Shove ha'penny for the Olympics

WHAT a joy to see the Scottish medal winners of the Great British Olympic Team being given such a rousing reception by the people of Edinburgh.

I find it interesting, if not profoundly hypocritical, how so many Scottish Nationalists want to associate themselves with our medal winners when, four years ago at a similar parade after Athens, they were silent and conspicuous by their absence.

How I enjoyed the way Chris Hoy firmly put Alex Salmond's gas at a peep by pointing out that he would most certainly have one less gold medal if he was not part of Team GB.

Salmond thought he could score against Gordon Brown by saying there should be no British football team at the London Olympics – preferring a competition within the UK for the right to play. This is just typical troublemaking.

If we are honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that if England won such a qualifying play-off many Scots would not support the team in its subsequent matches.

Salmond knows this, but building division where none currently exists is his gold-medal pursuit. Thankfully the IOC doesn't recognise it.

It is precisely because a British team could be a unifying force that I suspect Gordon Brown supports it. And while Blair made the appalling gaffe of claiming to have seen Jackie Millburn play from Newcastle's terraces – when he wasn't even born during Millburn's time – Brown knows his football like Salmond knows the gee-gees, so it's no gimmick.

I reckon he's already squared-off the question of the home nations retaining their individual representation on football's governing body.

But all of this misses the point – why is there such a thing as Olympic football anyway?

Is the Olympics really about encouraging sports that are full of players that already earn more in a week than the rest of the athletes hope to earn in a year?

And if you agree that Association football should be included then why not American football – and rugby football of both the league and union codes?

Another daft one included is tennis – where we had the spectacle of multi-millionaire Roger Federer telling us what a great humbling spectacle the Olympics is, in between promoting his latest clothing range (Swiss fashion? Stick to watches and pocket-knives).

And if tennis is okay, why not golf? If we are going to say there are no limits to what sports should be admitted to the Olympic Hall of Fame then golf, rugby and American football should be admitted – and who's to say tiddlywinks, draughts, marbles and shove ha'penny should not be allowed?

They certainly have a longer and more dignified pedigree than beach volleyball, where they even play disco music to create a false atmosphere in their false beach. I suppose, however, that ladies beach volleyball is a little more appealing on the eye than two cloth-capped blokes with body odour issues sitting motionless and uttering ee-by-gum!

So, if like me, you accept there should be clearly defined rules as to what is a sport and which of those sports should be considered as part of the Olympics, then where do you draw the line?

Firstly, I think you remove sports that cannot deliver objective results such as running or swimming faster, jumping higher or longer and throwing or lifting objects better than others. That includes a lot and would extend to shooting, sailing, and many team sports where scoring a number of points or goals is a record of merit.

It also leaves out all these subjective "sports" that combine art with physical ability such as synchronised swimming and much of the gymnastics.

OK, the line becomes fuzzy when one has to consider boxing and diving – but I am quite happy to leave these to be debated.

The Olympics is made great by the heroic stories of people like Maarten van der Weijden – the Dutchman who beat leukaemia to win the 10km freestyle. There's no place for Federer, Ronaldinho – or Salmond for that matter.

Success was no lottery
ONE reason for Great Britain's impressive Olympic success is the amount of lottery money that is invested in British sport – and the Scottish sporting elite – which would be considerably less if we were outside the Union.

Not only do we gain disproportionately better in the lottery than other parts of the UK, a Scottish lottery, as suggested by Salmond & Co, would be a pale comparison of the British one, for the simple reason it would have a poor jackpot attracting poor receipts.

Scots would still want to buy the English lottery for the bigger prizes – just like they used to buy the Irish Sweepstake before the UK lottery came along.

Capital punishment?
JUST who did the researchers speak to when they worked out that people in Edinburgh were the unhappiest in the UK – out of 273 towns and cities? Maybe the commuters stuck in Edinburgh's tram-induced roadworks? Maybe the driver having new shock absorbers fitted because his last ones were smashed on the city's speed bumps and pot-holes? Or maybe the Hibs and Hearts fans after this week's cup results? Or maybe they were just Glaswegians on a day trip?