippo Inzaghi, Andrea Pirlo, Francesco Totti, Gianluigi Buffon. I don’t think any of Italy’s players today gets into that squad.

Further, Spain’s 2010 squad: Iker Casillas, Xabi Alonso, Xavi, Iniesta, Fernando Torres, Sergio Ramos, David Villa. David Silva and Juan Mata couldn’t even crack the bench for them. These days, those 2 would be Spain’s best players, albeit Rodri would compete.

Why’s this? I think that the abolition of foreign player limits has damaged the game. Sorry—this isn’t entirely irrelevant, and it might come off as a diatribe—but I think the game’s declined. If asked to list the top international teams from pre-Bosman times (e.g. pre-1995), most would name the 1960 Soviet Union, 1954 Hungary, 1984 France, and 1970 Brazil teams, amongst others. What do these sides have in common? Most of their players, if not all, played in their domestic countries, and, most importantly, they thrived there.

Take the 1970 Brazilian squad for example. These days, Tostão, Jairzinho, Carlos Alberto, Gérson, and (especially) Pelé would not have spent the majority of their careers in Brazil. They would have all been snapped up by a Real Madrid or Barcelona when they were 17. For proof, look at Real’s recent history with Brazillians: Vinícius, Endrick, Rodrygo, and Reinier were all purchased as teenagers, for massive sums. If Endrick commanded €60m, a 16 year old Pelé would’ve commanded €200m.

I think the game suffers when young players from smaller leagues prematurely join top teams. Vinícius and Rodrygo have done bits, but they are the exception. Depay would’ve been better off had he stayed another couple seasons at PSV, ameliorating his game and character, before entering the strange, cutthroat environment at Manchester United. Instead, he sunk at United, halted his development, and, relative to early expectations, has underperformed—albeit he’s still had a decent career. Moving to a new country—where one needs to adapt to different customs and a new language—is not easy. But, if you are mature and have a good footballing education under your belt, you stand a fighting chance.

Some, like Vinícius and Erling Haaland, have defied the odds, but they’re rare. For every Haaland, you get 20 Francisco Trincãos and 10 Renato Sancheses. But, I get why young players move. These days, modern football’s lopsided nature demolishes the possibility of a (relatively) obscure footballing country, like Scotland, Hungary, or Russia, dominating with a squad of domestic players. This is why young lads feel the need to uproot.

Back in the days, Hungarian sides regularly made runs into the UEFA Cup, European Cup, and Cup Winners’ Cup. The likes of Ferencváros, Videoton, and MTK Budapest were able to put away the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, and Juventus; Dinamo Kiev, Torpedo Moscow, and Dinamo Tbilisi (not Russian, but Soviet) also did bits. Nowadays, Manchester United, even with how crap they are, would blow all of these sides away. United’s squad is too good for them, as their financial firepower is unmatched. Even as poor as Antony is, he’d walk into Ferencváros’s and Torpedo Moscow’s sides.

Beyond the wealth gap, top sides often behave like vultures, poaching talent from lesser-known clubs in countries like Russia, Sweden, and Hungary. Alexander Isak is a prime example. He joined Swedish club AIK at the age of 6 and spent 11 years developing his skills there. As soon as he turned professional, Borussia Dortmund snapped him up. After just two years, Dortmund sold him to Real Sociedad. They had no patience, and he wasn’t able to progress and achieve sustained growth. Thankfully, Real Sociedad and Newcastle have proven to be more accommodating environments, and Isak’s bounced back, but others—Gaël Kakuta, Islam Feruz, and Ángelo Henríquez—weren’t as lucky.

If a UEFA-enforced foreigner limit is reintroduced into leagues, you’d see less of this waste. The top clubs would be forced to develop domestic talent and dissuaded from raiding lesser clubs. For example: instead of wasting £70m on Kalvin Phillips and Mateo Kovačić, City would’ve given Romeo Lavia a chance and maintained their ties to their local community. (And, with how those two have performed for Abu Dhabi’s Manchester City, and how Lavia was for Southampton, there’s a good chance City would’ve been better off.)

As a result, domestic leagues would improve, and the international game would be in a better place. Mikel Merino and Joselu, Newcastle United rejects, wouldn’t be Spain’s best players; we’d see more David Silvas and Xabi Alonsos. Furthermore, smaller clubs and leagues would be able to compete again. We probably wouldn’t see the likes of Panathinaikos or Malmö FF make the Champions League final, the way they did in the past, but there’d be more parity. It’d fix most of the game’s problems. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t flush the turds that are Newcastle, PSG, and Manchester City, but it’d still be a big step forward.

Scotland's Time to Shine

Quick side-note: perhaps I’m overrating past footballers a bit. As Robert Greene says, people always overrate the past, especially in the face of current difficulties. But, I always strive for objectivity. I can see things as they are. For example, let’s look at Paolo Rossi and George Best. Paolo Rossi won Italy the 1982 World Cup and is seen as one of the best footballers of all time. Best was crucial to United’s post-Munich recovery and is viewed similarly. But, all that glitters is not gold.

Rossi was finished at the age of 29, and Best at 26. Rossi’s career almost ended in disgrace at the age of 23, when he was banned for alleged match-fixing. Best was an alcoholic and had peaked at age 22. Hardly the hallmarks of legendary men. Zinedine Zidane, another legend, was inconsistent; both Juventus and Real Madrid declined after a couple of years of the Zidane Experience. I could go on-and-on, with the likes of Cruyff, Bobby Moore, Paul McGrath, etc., but you get the gist. I can look past reputation and clamour.

So, trust me when I say, players just ain’t the same. If you can, watch matches of the greats. You’ll see a huge gulf in quality between them and the stars of today; few footballers shape up. You rarely see footballers taken on 5 players in a European Cup final, the way Best did in 1968—at the age of 22 nonetheless! These days, every other footballer is the same: incredible stamina, strength, and speed, but poor technical ability. Teams more so resemble Wimbledon than they do Ajax. A couple exceptions exist—e.g. Bernardo Silva, Mbappe, Modric, and Kroos—but the game’s declined. It’s still high quality, but it’s at a weak point.

That probably sounds weird to many. Past footballers, especially British ones, were seen as talentless, brainless workhorses, only capable of smashing into challenges. But, the likes of Norman Whiteside, Bryan Robson, Graeme Souness, David Rocastle, and John Robertson would put many modern players to shame. A 27-year old John Robertson would make Adama Traoré look like a Sunday league footballer. Robertson’s crossing and dribbling, as well as the general application of his talents, were levels above.

But, the game was less just during Robertson’s time. He spent his entire career at Nottingham Forest and Derby County, earning a pittance. Meanwhile, Adama’s used his massive biceps to blag his way into a €100k/week deal at Barcelona. It’s a really, really weird climate. Another non-entity, Mykhailo Mudryk, swindled Chelsea with his neck tattoos and good looks. Footballing ability matters less and less. With the way the game’s gone, I reckon Christian McCaffrey could bag a move to Barcelona. Franz Mesmer could also snag a spot on a top club’s medical team. Probably City’s, given Guardiola’s history of dubious medical practices.

Anyway, as I said earlier, a lot of sides are poor, even the (supposed) top ones. Very little separates them from Scotland. This is just based on player quality, too. I also think managerial quality has gone down in recent years. I remember someone saying—I think it was Arsene Wenger—that a great manager can make a squad perform 10% better than the sum of its parts, whereas a crap one can make it perform 30% worse. I think most managers lean towards the latter, yet they’re still bagging top jobs. For example, both England and Portugal are coached by lads who couldn’t hack it in club football. Furthermore, I read recently that Bayern Munich were courting Ten Hag, Julen Lopetegui, and Ralf Rangnick for their managerial role. Christ. I reckon David Moyes would do a better job than all three.

Scotland's Key Players

In this section, I’ll be focusing on 3 footballers: McTominay, Robertson, and McGinn. These are Scotland’s best players, and I think they’ll do damage this summer.

This isn’t a tactical analysis; rather, it's a description of the players’ qualities. I’ll leave the formation, positioning, and so forth to Steve Clarke. Besides, I believe you’d gain more from an overview of the players’ qualities. In my opinion, football is akin to a greedy algorithm: if your players consistently make the best (or second-best) decision 98% of the time, your team will likely win. Thus, regardless of the formation Clarke selects, Scotland’s success depends on the players’ qualities, as well as their decision-making and ability to keep things simple. Like Bill Shankly used to say: just keep the ball on the ground, and pass it to an open teammate. Anyway:

Scott McTominay

Scott McTominay plays for Manchester United. He is a tall, determined midfielder. Sometimes, when United are chasing a goal, he plays up front. He has many redeeming qualities: bottle, strength, and solid defensive instinct. Surprisingly, he’s also got great offensive capabilities. You wouldn’t expect that from a slow, lanky chap like him, but he’s class going forward. He times his runs well, akin to a young Dele Alli, and is a good finisher. All-in-all, he’s kinda like a jack-of-all-trades. He’s no Redondo, but he’ll do a job well.

Sometimes, though, he lacks concentration. When United lost 2-1 to Forest, he was at fault for both goals. He lost his lad both times and let him get shots off. Some also say he hides from the ball, i.e. he doesn’t make himself open for passes. I think these criticisms are unfair. Firstly, when McTominay’s “hiding,” he’s actually dragging defenders out of position and creating avenues for others. Secondly, yes, McTominay cocks up sometimes, but all footballers do. Forget the occasional gaffe. There’s a reason he plays for England’s biggest football club. He’s skilled, determined, and steely. He’s been able to hack it at United, whilst past “superstars”, like Di María, Pogba, and Verón, haven’t.

Pogba was able to coast off his talent for 6 years, but he made little-to-no impact. McTominay has made an impact, because his effort and attitude are spot-on 100% of the time. That’s why Ten Hag, Solskjaer, and José Mourinho loved him. Mourinho. That’s surprising. He’s reputed to be a chequebook manager with a disinclination towards youth, yet he gave McTominay a consistent role in the squad. He hasn’t done that with many other young lads. At the club’s end-of-season party, Mourinho even created the Manager's Player of the Year award to recognise McTominay’s qualities. He’s clearly a good footballer.

Further, he shows up in big games, having put in great performances in matches against Arsenal, Liverpool, and Manchester City. He’s been crucial for Scotland’s qualification hopes, too: he scored a last-minute winner against Israel and bagged a brace against Spain. Moreover, in United’s infamous 2021 Europa League final, he was the best player on the pitch. He didn’t hide; he pinged the ball cross-field, snuffed out Villarreal’s chances, and made himself available to his teammates. Unfortunately, United lost, but he was incredible.

Meanwhile, Paul Pogba, his flash midfield partner, was an absolute disgrace. He made poor decisions and had little-to-no impact on the game. He was at fault for Villarreal’s goal, as their free-kick came off the back of one of his many poor decisions. He had ages on the ball and plenty teammates open, but he picked the worst possible passing avenue and forced his teammate to make the foul. Then, Moreno scored off the resulting free-kick. Poor.

Anyway, McTominay’s class.

Andy Robertson

Andy Robertson is Liverpool’s left-back, and he’s world-class. He has humble origins. As a young lad, after being released from Celtic, he worked the tills at Marks & Spencer. After, Third Division Queen’s Park took a chance on him, and he impressed. After one season, Dundee United picked him up, where he also impressed. Again, after one season, Hull City signed him for a meagre £2.85 million. He wasn’t a consistent starter, and Hull got relegated in 2015. However, Robertson established himself as a star in the Championship and helped get Hull promoted. Unfortunately, the season after, Hull got relegated again, despite having him, Harry Maguire, Kamil Grosicki, and other quality footballers.

After Hull’s second relegation, both Robertson and Maguire were picked up by Liverpool and Leicester, respectively. Much like at Hull, Robertson had a slow start at Liverpool, only making 30 appearances in his first season. However, the year Liverpool won the Champions League, Robertson had a blinder. He made 48 appearances and established himself as a mainstay in Klopp’s team, endearing himself to the fans with his incredible work ethic and attitude. However, beyond the intangibles, he’s a talented footballer, with incredible crossing ability and decision-making, albeit not on the level of his Trent Alexander-Arnold, his right-sided counterpart.

As Scotland often play a back 3, Robertson plays as a left wing-back. He doesn’t have as much impact for Scotland as he does for Liverpool. Obviously a world-class talent, but he has struggled to elevate his teammates to his level. It’s easy playing one-twos with Wijnaldum and Mane, or putting in crosses for Van Dijk and Firmino, but replicating that impact with the likes of Oliver McBurnie and Ryan Christie is a different story. However, I back him to make a difference this tournament. Scotland have their strongest squad in decades, with Lyndon Dykes, Che Adams, and Jacob Brown offering more reliable outlets. This summer, he’ll do great.

John McGinn

Now, John McGinn is class. He has played for Aston Villa the last 6 years, and he’s been excellent. In his first season at Villa, 2018-19, he helped them get promoted and was named the club’s Player of the Season. Since then, Villa have survived in the Premier League and, barring the Gerrard blip, have gotten better each season. This season, they’ll likely finish 4th place and play Champions League football for the first time in ages. I think the last time they’d played in the European Cup was in 1983, the season after they’d won it. He has played a huge role in bringing Villa back to those heights.

Unlike McTominay, McGinn is naturally gifted, with great vision, passing, and dribbling. A bit of a silly comparison, but he’s akin to Mateo Kovačić, with better passing ability. His engine is incredible, too. All of these qualities have made him the first name on both Scotland’s and Villa’s team sheets. This chap is really, really good, and I genuinely mean that.

Group

Scotland’s group consists of Hungary, Germany, and Switzerland. If this were 1954, then Scotland would be in huge trouble. Puskás, Hidegkuti, and Kocsis would demolish the Scots, and Fritz Walter would score a hat-trick of outside-the-foot curlers. The Scots would exit the tournament in disarray, and the Hungarians would maraud their way to victory.

However, this is 2024. The Hungarian National Team has fallen off since the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I reckon Scotland will batter them. They have one good footballer, Dominik Szoboszlai, and a couple of decent ones, Willi Orban and Peter Gulacsi. The rest are journeymen. Although they did the double over England in 2022, they’ve struggled against the likes of Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Bulgaria in recent times. They’re no pushovers, but they’re not world-beaters, either, and they haven’t been for a while.

Germany, on the other hand, are footballing royalty. They have won the World Cup four times and the European Championship three times. The likes of Gerd Müller, Franz Beckenbauer, Lothar Matthäus, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, Günter Netzer, and Bernd Schuster are amongst the greats, and Bundesliga sides have regularly dominated European competition.

In 2024, Germany are still class. Xabi Alonso’s Bayer Leverkusen have established themselves as a top side, erasing their Neverkusen monicker. Bayern have lost Lewandowski and are struggling in the Bundesliga, but still have a chance of winning the Champions League. The national team has Kroos, Müller, Gündogan, and Neuer—all world-class footballers—but it seems their time is up. They fell at the first hurdle in both 2014 and 2018 and were poor against England in 2021. Having serial winners in the squad always boosts your chances, but their lacklustre performances in three of the last four major tournaments don't inspire confidence. You can never count Germany out, though. In 1954, Hungary battered them 8-3 in the group stages, yet lost 2-1 to them in the World Cup final. All Germany need is to endure and catch a spark. The Scots need to be cautious.

Switzerland and Scotland are similar, though Scotland are bigger bottlers. Both sides haven’t gone deep into tournaments before, but Switzerland have had less quality. In recent times, they’ve churned out Granit Xhaka, Xherdan Shaqiri, Yann Sommer, Manuel Akanji, and Stephan Lichsteiner—all of whom are class. Compared to Scotland’s recent output—Scott McTominay, Andy Robertson, and John McGinn—and it’s clear that the two countries are on similar pegging.

However, in terms of historic quality, it’s a wash. Stéphane Chapuisat is Switzerland’s best ever player, and, to be fair, he was class. But, he’s one of the few world-class players that Switzerland have produced. As for Scotland, it’s a long list: Bremner, Law, Souness, Dalglish, Hansen, Robertson, Mackay, etc. Obviously, current quality is all that matters, but the Scots have a CV, whereas the Swiss don’t. Could it make a difference? No idea. To be honest, I know nowt about Switzerland. Regardless, I back the Scots to beat them, just because.

All in all, I think Scotland draw 1-1 with Germany, and they beat Switzerland 2-1 and Hungary 3-0. I back the Scots to top the group; I think Germany will draw against Switzerland. As for the rest of the tournament? I don’t care. All I know is, Scotland will make the final and batter whoever’s in their way.

Conclusion

All in all, Scotland is a remarkable country with a unique, storied history. Its football is rooted in greatness, marked by chaps like Denis Law, Jim Baxter, and Billy McNeill, who once propelled Scotland to the forefront of world football. Although recent performances have been poor, Scotland's passion for football remains. In the 2024 Euros, there’s a chance that the Scots rekindle their history, tap into their reserves of steel, and go on a legendary run. They need to remember their roots, how they so bravely fought back against the English, Norse, and Romans, and how they were the first to beat England after their World Cup victory, essentially making them Champions of the World. If they do, it doesn’t matter who they play; everyone’s getting battered. Mark my words: they’re winning the competition.

Thank you for reading this far! If you have any suggestions on improving the presentation/content of the editorial, or if you just want to call me a deluded prick, send them to as9vd@virginia.edu. Thank you for your time!

Bibliography