Who should qualify to play for Scotland?

Woops Jim – and just when we were getting on so well!
“They might not all be of top international quality but they're working here and paying taxes here”
Don’t confuse a work permit with citizenship - they don’t in the US for example. I mean, you can go there on a work permit but when it runs out, your out. But it’s different if you apply for citizenship and that means taking that oath of allegiance. After that you can wave your American passport around if you like, but you’ll still be expected to put hand on heart when they strike up the Star Spangled Banner as someone runs Old Glory up the flagpole.
Some people find this ‘In You Face’ patriotism offensive and having stood in amongst them you see it in a different light and like it or hate it, you cannot deny that the Americans are not confused about patriotism.
Until we have a situation in this country where non Scots born people can sign up to becoming Scottish citizens then I think this question will always be open and you’ll continue to grapple with your dilemma.
I don’t know that just because the face of football is changing that this necessarily means that patriotism must also be changed by implication.
But yes – it’s confusing to say the least.

I find all these loopholes outrageous. You can understand if a player is born in one country but grows up in another country. Simone Perrotta for example was born in Manchester but grew up in Italy, in an Italian family. Would anyone feel comfortable taking his World Cup Winner's medal from him. Similarly with all the African players who pledge their future to France. However, mercenaries should not be tolerated. Those who do not hold a valid connection to their country should not be allowed to pull on the shirt. Representing your country is all about pride, and denying another footballer of their right to play in their country's colours is selfish. One last word goes to the type of player who is "done over". One example that springs to mind is Bojan. Spain persuaded him to be Spanish, played him once, and haven't spoken to him since.

Am I out of sync or what.................if you are Scottish you play for Scotland,if you are English you play for England , simple (click!) 'but you got to be good enough and get picked ofcourse ????

This issue come sup in Canada regularly. Most recently the goalkeeper, Begovic who signed for Stoke last week, played a game for Bosnia at full international level having turned out several times for Canada's U20 team. He was born in Bosnia, lived there for four years, when his parents moved, first to Germany and then to Canada. he has dual citizenship of Canada and Bosnia. Canadians are very upset because he had stated right up until the moment he played for Bosnia that he was going to play for Canada.
There are numerous other Canadians who have turned out in the colours of other nations due to their own birthright, or that of their parents. Rusedski, in tennis and Lennox Lewis in boxing being the best known.
Owen Hargreaves was born and raised in Canada before playing first for Wales and then of course for England.
The feeling here is that these players do so for personal financial gain. Canadian national teams, don't have a great tradition of success outside of Ice Hockey and Curling, so being involved with a BIG country like England or Great Britain, is a slap in the face for Canada. (The decision by Begovic to play for Bosnia, even further insults the Canadian soccer fan, as Bosnia are hardly a powerhouse!)

A relative of mine, who shall remain nameless, turned out famously for the Republic of Ireland under Jack Charlton, his qualification coming through a grandparent. He was by blood, one quarter Irish.
So here I come to the solution. You should have to be at least 50% by blood to qualify for a nation, if you were not registered as a citizen of that country at birth.

3. At 7:27pm on 05 Feb 2010, Londoneye wrote:

Am I out of sync or what.................if you are Scottish you play for Scotland,if you are English you play for England , simple (click!) 'but you got to be good enough and get picked ofcourse ????

You are out of sync...
There are numerous grey areas, too numerous to mention them all, but here are a couple just to open your eyes...

1. Born In England of Scottish parents, live in England- your name is Hamish MacTavish (sorry Scots, but I am trying to illustrate a point!) and you have flaming red hair. Are you Scottish or English?

2. Your parents are English but moved to Canada after you were born, you hold both English and Canadian citizenship. You play through the youth ranks in Canada, and in fact represent Canada for U20's. England call you up. Are you English or Canadian?

I could go on, but I hope you can see that its a little more complicated than at first meets your eye.

I'm not feeling so well today so maybe that is part of the reason I cannot get my brain around this. I don't think a five tear residency is such an "arbitrary" rule. It seems better than your "working and paying taxes" idea. By your standard Robinho could have been an England player in December and a Brazilian by January. Another transfer and he could be Dutch, German or whatever.

Have you considered foreign players' kids vs Kris Commons's kids?

If a Spanish (with Spanish parents) player moves to Scotland with his French (with French parents) wife and then have a kid, that kid will be eligible to play for Spain, France, and despite none of the family being eligible to Scotland.

Now Kris Commons is English (by birth) and has English parents. As he lives in England there's a fair chance the mother of his kids will have a similar heritage. His kids by bloodline would be ineligible to play for Scotland as the Scottish connection would be above their grandparents, this despite the fact their dad is a Scotland international.

You might argue that Kris being an international covers that, but what if he wasn't good enough and his kids went on to be? Would Kris be given a call up at 45 and given one cap in a friendly just to make his talented kids eligible?

This issue reminds me of the Matt Le Tissier fiasco. Due to being a channel islander he was eligible for any of the home nations. England picked him once and dropped him like he was hot.
There is a grey area though, the Ryan Giggs issue. As we know, Ryan spent most of his life in Manchester and represented England Schoolboys. His mother is Welsh, he was born in Wales so he represented Wales (though he could have chosen Sierra Leonne through his dad).
Under these new rules Giggs could have opted for English nationality and conversely Michael Owen could represent Wales.
What's in a nationality? Where you were born or where you feel you belong?
Di Stefano represented Spain, Argentina and Colombia. Is Deco Portuguese? Is Trezeguet French? Is Mauro Cameronesi Italian? If you feel you would give your all then who are we to judge?

I think things are starting to go beyond the joke. I mean I know Craig Levein is making a database of everyone that can be eligible to play for us for the good of the country and i say fair play to him. I just don't agree with all these English players that come and play for Scotland through the grandparent rule just because they aren't good enough to represent England. The thing is hardly any of them that have come up have made a significant difference to the side and unless they are going to be good enough to be World class (which if they are then will be picked by England) then I don't see the great point in picking them. Also a majority of them haven't even been to Scotland before.

I will obviously shout and cheer for the national team, no matter who has the privelage of pulling on the national jersey. I just wonder if the English players really think in their minds they are privelaged and that they have the hopes of a nation on their shoulders or if they just think "yes i actually have got a chance to play France" and basically use and abuse the system and the SFA for their personal benefit. I also wonder what goes through the minds of the true blooded Scottish players who are maybe on the verge of playing in the team who have been ousted for English born players. Obviously in the media they will all come out with the same spiel along the lines of "the manager is picking who he thinks is best for the country and i support him" but they must be in their head be really cursing. Guys like maybe Graham Dorrans for example are missing out for James Morrison who really isn't much different in terms of quality.

As for James McCarthy. he needs to get over it. He was overlooked at youth level. Has it not occurred to him that at a younger age that maybe more players showed more potential than him at that age and they were picked ahead of him. I hope he regrets his decision when it's too late (when he's standing listening to the Irish national anthem before a friendly with Malta thinking he wished it was Flower of Scotland).

The true outcry here will be if there is a player who is good enough to be a star for England but has a Scottish/Welsh grandparent and Capello wants to pick him and he wants to play for Scotland/Wales etc. Then people will start going nuts. The rule should be either a parent from the country or if they have a grandparent of that descent then player must of played in a division in that country for atleast 6 months/a year first. Either that or you can only have upto a certain number of foreigners on the field at 1 time. It's a difficult one but the way it's going then it looks in a few years that there will be more "foreigners" than proper Scots in the team.

I have never read such utter bosh. I was born in Canada because my father was stationed there as a diplomat; I grew up in London and was schooled at Harrow; I have lived in the United States since I was 18, first for college and then for my PhD and now as a professor. I am not a citizen of any country by football rules, yet by those same rules I could, if I were a football player (whilst I am an NCAA coach not player) represent England, Indian, Canada, USA, Scotland. Fifa needs to wake up and adopt a system of 'nationality' which reflects the 'nationality' requirements of other career tracks globally. I know Andy Driver and he's got a right to be frustrated (I lectured at Edinburgh in 2007-08 and had the pleasure to meet him). Borders are more porous now, rightly, than, say, during l'entre guerres. Leave the lad alone.

Each week in the SPL I watch Argentines, Englishmen, Ghanaians, Scots and Swiss, among others, strutting their stuff.

They might not all be of top international quality but they're working here and paying taxes here, and increasingly I'm drawn to the conclusion that that alone should be the criteria for international availability
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you really be serious about this line of arguement Jim?

So the Engligh, Spanish, Italian, German and French leagues which already hoover up the best of the global football talent then get access to them for their international teams? It would only make the game even more elitist than its already become and reward (again and again) the richer countries. Do you really think international football should be turned into club football? Didier Drogba for England (or maybe Scotland or Wales because they pay UK tax)? Or Ronaldo switching from Portugal switching between Portugal, England and Spanish national teams?

I agree that the rules around 'birth, blood and belonging' are confusing but this is only because identity issues are not clear cut anyway: as many of the contributers demonstrate. I'm just not convinced about your solution to it.

I think he may have been joking when he said "They might not all be of top international quality but they're working here and paying taxes here, and increasingly I'm drawn to the conclusion that that alone should be the criteria for international availability" - did anyone consider that?
I must say I do not have th anwer to that but it should be a little simpler than just having Citizenship or merely being in a country for five years. The reason these loopholes are used is primarily because the countries who use them do not have a wealth of talent at their disposal and so look to loopholes this to "turn" players to their nation who would not otherwise play for their current nationality. It certainly worked for rep of Ireland. I think in purely footballing terms, any player given the chance to play for any national side would do so regardless.


https://bigmatchcentre.blogspot.com

Btw Bojan was born in Spain and has a Spanish mother so he should have been eligible to play for them. An example that comes to mind is Nery Alberto Castillo who was born in Mexico and his parents were from Uruguay and Spain/Italy and was eligible to play for Greece (due to marriage and the 5 year rule).

Athletes being eligible for 2 or 3 countries (including me but I really lack the talent!) are very common in Australia, and we see with regret athletes moving from one U21/U19 team to another and had Seric called up by both teams in an Australia vs Croatia friendly game! A lot of players are considered to earn their full cap in order not to be eligible for another country.

As for Scotland the problem lies in the absence of a Scottish passport. So someone who is (God forbid) English has the same passport with someone who is Scottish. So if he was from (insert any non-UK nation) and had grown up (or lived in Scotland for 10 years) in Scotland or had a Scottish grandparent, he would be considered in all terms Scottish after he got his UK passport. But if he was English like Andy Driver and he claimed he was Scottish he'd end up in the receiving end of a lot of abuse.

The solution is pretty simple though. We could get every player who is eligible for any UK Nation and Scotland to make a choice of team when he turns 18. Should he refuse to select Scotland, he should not be considered eligible for selection.

...

Ooh the fickle finger of fate! Terry Butcher was born in Sri Lanka and Richard Gough could be argued as Scandanavian, But was there any doubt about their birthright when they committed themselves so much! This arguement has raged in cricket and rugby for years and cricket espceially is just a joke. Peterson Engish? don't make me laugh! I cannot accpet that paying taxes for even 20 years makes you eligble, nor do I think that the grandparent rule is sufficient. Anything beyond parental source should be barred. The one other area where I have a problem is the nationality of the manager. This should be subject to the same rules unless we are going to end up with national franchises. Land of birth or land of parents....simple and straightforward. We never got to see George Best at the World Cup but I'm sure we would have been dissappointed if he had turned out for England just because he paid his taxes there......oh sorry, the UK. So actually he could have played for Scotland when England went through that phase of not qualifying at the same time. We would never have seen him in the same light.

We need all the players we can get. Especially when we have the likes of McGeady forgetting he's actually Scottish.

you are where you are born.if you are born on an airplane then you are what either of your parents are.Andy Driver is ineligible to play for Scotland because he has already played for the Auld Enemy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All this is too complicated. In my opinion you should only be allowed to represent the country that you were born in. And that's that, no arguments, no more dodgy "my grandad ate a plate of haggis in Buckhaven once" qualifications.

babychunder - saying you can only play for a country you were born in is too harsh. What if, say, your parents are Scottish, you were born in England but moved back to Scotland aged 1 and stayed there ever since. You would consider yourself Scottish, your parents would be Scottish, you would have been schooled in Scotland and you'd have a Scottish accent, but under your rules you couldn't play for Scotland! Utterly ludicrous.

Personally, I think the Grandparent's rule should be trimmed back so that you're only eligible if one of your parents is from a particular country, and you are also eligible for the country of your birth.

The whole 'Irish ghetto' thing that someone mentioned earlier is also bizarre. It reminds me of the time I got into an arguement with a mate because I implied he was Northern Irish (and hence British). He considered himself very much Irish (as in from the Republic)...despite the fact he was born and raised in Norn Iron, and held only a UK passport!

welcome to the modern world Jim - The UK is a big mish-mash of pople and very few can claim to have absolutely no "outside influence" - whether they have english, welsh, irish, scandanavian, indian, african or whatever ancestry (my Dad is English and my mum is welsh... i consider myself english as i have lived here all my life).....At the end of the day there will obviously be people that exploit their "heritage" or preferred heritage of the day for their own personal gain - that is what happens!

also - don't be so surprised!.. we live in a world where someone can be male, live their life for 40 years as a male and then decide they are in fact a female... so deciding you are scottish when you have previoulsy been English for 25 years isn't so far-fetched....

I think the matter is further confused in this country due to the separation of the UK into separate football countries, making it easier to move between them at different footballing levels. The Letissier example being one, where being from the Channel Islands may him eligible for any one of 4 countries at international level. If someone is resident in England for 5 years then can they only play for England or all 4 home nations? What about someone playing for Cardiff/Swansea, do they qualify for England after 5 years as they play in the football league and FIFA/UEFA consider those teams English or would you qualify for Wales?

Equally, when you suggest that paying taxes could be a factor in deciding international affiliation our taxes are paid to the UK, not England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland, so the foreign players can still pick and choose then!?

Having the UK split up this way for sporting purposes causes certain confusions, always has and always will, just ask Andy Murray for daring to suggest that he wouldn't support the English football team but then getting criticised for suggesting he thought himself British!

What really doesn't help the smaller home nations is situations like this:

https://www.tribalfootball.com/hull-boss-brown-urges-cairney-choose-england-over-scotland-612891

Now granted he was born in Nottingham, but it hardly helps if the best prospects in the Junior teams are being talked into playing for England instead.

Now being a Hull fan I've seen Cairney playing all this week, and I would suggest Levein gives him a cap as soon as possible to keep him Scottish. The kid has just turned 19 and has at least matched the Chelsea and Man City midfields this week in only his 2nd and 3rd starts for the club. Man City even resorted to sending Vieira on to try and injure him because they couldn't handle him.

Well Barry Ferguson for one should no longer be eligible to play for Scotland.

Although I am a native Scot and have been a Scotland supporter all my life I will no longer continue to support Scotland if Ferguson is allowed back to play for the team.

I am certainly not happy with the thought that I am being represented by Barry Ferguson.

As captain of Scotland they way he acted was disgraceful and Craig Levein should have nothing to do with him. If he does Levein will have lost Scotland at least one supporter.

As some people have mentioned already, letting nationality be dictated by where you pay your taxes and ply your trade is a non-starter - England would instantly become the best team in the world by virtue of being able to pay the biggest wages and thus attracting the best players. you'd then get Italy, France etc all trying to make sure their clubs got the best players, possibly even reaching the point of clubs being given Government subsidies to get attract players to increase national morale! The idea of smaller nations managing to produce a few gems and taking on the big boys would be a thing of the past, as these players invariably move up from their national leagues pretty swiftly.

I knew a guy who was English, lived most of his life in England, but considered himself Scottish due to his Scottish mum. That's my idea of a Scot - someone who is proud of the country, regardless of where they came from. Of course, people like that tend to have ties to the country that would already allow them to play for their country, if they were good enough at football. If someone like Nacho Novo wants to play for Scotland because he has decided he feels Scottish, then fine, let him get Scottish citizenship. If he still considers himself Spanish - but just fancies a bit of international football - then that's just his tough luck that he isn't as good as Fernando Torres or David Villa.

There is one problem I'm having with the whole idea of the national team having to be full of proud Scots, though - for whose benefit does international football exist? Is it the players, who are supposed to be filled with pride at being recognised by their country... Or is it the fans, who want to be proud of seeing their team taking on the best teams and succeeding? If the concept of a Scottish team doing well is the most important thing, then maybe cheering on the best players from the league wouldn't be so bad? Although it would feel more like the "SPL All-Stars" than the national team.

One thing I do think would help is if players who are capped once or twice and then left on the scrapheap could change nationality if it's obvious they're being ignored. Imagine if Le Tissier could have said "Right, I'll just play for Scotland if you don't want me any more." As for Andy Driver, good on him. I'd rather have him in the team than Ferguson, MacGregor or Boyd.

If he plays for Scotland like he plays for Hearts, then I'm glad he's chosen us or we've chosen him.

Jim, I think your problem is you're like me and if we were cut in half we'd be like a tartan stick of Brighton rock that says "SCOTLAND" all the way through.
What about people that have moved around more? Does it change their love for their adopted country any? I've met many Americans who have never been to the country of their heritage, but have no doubts if they pulled on a shirt they'd give 100%. As a Scotland fan, if the player is good enough and eligible, should we worry any more about it?
I'm more eligible than Driver, and I guarantee you'd be crying into your pie if you saw me on the Hampden turf in dark blue.

Here's hoping we hear you on the radio in 2012 giving Driver the man of the match award in our final group match as we qualify for the knock-out stages...

#16 - Terry Butcher was in fact born in SINGAPORE (as was I), not SRI LANKA.

OMG, BBC, I'm not a new member, for the millionth time!!

#5 It's impossible to hold English and Canadian Citizenship......English citizenship does not exist. Neither does scottish or Welsh, its BRITISH Citizenship. People wonder why Scots and Welsh are always highlighting their Scottishness or Welshness.....its because of statements such as yours

As a teenager, i use to think, how can they call themselves Glasgow Ranger's or Glasgow Celtic , theres no glaswegians in the team!!, I think, in this great Global Village home is where the heart is, so if you feel pride and a passion when you put on that navy blue strip, (and you been asked to represent the country)Then thats good enough for me, jim your on whats known as a mid life crisis!

Post 25 - ds10

I feel exactly the same as you sir, if I see Barry Ferguson or McGregor in a squad again I will not pay any attention to future Scotland games.

I would add Boyd in here too, as to throw the toys out the pram in the manner he did was out of order. At least Duncan Ferguson had a vaild enough reason for refusing a call up, and held his stance until retirement. Burley goes, suddenly Boyd wants to play again? Not saying he wouldn't do a job for us, but don't think he deserves a chance. Do not understand how anyone can walk out on their country, then suddenly have a change of heart months later. Representing your country should be more important than pride, Boyd would have got his chance eventually had he acted with a bit of decorum.

On subject of our former captain, I think Ferguson embarassed himself, as well as his country by the way he acted. Fair enough, players have got drunk and misbehaved in the past - but to act like a child when in full view of your fans, photographers and tv cameras just underlined his idiocy. A proud scot would have been disgraced to have been dumped to the bench, and be sat in full view of the public knowing what they had done.

Anyone else notice the abuse Ferguson got at the spurs game last weekend? Group of Scottish fans in the front row behind the goals at one end gave him a good amount of stick at corners - good on them!

Grandparent ruling works for me. It is possible to have a strong affinity with a country despite not living there or growing up there, but I think there needs to be a blood tie before fans will accept it.

So if my Great-Great Grandmother was born in Glasgow in 1842, my son could have qualified to play for Scotland? I certainly missed that train. The proliferation of excellent talent who are just short of being able to qualify for the National Side at a senior level has led to this. Your comment sums it up succinctly: Nacho Novo would like to wear the Blue. How about my gardener who has lived over the garage for the last 6 years and played for Argentina in the Under 17 World Cup right before emigrating. Been playing for my pub team.

"that alone should be the criteria for international availability."
"the sole criteria"
======================================
Criteria is the plural of criterion. If you have more than one criterion, you have criteria.
Using criteria the way you have is like saying Scotland is a countries.

You couldn't possibly call players just because they are currently working and paying taxes in a country. That would just result in internationals full of foreign players that nobody would have any interest in.

This would mean that Scotland would be playing any decent French, Spanish, etc player who showed any sign of potential at a Scottish club. Then when the player inevitably leaves in 2 seasons or so (often less) would they still be Scottish. By your rule would Scotland still be playing long gone SPL players like perhaps Gregory Vignal or Henri Camara? Or would foreign players be left in the international players after leaving or simply change allegiance between national sides each transfer window?

Either way, its a bit of a jump regard people who grew up in Scotland as being equally Scottish to these these sorts of players

Born in Scotland , play for Scotland . Born in Germany , play for Germany . Scottish parents but born in Germany................you're German ! ..........Sorry but thats the way I see it !

Unfortuantely fifa seem to be complicating issues even further than they need to. Personally I dont have an issue with people becoming a 'citizen' of a country eg deco, eduardo then playing for that countey-the problem here is we have four nations under one passport, so I guess that complicates the issue somewhat further for us guys.

Torontored-Sorry but to say Bosnia are rubbish is just crass-missed out on a chance at this years WC due to Fifa changing the rules to suit the bigger nations-even at that they came close to knocking out Portugaal-remind me when Canada were last at a WC finals or even came close to it?

Plus after the horrific events that happened in Bosnia that led to players moving to other countries when young, I cant say I blame him for having some desire to go back to a country his family fled from-due to good reason might i add-and represent them-it in itself takes some courage to do. Maybe instead of being angry and his statements about plting for Canada, they should be able to understand why he took his decision-one I suggest he didnt take lightly

Now I have Scottish parents and grandparents and so on. I was born in England raised in England and still live in England, I however, consider myself 100% Scottish.
Even if I was talented enough to play international football I would never entertain the idea of pulling on an England shirt. Or any other country for that matter.
To play for a national side it should be purely for pride and for no other reason. Most players these days don't even know the national anthem let alone sing it.

I've always thought that the Grandparent rule was a bit silly. Take these two situations, for example.

Player 1) 1 Grandparent born in Scotland of English parents & 3 born in England. Parents brought up in England. Player lived all his life in England.

Player 2) 4 Grandparents born in England, all of Scottish parents. Parents born in England. Player lived all his life in England.

Player 1 would be eligible to play for Scotland by the Grandparent rule (even though he has no Scottish blood in him if you go back to the Great-grandparents) but Player 2 would not qualify (even though he has 100% Scottish blood if you go back to the Great-grandparents).

Player 1 would probably have been brought up as English but Player 2 would probably had his Scottish heritage drummed into him from birth.

I know who I would rather rely on to give 100% in the Dark Blue.

I know you can't keep going back for ever and there has to be a cut-off somewhere but I actually think that Grandparents is too soon. Another 2 generations back and then you should qualify for the country of "greatest bloodline" or country of your birth.

Then again, I could be talking mince.

Jim,

A good blog and I completely agree. At times, the grandparent rule is pushing it, but this is now just farcial.

Slightly off-topic, can I make a suggestion for your next post; pretty soon, St Mirren will be given their allocation for the Co-Op Cup Final and if I had one, I'd bet my mortgage on them being allocated the East Stand, despite Paisley being to the West of Hampden.

We all know why this is, but it's always never spoken of; I think you're the only journalist who would have the guts to raise this issue. So please consider doing so. Cheers.

Difficult one really. For those that think it is as black and white as ´born in the country, play for the country´, that is patently nonsense. Take the case of someone I know (not a player). Born in the UAE to a Scottish father and a Lebanese mother? That would make him only eligible to play for the UAE, a country he could not become a citizen of even if he wanted to. He has never even lived in Lebanon but doe sin Scotland, and see´s himself as Scottish - do yo ureally want to have a black and white rule now? It seems to me to make most sense to follow immigration rules rather than Fifa´s cock eyed view of the world.

That said, the Andrew Driver episode is one where no rule really works. Clearly the boy feels Scottish having been brought up in Scotland and frankly that makes him more eligible morally than say, MAtt Elliot for example. Trouble is if you are looking at a legal definition then he falls through the cracks.....

What is nuts is the grandfather rule to be frank. McGeady and McCarthy are as Irish as I am (I´m not), yet they play for Ireland? THe fans response to that was unacceptable, but you turn down the country of your birth and your parents birth and what do you expect? Flowers? Of course choosing Ireland has all sorts of nasty connotations which is even more sad, but a symptom of Scottish football´s perennial problem, something there seems no rush to get rid of. Shame.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Driver would have opted to play for England if he was deemed good enough to do so?

He had a promising u21 career and despite playing in Scotland it did not have an adverse effect in getting into English u21 squads.

The leap from u21 to full international is the biggest to make and a player like Andy Driver was never going to succeed in forcing his way into an English squad, remaining fit or not.

This therefore becomes a case of opportunism. Players want to play international football (unless they are a select band of Rangers "greats").

It adds value to their profile, contracts, exposure and career. Most will therefore pull out all the stops to make that happen, if they are good enough to be considered. The simple fact is, Andy Driver is good enough to play for Scotland, not good enough to play for England. Simple opportunism. It has nothing to do with national pride, because the rules dictate that this type of decision making is allowed. Andy Driver and Craig Levein are using a system that isn't open to interpretation, they are merely using the rules to their advantage.

Like everything else in football, eligibility has become a business pursuit affecting status, prestige, and perhaps to make traditionally smaller countries more competitive in an arean where largely the same cluster of teams dominate.

What I take offence with is the fact that a player like Aiden McGeady, who has been coached at youth levels by Ireland when Scotland showed no interest, came through all of Ireland's youth teams up to and including u21 level, is then exposed to the bigoted, bitter criticism because he has gone with a country to which he has more of an affiliation with than any of us could ever realise. This criticism is at the expense of people like Andy Driver; fence sitters who look to exploit a system for their own advantage.

I thought McGeady was coached in Scotland by a club that is a member of the Scottish Football Association? Apologies if I am wrong but I have never heard of a national team training up youth players rather than a club.

Either way, the grandfather rule allows this nonsense to take place. The West of Scotland´s sectarian nonsense perpatuates the problem. That sadly applies to both sides.

Andrew Driver is a good, young football player who wants to play for Scotland. I don't it's worth commenting on - we should really be discussing whether the likes of Boyd and McCulloch should be allowed back in the fold, because, unlike Driver, they have actually turned their back on Scotland in the past.

Aiden McGeady was selected for Irish u15 schoolboys and has represented them at every level since.

He represented Scotland at u13 level but was prevented from doing so at other levels by an SFA rule omitting anyone who had not played for their school team.

From Douglas Alexander's interview with him in the Times.... “When I was 15 I wanted to play for my country and because I didn’t play for my school, Scotland schoolboys wouldn’t let me. I thought, ‘Fair enough, I’ll just go back to playing normal football with Celtic’, but then Packie Bonner [the former Celtic and Ireland goalkeeper] phoned and asked me to go over for training and I thought, ‘What’s the harm in that?’.

“It was a sort of get-together of the teams. I did quite well and got asked back and was involved with all the teams — 15s, 16s, 17s. After that, I knew the set-up really well and all the boys. When I broke into the first team at Celtic there was all the drama about why I had picked Ireland rather than Scotland, but the thing was I already knew the set-up and wasn’t going to change my mind.”

Note that the drama occurs only after he got into Celtic first team. Note also the loyalty shown once a decision had been made, unlike McCulloch, Boyd, Walter Smith and others.

Aiden McGeady not playing for Scotland is part of the fabric of incompetence within the SFA structure. Something happily Craig Levein seems determined to weed out. Thankfully he is as an intelligent man that has worked at the SFA for quite some time.

What a thought provoking article Jim, as highlighted by the number of responses - great work!
It should perhaps be noted at his juncture that jus soli needs to be further modified in the UK in any case, as it's currently a recipe for intolerance on various levels (presently useful I suppose however in this example of allowing a higher calibre of player to represent one's choice of nation)

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is here. I was born in Australia to Scottish parents, who took me back to Scotland when I was 3 months old, I was raised in Scotland and carry a UK passport, I am proud to be Scottish. However, I am also an Australian citizen under their citizenship rules even though I have no ties to that country, I just happened to be born there.

Nice post Jim, methinks you knew exactly what can of worms you were opening here! I can't help but think though that none of this debate is particularly new. As previously mentioned above, we've had our fair share of Gough's and Elliott's. Andy Driver is just another one. In my opinion what brings it so prominently in front of the spotlight is because it's a lingering by-product of the McGeady situation. McGeady deciding to play for Ireland really created such a public debate with both sides of the old firm getting overly passionate about it. This is partly because of the disease of bigotry that exists in scottish football but also, and mainly, because he is a good player. Most (sensible) people would have wanted him to play for their country whether it be Ireland or Scotland. When we hear that Andy Driver is now wanting to show allegiance to Scotland I don't feel overly strongly about it. He's a decent player yes, but wouldn't be the difference between us getting to a major finals or not. As far as the qualifying rules for playing for a nation go I don't have a huge issue with the status quo as long as whoever steps on the park for Scotland gives us everything they've got.

I have to respond to those stipulating that the country of your birth sets your nationality in stone, no ifs, no buts. I have two examples to counter this. Firstly I was at school with a guy with a Scottish name, Scottish parents and a Scottish accent. He was born in China when his father was on a one year secondment with his job. He was 3 months old when he moved back to Scotland. Is he Chinese?

My second example is my own nationality. Due to a business decision my Scottish father's transfer back to Scotland was delayed by 6 months so I was born in London to my Scottish mother. At 6 weeks old I was deemed old enough to travel back up the road and, as a result, grew up and was schooled in Scotland. I am the only member of my family as far back as we can trace not born in Scotland. I feel Scottish and am a passionate supporter of Scotland, following the national team around Europe and turn up to most games at Hampden. To claim I am English is absurd yet some people do that. Nationality is a very personal thing, it is how you feel within yourself. I feel Scottish, end of.

The thorny question of the FIFA eligibility rules is, as Jim says, tricky. No-one can look into someone's heart to determine who they truly identify with so some kind of rule has to be in place. Is it Andy Dorman at St Mirren who considers himself Welsh but until recently was ineligible? That would have been a real shame for him if he'd been barred from representing his country as he sees it.

See, it's not straightforward.

Deadpan, you are 100% correct. I was born in Edinburgh to parents born in Edinburgh. At the age of 8, my family emigrated to South Africa. Before emigrating, I had attended many Hearts Matches and 1 Scotland match.
I was schooled in SA, attended uni and also did national service. Although I have always considered myself Scottish, a very large part of me is South African. I would have had no hesitation representing SA had I ever been good enough.
Nationality is a personal thing, and as in my case, it is possible to feel passionate about 2 different nations. My formative years were spent firstly in Scotland and then in SA. Andrew Driver spent his formative years in England and then Scotland, only he himself will know what nationality he feels.
Another thing to bear in mind is that Andy Driver was not eligable to play for Scotland when he played for England u21.

My humble opinion:

You should be eligible to play for either the country where you were born, or a country where you - or either of your parents - have spent at least eight years between birth and the age of 16.

Cases like Eduardo playing for Croatia are nonsense, and by the same token, so, unfortunately, would be Novo for us. I read something somewhere about a Middle Eastern state - maybe Qatar - possibly at some point fielding an all-Brazilian team. A case of playing into the hands of the rich countries that can afford to attract Brazilians to their league. Thank God Rafael Scheidt was never in Scotland for five years (and thank God John Barnes was never Scotland manager).

Channel Islanders should be eligible to play for England.

I don't know who people from the Isle of Man should play for.

Why can't the rules simply be: If you were born in Scotland, you play for Scotland. If you were born in England, you play for England. All that these loopholes provide is confusion and controversy.

All this only really started after we joined the EU
My real name is Nigel Farage ;-)

I think national team eligibility should be based on the clubs that have brought you up.

If you play for a club's academy you're eligible for their FA's schoolboys side; if you've played in a country for over 3 years, you're eligible for their FA's U17-U21 sides (age permitting, obviously); if you've played in a country for over 5 years, you're eligible for that country's national team.

Why should you be able to play for the country of your parents or grand-parents when those countries have done nothing to develop you as a player? It shouldn't be a question of identity, it should be a question of giving back to the footballing nation that made you the player you are. I would also add a proviso that you can't sign a player from abroad who hasn't spent 5 years playing in a certain country, to stop the trafficking of youth talent.

I was born in Bradford, England. I've lived in Bradford ever since. I have a Scottish Mother & English Father, I support Celtic & Scotland.

Under the rules, i'm legible for England & Scotland. England as it's my birth country, and Scotland as my Mother & her Family were all born there (I was the first family member born in England). So even though i've never lived in Scotland, contributed to their economy in any shape or form, i'm allowed to play for them due to blood-ties, and quite rightly so IMO.

I don't consider myself English, or British for that matter. I consider myself a Yorkshireman first, then a Scotsman. I'd represent Scotland any day of the week, whereas England, i'd turn down. It's nothing to do with quality, it's simply due to the fact I want to play for the country I hold dear, which is NOT England. I've been brought up as a Scotland fan (with affection for Ireland too, being Catholic and all).

All this, yet Andrew Driver, who's played in Scotland, schooled in Scotland, and WANTS to play for Tartan Army is denied due to "2 months"?
This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous rules around at present. If he left when he completed his exams, then obviously he's going to be 2 months short of the full 5 years, school yeasrs start in September and finish in July! How idiotic are the SFA to have not worked that out? Proof once more that the SFA has little clue what it's doing, no wonder the Scottish National Team is in such a state, if they can't get something like this right, then no wonder McGregor & Ferguson are being allowed back into the fold . . .

. . . The SFA is getting as bad as the English FA . . .

Interesting points.. in my own case I am 100% scottish - parents, grand parents , etc...

But my son is different - he was born in Spain with Scottish and Brazilian parents. He has a British and Brazilian passport. My Brazilian partner has Italian and Portugese parentage.

So my son qualifies for : England, Scotland , N Ireland, Wales, Brazil , Spain, Italy and Portugal ( through parentage alone )

Must be a record - but knowing my luck he will end up playing for England. Still will pass his details onto Craig....

Doing this (letting players represent the country they play and pay taxes in) would never work. In fact, it would render the whole concept of 'International' football obsolete.

Speaking as a lawyer specialising in International Law, Trevor, your pomposity has made you look an idiot as Sctland is not a country! Like England, and indeed the rest of the UK individually, it has no internal validity or identity as a separate nation/country - all are now merely regions of the United Kingdom of Great Briatin and Northern Ireland.

The right to play for any country should be govenered purely and simply by the most common test of nationality found in the world ie where you were born other than if your parents were representing their country in an overseas state ie diplomatic service, armed forces etc




that alone should be the criteria for international availability."
"the sole criteria"
======================================
Criteria is the plural of criterion. If you have more than one criterion, you have criteria.
Using criteria the way you have is like saying Scotland is a countries.

Tim Cahill was born and raised in Australia, with an English father with Irish roots, and a Samoan mother. He played one game for Samoa at age 14 while on holiday there, and then spent years in limbo as to whether FIFA would let him play for Australia (or Ireland). The 1998 Croatian team was largely made up of players with Croatian roots but whose parents had fled Yugoslavia years, even a generation, earlier. Greeks remain Greek for three generations after leaving Greece (as many unsuspecting backpackers visiting ancestral villages have found when arrested for dodging military service).

People move around, they change emotionally also. And there is a major difference between attitudes in countries of emigration (Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Poland etc) and countires of immigration (USA, Canada, Australia, France and London).

The best answer is that it is very difficult, that FIFA must continue with some flexibility but try to prevent countries buying teams (such as the Georgian olympic beach volleyball team made up of Brazilians) and trafficking of young players. To my way of thinking, emotion and pride come into it, but those can easily be damaged by a falling out with national administrators.

Most of all, I would caution anyone from the home countries of kicking off too much debate about nationality. Scotland, England Northern Ireland and Wales are not separate countries and you cannot point to citizenship or tax residence to distinguish between them - push that too hard and FIFA may find that allowing one country to field four separate national teams is no longer appropriate.

"Aiden McGeady was selected for Irish u15 schoolboys and has represented them at every level since.

He represented Scotland at u13 level but was prevented from doing so at other levels by an SFA rule omitting anyone who had not played for their school team."
=======================================================================

The SFA rule, which concerned Scotland Schools teams, was logical. Why on earth should you play for a schools select when you don't play for your own school team? The problem arose because Celtic stopped their youths turning out for their school teams. McGeady was then picked in the first possible Scotland youth (as opposed to Schools) squad, when he was aged 15 or 16. Serious efforts were made to get him to represent Scotland but he chose the ROI.

As for attacks on Barry Ferguson, Kris Boyd and others in similar situations they are irrelevant to this article.

Personally I'd stop family eligibility for national teams at parents rather than grandparents. This would allow for those who were born when their parents were working abroad or the like (it would let some more in besides but so be it). I'd also consider those who had moved to a country at an early age - having in mind refugees/asylum seekers in particular - but certainly not people who moved to a country as an adult to play professional football e.g. Nacho Novo.

I fully support Driver's decision to play for Scotland. I think the rules should be based on which country invested the support for your chosen sport while growing up. That way the sucess of the Scottish national teams is related to the SFA/country/government's investment in football infrastructure for kids now.
As a kid growing up in the 80s, we were hugely hampered by the change in legislation to paying teachers for extraciriculum activities, when I went to high scool, our school had no football team at all, when prior to the teachers strikes of the the mid 80s there were 6 or 7 teams.
Who would have thought after all these years we can still find reasons to blame Thatcher for all Scotlands ills.

I think if youve consumed a glass bottle of irn bru at some point in your lifetime, or had any type of supper from yer local chippy, this should leave you eligeble to play for scotland!
Lets face it we need all the help we can get if we are ever going to qualify for any major tournement ever again.

Do you agree with me spency?

The flag of convenience thing annoys me when it comes to international football. I've said for years that when a player signs his first professional contract at what, 16/17 years old, it should be established then which countries he is eligible to play international football for. The player has to make a choice there and then (and let's be honest, you know what nationality you are by that age) and he is then bound by that choice for the rest of his career. If it transpires he's not good enough for his first choice then tough, no second chances.

I have watched Scottish football regularly and I am struck by the level of secterian hatred that seems to exist in some sections of the following, goaded by themedia it has to said. The mere presence of the likes of Liam Miller or Anthony Stokes seems to kick certain supporters into a frenzy of sectarian apoplexy. It is a problem when one dominant culture imposes the singular ligetimacy of its own "identity". The result is alienation, so why would McGeady or McCarthy want to play for Scotland, they are not really welcome there by more of the population than could be called a small minority. I am surprised and saddened by this. Consider Neil Lennons treatment by the Northern Irish fans, totally barbaric and disgusting. Its the same thing.

It seems to me all of the debate about this subject eminating from Scotland is clouded in euphemism, accetance of the status quo and divided on sectarian lines. The Irish man , to an outsider seems like the Bogeyman for many Scots. It is time to stand up and admit Sectarianism and Racism is still a big problem in Scotland.

The whole concept of nationhood and nationality is becoming more difficult to define due the amount of international travel and work we do nowadays.

Personally I don't really mind who plays for Scotland as long as they feel Scottish and put a good shift in. We have had some good anglos in the past who have served us well, Andy Goram for example.

Equally look at Nacho Novo. His son is born in Scotland of Spanish Parents. If young Novo wanted to play for either Scotland or Spain who could really argue? Surely this comes down to individuals and how they feel? Would anyone argue Richard Gough wasn't a passionate Scot?

I want 11 passionate Scots on the park, I don't really care where they come from as long as they want to play for us.

Lets be honest, if Elena Baltacha won Wimbledon would we bother about her roots? Should we? I don't think so. Nationality is something you feel inside primarily.

Gerry Fitzpatrick,

I must congratulate you on inventing the time machine, because you seem to have beamed in from the 1950's. Either that or you've read 'Football Against the Enemy' by Simon Kuper, and you're basing your views on that. I certainly didnt recognise the description given of the Rangers- Celtic game (my favourite being when he claimed that walking a certain direction up London road was tantamount to pledging allegiance to one side).

Either way, your views are very outdated, and don't reflect modern day Scotlandm, and I would suggest are formed by a narrow view of the country that starts and ends with what goes on inside Ibrox and Parkhead. The vast majority of people in Scotland would not recognise your view of cultural alienation and imposition of identity.

To be honest, the debate on McCarthy and McGeady is tiresome. I think I speak for most when I say that the issue that most supporters have with them is not sectarian (and by most, I mean outside of Ibrox). It's not whether they're Catholic or not (and I say that as a Catholic myself), but because they chose to play for Ireland, and there is a difference.

There are a section of the Celtic support that, despite being 2nd or 3rd generation (at least) Scottish, will tell you all day long that, actually, they're Irish. Now, it's one thing for the fans to do that, irritating as it might be - and just to be clear, I'm not talking about those that come over from Ireland every 2nd week - , but when players start adopting that mentality, and the Scotland team suffers because of it, then you'll find that lot of supporters of other teams aren't happy. THAT is why McGeady and McCarthy got the treatment they did at most away grounds.

I grew up dreaming of playing for Scotland, and to see someone from the same environment, who went through the same schools, and were basically the product of the same system, be offered the chance of my dream and throw it away on seemingly the most spurious of reasons, I would be annoyed as well. I would also say that it's different from the likes of Brian McLean, Ray Hughton and Owen Coyle, because McCarthy and McGeady actively turned their backs on Scotland - the others listed were never offered the chance.

As for the issue of 'foreigners' representing Scotland, I would argue that it's a good thing. Why should someone who arrived in this country at a very young age, has gone through the education system and has a very good idea of what it means to be 'Scottish' (trite as that might sound) not be able to play for us? It would make more sense than getting Matt Elliot etc. who have a Scottish Grandad, but who's first visit to the country is when they're selected.

Those brought up here, with an emotional attachment to the country due to that, are more likely to go the extra mile for us than some loose blood relation who sees us as a flag of convienence because they weren't good enough for England or whoever, and let's be honest, that desire for National Pride is what sees us punch above our weight - It's certainly not due to our technical skills.....

Dear "Disaster for Scotland "

I agree ,I dont have much exposure to Scotland and I wasnt intending to insult the entire Scottish nation. I was only commenting on what I do see and yes this is largely limited to Football coverage, and even then from afar.

I havent read the book you mentioned, and by the sounds of it I shouldnt bother.

I shall make it my business to visit and see the real Scotland someday very soon.

Someone else touched upon the point briefly that if your mum is flying from the UK to the States and goes in to premature labour mid flight over the atlantic- then what on earth does that make you? An illegal immigrant with no home?

Another thought popped in to my head. If we limit your eligibility to only those who pay their taxes- that would rule out most of Glasgow! ;-)
Just joking.

On a serious note, I do agree that the whole eligibility rule is crazy. I have one Polish and one Dutch grand parent. I am sure either would have been delighted to have seen me capped had I been good enough to play for 'their' country, and I would have been more than entitled to do so. However, I speak practically not a word of their languages, have only spent a couple of weeks holiday in each country, and only have a basic understanding of their cultures and traditions. Am I fit to represent their nation. No, in both senses of the word!

I'm Scottish. Always have been, always will be. But then, I moved to Hong Kong and played some rugby out there while working. The next thing I know I am 'eligible' next season on residency grounds! Again, nonsense. However, would I have done it if they had asked? You bet! Free travel, a bit of glory, see the world, bit of kit, a trumped up CV and no doubt a cracking up chat up line. But I am a Honky? Nope.

A player of any sport needs to examine their soul and decide what nationality are you. If you can look your new team mates in the eye and say hand on heart that it means as much to you as it does to them to pull on that jersey, and that you will run through the metaphorical brick wall for the cause and the people depending on you, then there is your criterion.

It has to be an honesty call. But that now rules out everyone from Glasgow again... ;-)

Good debate though.

What does playing for your country mean? Look at the rugby team for answers - they lay their bodies on the line for their country, even if they weren't born here. Footballers.....don't have a scooby.

It's quite easy to see if you deserve to play for the country.

Give the person a call if they say "Yes boss sure boss anything you say boss" thats's the guy you want.

If the response is any of these three; "only if I'm first choice", "sure but only if I can get blootered whilst on International duty and embarass the country" or "I'll wait til the end of the season cos I promised ma boss (who is also a traitor undeserving of his caps) that I'd play for my club side first". We are better off without them.