A question for Labour on abortion law

If anyone from Labour happens to be passing, you might be able to help with a question that's been nagging away at me.  As I understand it, your party believes that the more abortion rights that women have, the better.  Yvette Cooper said the other day that Labour (alone among all major political parties) thinks that the Scottish Parliament can't be trusted to assume control over abortion law because Nicola Sturgeon isn't able to bind her successors.  In other words, Westminster might decide to keep the law in England and Wales as it is, while the Scottish Parliament might eventually restrict access to abortion.  That's possible, but there are of course are at least three other possible outcomes of devolving abortion law -

1) Westminster (which after all has far more social conservatives in it than Holyrood) might restrict access to abortion in England and Wales, while the Scottish Parliament keeps the Abortion Act 1967 unchanged in Scotland.

2) Westminster might keep the law unchanged in England and Wales, while the Scottish Parliament liberalises the law to grant greater abortion rights in Scotland.

3) Both jurisdictions might grant greater abortion rights, with one following the example set by the other.

Two of these three scenarios would lead (from the perspective that Labour claims to take) to improved rights for women in Scotland, while the other would mean that devolution of abortion law had directly prevented women's rights in Scotland from being eroded.  If that came to pass, is it something that Labour would welcome?  Or would they continue to insist on "equality" across Great Britain even when that amounts to an equal lack of rights for women?

If the latter, it seems to me there's a fairly obvious British nationalist agenda at play here, rather than a feminist one.

*  *  *

There was an interesting exchange on Twitter the other day between RevStu and Jamie Ross of BuzzFeed.  RevStu asked Ross if he was comfortable with the "sneering protective wall" that the media had constructed around J K Rowling's abusive and misogynistic friend "Brian Spanner".  Ross replied that he didn't think there was any protection, merely a "realisation that no one outside Twitter knows or cares about Brian Spanner".  That's something of a circular argument, because there's one reason and one reason only why no-one outside Twitter knows or cares about Brian Spanner, which is that the media haven't told anyone about him.  In fact, they went to extraordinary lengths to edit him out of their extensive coverage of Rowling v McGarry, even though that story made no sense whatever without him.  Contrast that with their eagerness last year to out SNP candidate Neil Hay as "Paco McSheepie" - a Twitter troll account that was far, far less abusive than Brian Spanner, and that, again, nobody would have known or cared about unless journalists had told them.

It's not as if the media aren't in a position to out Spanner.  After my two recent blogposts pointing out the astonishing and totally coincidental links between Spanner and popular journalist Euan McColm, I was struck by the large number of people who came out with a close variation on the following theme : "I have been told by someone I trust that it's not McColm."  To state the bleedin' obvious, it's not possible to know for a fact that Spanner is not McColm (or Deerin, or Daisley, or even Rowling herself) unless you already know the guy's real identity.  That means there are an awful lot of people out there protecting him.  My strong impression is that many of those people are journalists, but even if that isn't the case, it would surely be pretty easy for the media to find out who he is and break the story.  So why don't they?  Was it really in the public interest to out McSheepie, but to protect Spanner?  If so, why?  Or would it be closer to the mark to say that Spanner is a mate of several leading right-wing journalists, and that they're happy to let him act with impunity?

*  *  *

I was at Murrayfield yesterday for my first ever Scotland-England game, and I fear I must report that triumphalist England supporters murdering what was once a perfectly respectable Christian song aren't any more lovable in the flesh than they are on TV.  You might also be amused to hear that I was sitting next to a kilt-wearing, Scotland-supporting Brit Nat who was incensed that the announcer referred to God Save the Queen as "our visitors' anthem", and got his revenge by belting it out with the England supporters.  He then proceeded to sing Flower of Scotland, but not quite as lustily.  I suppose I've always known that people like that existed, but it was educational to come across one for real.

Fog on the Tyne is all mine, all mine

Scotland has jointly hosted the Rugby World Cup on no fewer than three occasions over the last quarter-of-a-century (1991, 1999 and 2007).  With my customary perversity, I didn't bother going to any of those, but instead waited until it was necessary to go down to Newcastle this year.  I bought the ticket an eternity ago, and almost forgot all about it - meaning that by the time I got myself organised, it was far too late to book accommodation, leaving me with no choice but to get there and back in one day.  I did the whole thing by public transport, and it was a hell of a trip - I walked out of my front door at 5.30am and didn't get back until almost midnight.  The fact that I only got three hours' sleep the previous night didn't help much either.

As I was travelling such a long way, I was determined to squeeze a bit of sight-seeing in while I was there.  So as soon as I arrived at the train station, I popped over to the Black Gate and Castle Keep, as you can see from these frankly life-affirming photos in which I strike classic tourist poses while sporting a variety of fetching hats.

But all too soon, it was time to head over to St James' Park for the afternoon's exquisite torture, as you can see from this frankly thrilling photo in which I strike a classic rugby supporter's pose while sporting just one fetching hat.

This blog's resident troll asked me if I encountered any anti-Scottish sentiment in Newcastle, of the sort I had to endure on my shambolic trip to Arran the other week.  The answer is no, although there was an intriguing incident when I got back on the train to Edinburgh.  The people getting off the train were presumably Newcastle locals who were coming back up from London, or Birmingham, or wherever, and they greeted the waiting Scotland supporters like old friends.  "Oh, congratulations!"  "How much did you win by?"  "Did you win?  Woo-hoo!"  An English chap standing behind me (and who I think possibly lives in Edinburgh) rather bitterly muttered : "You see, Scotland?  That's how it's done.  No need to take pleasure in others' defeats."

Hmmm.  I couldn't help wondering how he'd explain the row of English people sitting behind me at the game, who were shrieking with delight every time Samoa scored.  And they weren't alone - I got the impression that about 25-30% of the crowd were firmly behind Samoa.  (OK, there were some actual Samoans there, but not that many.)  I have no complaints at all about that - Samoa were the underdogs, and they were playing a fearless and attractive brand of rugby, so it was entirely natural for neutrals to support them.  But I can't help feeling that if Scottish people supported an opponent of England's for any reason whatever, that would be classed as "bigotry" or something.

Here are some more photos from the day.  As you can see, I wasn't short of reminders of home...

Stopwatch injustice

I'm not an expert on the laws of rugby, but surely something has just gone terribly wrong.  The decision on whether to blow the final whistle should not be based on how long it takes the referee to get the technology to work, and to ask the other official whether time is up.  The only question should be whether time was up at the moment the ball went dead, in which case the answer was no.  And it's obvious that the Welsh players had the objective of winding the clock down with their actions after the Scotland try was scored, so surely the referee should have stopped the clock for a few seconds anyway?

OK, it's natural to feel a bit raw ten minutes after an incident like that, but this one really does seem like a clear-cut case of injustice.

Poll of Polls update, and a Six Nations prediction

I've been keeping a beady eye on the Scottish subsamples from GB-wide polls over the last couple of days to see if all the hoo-ha in the gullible/pliant press (delete as appropriate) over Labour's fictitious constitutional "rules", plus the latest rehashing of The Vow, has had any obvious effect on voting intentions.  There's been nothing out of the ordinary - there was a big SNP lead of 22% in yesterday's YouGov subsample, while today's shows a more middling gap of 11%.  The end-of-week Populus subsample shows an SNP lead of 9%, which until a few days ago would have been considered a good result, given that Populus have consistently been the least favourable firm for the SNP.  However, they've recently revised their methodology to mostly (not entirely) eliminate the anti-SNP bias.  So a 9% lead now looks pretty run-of-the-mill.

Today's update of the Poll of Polls is based on the full-scale Scottish poll from YouGov, plus seven subsamples - four from YouGov, two from Populus and one from Ashcroft.  The increase in the SNP's lead is simply caused by the inclusion of a full-scale poll.  There's generally a narrower gap in updates that rely solely on subsamples.

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :

SNP 45.6% (+3.6)
Labour 26.5% (+0.4)
Conservatives 16.2% (-2.1)
Liberal Democrats 4.9% (-0.8)
UKIP 3.8% (-0.1)
Greens 3.3% (n/c)

(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)

*  *  *

SIX NATIONS PREDICTION

And now for another of this blog's annual rituals, which comes about because a family member always asks me to fill in a prediction form for her work.  A bit of a rushed job this year - in retrospect I may have pushed the boat out a bit too far with the 20+ point margins.  However, I think it'll probably still prove to be marginally more accurate than Iain Dale's predictions for the 59 Scottish seats at the general election.  (Well worth looking up if you're in need of a laugh - he reckons Labour and the Lib Dems are going to hold off the SNP virtually everywhere, simply because they were "safe seats" back in 2010.)

WEEKEND ONE :

Wales to beat England by less than 10
Ireland to beat Italy by 20 or more
France to beat Scotland by 20 or more

WEEKEND TWO :

England to beat Italy by 20 or more
Ireland to beat France by less than 10
Wales to beat Scotland by between 10 and 19

WEEKEND THREE :

Scotland to beat Italy by less than 10
France to beat Wales by less than 10
Ireland to beat England by less than 10

WEEKEND FOUR :

Wales to beat Ireland by less than 10
England to beat Scotland by 20 or more
France to beat Italy by between 10 and 19

WEEKEND FIVE : 

Wales to beat Italy by between 10 and 19
Ireland to beat Scotland by between 10 and 19
England to beat France by between 10 and 19

FINAL TABLE :

Ireland 4 wins
Wales 4 wins
France 3 wins
England 3 wins
Scotland 1 win
Italy 0 wins

Six Nations 2014 prediction

As ever, I was asked by a member of my family to fill in a Six Nations prediction form for a competition at her work. I forgot to post this earlier in the week, but as I got the first prediction partly wrong it hopefully won't be too implausible that this is genuinely what I put down!

Weekend One :

Wales to beat Italy by 20 or more
France to beat England by less than 10
Ireland to beat Scotland by 10-19

Weekend Two :

Wales to beat Ireland by less than 10
England to beat Scotland by 10-19
France to beat Italy by 20 or more

Weekend Three :

Wales to beat France by less than 10
Scotland to beat Italy by less than 10
England to beat Ireland by less than 10

Weekend Four :

Ireland to beat Italy by 20 or more
France to beat Scotland by 10-19
England to beat Wales by less than 10

Weekend Five :

England to beat Italy by 10-19
Wales to beat Scotland by 10-19
France to beat Ireland by less than 10

FINAL TABLE :

Wales - 4 Wins
France - 4 Wins
England - 4 Wins
Ireland - 2 Wins
Scotland - 1 Win
Italy - 0 Wins

Panelbase poll : Scots overwhelmingly reject the 'Better Together' belief system

(I know most of you will already have seen this on Wings over Scotland, but as this is the first ever opinion poll that I 'co-financed', I thought I might as well get my money's worth by reporting it here as well!)

Gavin Hastings said it best - it "beggars belief" that some of his fellow countrymen and women (I think he's looking at us, guys) think Scotland would be better off as an independent country. "If we were independent," he asked, "would we not be doing everything in our power to find the benefits of joining up with England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why, if we have that, would we be looking to divide it?"

That, in a nutshell, is the belief system of the No campaign. But is it actually shared by the majority of the Scottish population, that the No campaign seem so convinced that they speak for? We now know from the Panelbase poll that the answer to that question is a resounding No (how ironic).

If Scotland was currently an independent country, would you vote to surrender control of taxation, welfare, defence and oil revenues in order to join the Union?

Yes 18%
No 55%

It beggars belief that Gavin Hastings could get something so badly wrong (notwithstanding that crucial missed penalty in the 1991 World Cup semi-final). But in all honesty, his notion that we would all be tripping over ourselves to give up our independence if we had it always seemed highly fanciful. The story of the modern world has been of ever-greater independence and self-determination, not of small countries desperately seeking to be swallowed up by larger neighbours.

The other key finding from the segment of the poll that has been released so far is that Scots seem to know (albeit perhaps only at a subconscious level so far) that if they vote No they will be voting for something far short of their preferred constitutional settlement. For example, 60% of Scots think that welfare should be devolved, but only 21% actually believe the unionist parties will deliver that in the event of a No vote. It's not necessarily irrational to vote No in those circumstances - after all, elections and referenda are often a choice of the least worst option. But for a No to be rational, people would have to think it was worth sacrificing the powers that they want in return for getting...well, what? The warm fuzzy feeling of embracing Hothersall-style "internationalism" (the type that only extends to certain English-speaking peoples and comes to an abrupt stop at the English Channel and the Irish border)? Helping people to find clarity on that point ought to be one of the key goals of the Yes campaign, because frankly I think a lot of people who are currently telling pollsters they are minded to vote No wouldn't be able to articulate what it is they think they are actually gaining through the huge sacrifice of a No vote.

A tale of one Scowimblian and one Scolionian

On Saturday, Richie Gray will become the third different Scolionian in as many weeks to serve as the sole Scottish representative in the 23-man British and Irish Lions test squad.  If the fate of his two predecessors is anything to go by, he won't actually be allowed to take the field of play, in which case all 240 minutes of this year's series against Australia will have passed by without any Scottish input whatsoever.  Quite literally the only Scottish thing about this Lions test team has been the thistle on the jersey.

I haven't mentioned my misgivings about this turn of events up till now, because self-evidently this hasn't been the traditional tale of Anglocentric powers-that-be forgetting that the Celtic nations exist.  Instead we've had a New Zealander - who is the current coach of Wales and a former coach of Ireland - selecting Welsh-dominated sides that have also contained a fair smattering of English and Irish players.  At first glance, it was hard to think of any particular reason why he would be discriminating against Scottish players, other than an honest perception that they aren't good enough (which he can arguably be forgiven for based on the national side's results in recent years).

However, now that Brian O'Driscoll's sensational omission from Saturday's squad has opened the floodgates for criticisms from other parts of these islands that Gatland is effectively selecting a 'Wales + Guest Stars' team, perhaps we can at last feel emboldened to air the concerns that our Scolionians aren't getting a fair crack of the whip.  Indeed, a cynical person might almost conclude that Gatland is just randomly choosing a different token Scot to sit on the replacements bench each week, but without any real intention of bringing that player on unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

One Welsh newspaper has, to its credit, picked up on these concerns already, and even quotes a disgruntled Scotland supporter as saying he'll be supporting Australia on Saturday.  I wouldn't quite go that far, but it's certainly hard to passionately get behind a team that you have no stake in.

That said, I'm not sure Keith Wood's misty-eyed nostalgia for the days when the Lions represented a genuine blending together of four nations' strengths is entirely justified.  I had a look at the team's historical results the other day, and I was finding it increasingly hard to understand how on Earth the "legend of the Lions" ever got going in the first place - their track record really isn't that much to write home about.  Incredibly, the famous 1971 series was their one and only victory over New Zealand, and their record against the Southern Hemisphere's other traditional superpower South Africa is only marginally better.  There's no real evidence at all of the "Better Together" effect that Brit Nat politicians like to bang on about during events like the Olympics - if anything, there's some evidence that the reverse is true, with examples of individual 'Home Nations' outperforming the Lions against exactly the same opposition.  In 1983, the "worst ever Lions" were pulverised by a New Zealand team that later in the year was beaten by England at Twickenham and could only manage a draw against Scotland at Murrayfield.  And in 2001, Martin Johnson led the Lions to defeat in Australia, but two years later led a theoretically weaker England side to victory in the World Cup final against the same opposition.

*  *  *

So not a vintage year for the Scolionians whatever happens on Saturday, but by marked contrast Andy Murray is now well on his way to further cementing his place as the greatest ever Scowimblian.  Things didn't look quite so promising at about 5.30 this afternoon, so huge credit to Murray for digging himself out of what looked like an impossible hole.  Let's hope he spares our nerves on Friday, although I wouldn't bank on it!  If he manages to dodge that bullet, we can all look forward to the London media once again trotting out that age-old question - can Andy Murray become the first British player to win a Grand Slam title since Andy Murray way back in 2012?

Six Nations prediction

I've been meaning to post this for a few days, and with kick-off only hours away it's probably now or never! Here is my annual Six Nations prediction (which I only ever get round to doing because my sister always presents me with a prediction form for her work)...

Weekend 1

Wales to beat Ireland by less than 10 points
England to beat Scotland by 10-19 points
France to beat Italy by 10-19 points

Weekend 2

Scotland to beat Italy by less than 10 points
France to beat Wales by less than 10 points
Ireland to beat England by less than 10 points

Weekend 3

Wales to beat Italy by 10-19 points
England to beat France by less than 10 points
Ireland to beat Scotland by less than 10 points

Weekend 4

Wales to beat Scotland by less than 10 points
France to beat Ireland by less than 10 points
England to beat Italy by 20+ points

Weekend 5

Ireland to beat Italy by 10-19 points
Wales to beat England by less than 10 points
France to beat Scotland by 10-19 points

As ever, I feel I've been far too optimistic in awarding Scotland even one narrow win (and Scott Johnson scares the living daylights out of me). Elsewhere, I've been guided by the fact that Ireland have a much better home record against England than against France. Here is how the final table would look -

France - 4 Wins
Wales - 4 Wins
England - 3 Wins
Ireland - 3 Wins
Scotland - 1 Win
Italy - 0 Wins

Six Nations 2012 prediction

Obviously a week late, but this is, hand on heart, what I put in the sweepstake form that I always end up filling in for my sister's work. Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to believe that this was my genuine prediction, given that I've already got the Ireland v Wales result wrong!

Weekend 1 :

France to beat Italy by 20 or more
England to beat Scotland by 1-9
Ireland to beat Wales by 1-9

Weekend 2 :

England to beat Italy by 10-19
France to beat Ireland by 1-9
Wales to beat Scotland by 10-19

Weekend 3 :

Ireland to beat Italy by 10-19
England to beat Wales by 1-9
France to beat Scotland by 1-9

Weekend 4 :

Wales to beat Italy by 10-19
Ireland to beat Scotland by 10-19
France to beat England by 1-9

Weekend 5 :

Scotland to beat Italy by 1-9
Wales to beat France by 1-9
England to beat Ireland by 1-9

FINAL TABLE :

France 4 Wins
England 4 Wins
Wales 3 Wins
Ireland 3 Wins
Scotland 1 Win
Italy 0 Wins

Believe it or not, we actually finished fourth in the Rugby World Cup sweepstake back in the autumn, and won the princely sum of £10, which just about covered the cost of the entrance fee. I later discovered that there's an ironic £5 prize for finishing last, which sounds like a lot less effort somehow.

Can Sheridan save rugby from the 'separatists'?

Labour MP Jim Sheridan in full holier-than-thou mode on the Alex Salmond Six Nations row -

"Putting aside the offensive and deeply inappropriate language, I believe that Alex Salmond should not be using sporting events and sports personalities to further himself and his party’s separatist agenda...I believe it far more appropriate that Alex Salmond stick to the job the people of Scotland have elected him to do rather than moonlighting as a TV personality. As a member of the UK Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, I intend to write to the BBC expressing my support for the view that politics should be kept out of sport and that sporting events and sports personalities should not be used in such a crass way."

OK, so I take it Jim has been a model of consistency on this topic, and threw a brick at the TV when he saw his own leader Gordon Brown on the field after the 2007 Rugby World Cup final, trying to (incongruously) cash in on England's success in getting there? Or what about Jack McConnell's lengthy interview during the TV coverage of the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne? Or the countless thousands of other examples of politicians of all parties commenting on sport?

I must say I don't really give a monkey's whether Alex Salmond appears during the coverage of a rugby match or not - the issue is whether he's being treated differently simply because he is, in Sheridan's words, a "separatist" politician. And if he is being treated differently on that basis, that in itself constitutes a fundamental breach of the principle of impartiality. The idea that it would have been abnormal for a political leader to appear on such a programme simply doesn't stack up given the endless precedents - what is abnormal is for an invitation to be issued and them withdrawn. You would think in such circumstances that the justification given would be watertight, but it was anything but - the reference to the local elections just added to the impression that they were scrabbling around for any spurious reason they could think of, because we're way, way outside the statutory campaigning period.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that Ric Bailey subscribes to the grotesque Paxman worldview that Alex Salmond is not a "normal" politician (he's instead in the Mugabe or pre-ceasefire Sinn Féin category), and that completely different rules of engagement should therefore apply in relation to him. If so, the prospects for anything approaching even-handed coverage of the independence referendum look distinctly grim at this stage.

British interest continues...

As far as I can recall (although maybe someone can think of an example to disprove this) the current Rugby World Cup in New Zealand marks the first time in two-and-a-half decades that there's been a really big sporting event in which a Home Nation other than England has progressed further than England itself. So this marks an intriguing test of the London media, especially the broadcast media. Will there be a consistency of approach with what happens when England are the last Home Nation standing? Will we, as usual, be breathlessly informed by ITV newsreaders that - in spite of a huge amount of evidence to the contrary - "the whole country" is at fever-pitch? It seems unlikely somehow.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, but the early signs are not terribly encouraging. Last night's headlines were all about England's failure, with Wales' success treated as something of an afterthought. I've yet to hear the dread phrase "at least there's still British interest in the competition", but I fear it may only be a matter of time...

Another outing for my rubbish prayer-mat

I was planning on doing another in my regular series of "how it is still arithmetically possible for Scotland to qualify" posts in honour of the Rugby World Cup game against England tomorrow, but I see the BBC have beaten me to it. There is, however, a small error -

"If Scotland and Argentina both win without a bonus point, it will come down to points difference between the three teams, though England are way out in front"

That's only true if England fail to get the bonus point in defeat - if they were to get that point, they would win the pool outright, and Argentina and Scotland would be tied on points for second place. In those circumstances, Argentina would go through automatically regardless of points difference, because they defeated Scotland in the head-to-head encounter between the two teams.

Oh, let's face it - the most likely outcome is that Scotland will lose without even sneaking a bonus point tomorrow, meaning we'll be out of the tournament regardless of the outcome of the Argentina v Georgia game. I'll naturally be getting my prayer-mat out anyway, but I must caution you that it's never worked before. That's a good point, actually - it's a truly rubbish prayer-mat.

My (very detailed) prediction for the Rugby World Cup

Once again, a member of my family has handed me a prediction form to fill in for her work, this time for the Rugby World Cup. I seem to recall falling flat on my face four years ago after sticking to the form guide too closely, but then I'm never one to depart too far from a losing strategy. As ever, though, I'm erring on the side of pessimism with Scotland - on paper the crunch game with Argentina could go either way, so I'm naturally taking it as read that we'll lose. It was of course Argentina that knocked us out last time, after an intensely frustrating quarter-final that with a bit more confidence we could possibly have salvaged at the death.

Anyway, here is what I've come up with -

Group A

New Zealand to beat Tonga by 15 or more
France to beat Japan by 15 or more
Canada to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Japan by 15 or more
France to beat Canada by 15 or more
Japan to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat France by less than 15
Japan to beat Canada by less than 15
France to beat Tonga by 15 or more
New Zealand to beat Canada by 15 or more

FINAL TABLE

1. New Zealand (Q)
2. France (Q)
3. Japan
4. Canada
5. Tonga

Group B

Scotland to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Argentina by less than 15
Scotland to beat Georgia by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Georgia by 15 or more
England to beat Romania by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Scotland by less than 15
Georgia to beat Romania by less than 15
England to beat Scotland by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Georgia by 15 or more

FINAL TABLE

1. England (Q)
2. Argentina (Q)
3. Scotland
4. Georgia
5. Romania

Group C

Australia to beat Italy by 15 or more
Ireland to beat USA by 15 or more
USA to beat Russia by less than 15
Australia to beat Ireland by less than 15
Italy to beat Russia by 15 or more
Australia to beat USA by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Russia by 15 or more
Italy to beat USA by 15 or more
Australia to beat Russia by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Italy by less than 15

FINAL TABLE

1. Australia (Q)
2. Ireland (Q)
3. Italy
4. USA
5. Russia

Group D

Fiji to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Wales by less than 15
Samoa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Fiji by 15 or more
Wales to beat Samoa by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
Samoa to beat Fiji by less than 15
Wales to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Samoa by 15 or more
Wales to beat Fiji by 15 or more

FINAL TABLE

1. South Africa (Q)
2. Wales (Q)
3. Samoa
4. Fiji
5. Namibia

Quarter-finals

Australia to beat Wales by less than 15
England to beat France by less than 15
South Africa to beat Ireland by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Argentina by 15 or more

Semi-finals

Australia to beat England by less than 15
New Zealand to beat South Africa by less than 15

Third place play-off

South Africa to beat England by less than 15

Final

New Zealand to beat Australia by less than 15

FINAL STANDINGS

Winners - New Zealand
2nd - Australia
3rd - South Africa
4th - England

New Zealand easily won the inaugural World Cup way back in 1987, but since then it's fair to say no-one has got rich by backing the All Blacks. Their semi-final loss to Australia in 1991 wasn't unexpected, but in subsequent tournaments they have suffered some truly jaw-dropping defeats, most notably in the bizarre games against France in 1999 and 2007, and the legendary final against South Africa in 1995. However, with their current form, and with the tournament on home soil, it's very hard to see past them.

Six Nations prediction

For the third year in a row, I've filled out a Six Nations sweepstake form for a member of my family, who seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that I know something about rugby. To be fair to myself, we did somehow win two years ago, although on the other hand we finished second-bottom for the 2007 World Cup! Anyway, this is what I came up with, mainly just by following the overall championship betting (with the exception of Ireland's two home games) -

Weekend 1 :

England to beat Wales by less than 10
Ireland to beat Italy by 10 or more
France to beat Scotland by 10 or more

Weekend 2 :

England to beat Italy by 10 or more
Wales to beat Scotland by less than 10
Ireland to beat France by less than 10

Weekend 3 :

Wales to beat Italy by 10 or more
England to beat France by less than 10
Ireland to beat Scotland by less than 10

Weekend 4 :

France to beat Italy by 10 or more
Ireland to beat Wales by less than 10
England to beat Scotland by 10 or more

Weekend 5 :

Scotland to beat Italy by less than 10
Ireland to beat England by less than 10
France to beat Wales by 10 or more

It wasn't until I'd finished that I noticed I had Ireland down for another Grand Slam, which doesn't seem quite right somehow, but who knows? The results in Dublin could certainly make or break the season for both England and France. As for Scotland, I always try to err on the side of pessimism to counter the peril of wishful thinking - but afterwards I always wonder...am I being pessimistic enough?

Can I come in for a gloat?

Not that I would want to be remotely triumphalist about the afternoon's events in Dublin, but nevertheless this might be an opportune moment to recall a comment left here by a certain 'liberal' Northern Ireland blogger less than two weeks ago -

"Flower of Scotland is certainly a neat emblem for your rugby team. A long ago victory which was followed by a series of humiliating defeats."

At the time it did occur to me to respond by saying "if by any chance Scotland spoil the party a week on Saturday, I may return to this subject at some length", but as the chances of that happening seemed slim, I reckoned discretion was the better part of valour. I should have had more faith...

(PS. Medieval history isn't my strongest suit, but does anyone have the faintest idea what Chekov's 'string of humiliating defeats' in the aftermath of 1314 are supposed to be? As it secured independence for no fewer than four full centuries, Bannockburn looks like a fairly decisive sort of battle to me.)

It's affection, Jim, but not as we know it

Northern Ireland's leading 'liberal unionist' blogger Chekov - who must be suitably thrilled to now find himself supporting the only major anti-agreement party in the province - has returned once again to his fixation with Scotland. It's all rather touching really, his general affection for us as a nation shines through his every word - he just can't stand our patriotism, our left-wing politics, our choice of government (especially our First Minister), and our national anthem. But if we could just get our act together and sort out those minor details for Chekov, rest assured there stands a man who desperately wants to love us. I'm guessing that Raffle Night at the Drymen Conservative and Unionist Association could well be the prototype for the 'real Scotland' that's just bursting to get out.

Anyway, it's our national anthem that's the theme of the day, with Chekov delightedly picking up on Jim Telfer's desire for Flower of Scotland to be replaced by a more 'mature' anthem. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the heavy spin on the Scotsman article he's quoting from, Chekov appears to be completely misinterpreting Telfer's words, with the suggestion that the former Scotland coach is in some way embarrassed by the 'nationalism' of the lyrics. What Telfer actually seems to be saying is that we've reached the stage of development as a nation where we can stop "defining ourselves through England" - which is in fact a solid, small 'n' nationalist argument that most SNP members would, I'm sure, be able to wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, if there's one thing that almost guarantees that we will continue to 'define ourselves' through England, it's the continuance of the political union with our much larger neighbour. By definition, all parochial 'ninety-minute nationalists' are political unionists, if only by indolent default.

Where I part company with Telfer is that I simply don't recognise the problems he identifies with the lyrics of Flower of Scotland. It's categorically not an anti-English song, or even a song that's particularly about England - it's an anti-Edward II and anti-occupation song. Are Dutch celebrations of the liberation from Nazi rule deemed 'anti-German'?

In truth, Flower of Scotland is in many ways almost the perfect national anthem - its lyrics look to the past, present and future of our country simultaneously.

He'll be the toast of Netherdale tonight, I tell you

So sad to hear about the passing of Bill McLaren, one of the handful of greats who turned TV/radio sports commentary into a kind of art form. As with his peers, it was very often not so much what he said but the way he said it - the rhythms of his voice were magically in harmony with the rhythms of the game. As an example, his commentary on Wales' last-gap winning try against England in 1999 (which handed Scotland the last ever Five Nations Championship) was little more than a staccato repetition of Scott Gibbs' name - "A-burst-by-Scott-Gibbs, Scott-Gibbs-is-through, Scott-Gibbs-has-scored" - and yet somehow was the perfect piece of commentary.

In a sense, McLaren's legacy lives on, with two of the people he partnered in the commentary box, Eddie Butler and Jonathan Davies, now having developed into fine commentators in their own right. Even if Jonathan Davies does have the annoying habit of excitedly shouting out "numbers", only for absolutely nothing to happen...

Appointment on merit, nationality, or the old school tie?

Perhaps confirming the Willie Ross precedent that the most committed British nationalists can paradoxically prove to be the most parochial Scots, this Scotland on Sunday article reveals that former Scotland rugby captain Jim Aitken has donated £100,000 to the Conservative Party, but also notes that he has dismissed talk of Englishman Andy Robinson becoming Scotland rugby coach as a "lot of nonsense" - solely on the grounds of his nationality. Well, I can't say I've been following the ins and outs avidly, but the last time I checked that particular piece of 'nonsense' seemed highly likely to come to pass.

Fancy that, someone being appointed on merit. Isn't that the stock explanation for why it's perfectly all right that half our future Tory cabinet all went to the same school?

Hope springs eternal for Hadden

Very encouraging win for Scotland at Murrayfield, hopefully marking the start of a new era with the Evans brothers at the forefront. But I was slightly bemused by Frank Hadden's comments afterwards - 'with Wales losing last night, this championship is wide open...we think we'll have a big say in it'. Does that mean he thinks Scotland can still win the Six Nations? As far as I can see, even if we win our remaining two games (which would include a first win at Twickenham since 1983), to actually win the championship we'd need Wales to lose to Italy - and then to bounce back from that improbable and crushing defeat by beating Ireland the following week. Oh, and we'd also need France to lose to either England or Italy. And even if all that happened, we probably still wouldn't win the championship because of points difference.

Couldn't we just aim for third or something?