''IF teachers of physical education had been able to devote as much time to school sport in the last 15 years as they did to the development of certificated course at Standard Grade, Higher, and Scotvec modules, there would not have been a need for the Scottish Sports Council document Sport 21.'' Discuss.

Whatever the conclusions reached by anyone bothering to respond to the above hypothesis, the fact that the question can be asked at all suggests that there is a difference between 'physical education' and 'sport'.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority does not offer Standard and Higher Grades in football, badminton, or canoeing, but in physical education. The Expressive Arts curriculum in primary schools does not include sport, but physical education. Her Majesty's Inspectors come into schools to inspect physical education programmes, not sports development. And at ministerial level there is, nominally, one minister with responsibility for sport and another for education, including, presumably, the physical variety.

The case for the separateness of PE and sport is usually made by the PE profession, but when it comes to getting publicity and support for this proposition they are on a loser with the media. Against the political and public relations clout of the SSC, a small and fragmented section of the educational community has no chance.

The council, for example, has direct access to a government minister, while the PE lobby is only one of many educational interest groups trying to catch the ear of their minister. The council has a multi-million pound budget while the Scottish PE Association has a membership of 150 out of a possible 2000 teachers.

At the launch of Sport 21, the SSC hired a posh function suite at Hampden Park, produced an information video with a commentary by a well-known sports presenter, hired another TV personality to compere proceedings, invited a former director of coaching for British athletics to give a presentation, laid on a first-class buffet, and presented a dinky little commemorative digital clock to those who had attended. 'Nuff said?

If, as some claim, the sports lobby is winning the battle for influence with the decision-makers, does it matter? If there is increasing use of sport coaches and development officers in schools during curricular time, does that matter?

If it doesn't, why do we spend so much money producing four-year trained PE graduates if the job can be done by someone with a coaching qualification gained in months or even weeks?

When Sport 21 was launched, the sports minister - not the education minister - announced that within two years, primary schools would be required to provide a minimum of two hours PE per week. Great!

For a long time I was one of many PE teachers who campaigned for exactly this. So why do I feel less than elated? Perhaps it is because it comes in the context of Sport 21, and is 'sport-driven'. In a radio interview an SSC official referred to the preparation and application of a 'battery of tests' which could be used to identify children with sporting potential. How is this compatible with the expressive arts?

Who will take pupils during this additional time. The minister at the Sport 21 launch made it clear that implementation ''does not demand greater spending'' and this was acknowledged by the chairman of the SSC.

If these two hours are to be physical education, taught by qualified teachers, then the minister will have to rethink the finances of the scheme.

The SSC at least acknowledges the PE deficit in the training of primary teachers, and calls for action to remedy this. Many recently qualified graduates have been so demoralised by the depressing treadmill of supply teaching and short-term contracts that they have gone to non-teaching jobs. Absence cover is met by retired teachers who will not be around forever. If teachers are unavailable, how will the gap be filled? I can envisage leisure and recreation officials and sports development officers making their plans. Get my point? Understand my paranoia?

Despite these reservations, Sport 21 has a lot going for it. It is visionary, cohesive, and practicable, and if it was responsible for getting Government to commit to the minimum two hours PE a week for primary pupils, then I am grateful.

I just happen to believe that sport potential should be developed outwith the formal curriculum, in the so-called 'extended curriculum', and that PE and sport-related activities within curricular hours should be delivered by qualified, registered teachers. I'd like to believe that most educationists would agree.

I also like to think that the PE profession will wake up before they are accused of selling the jerseys. Then I remember that some people thought we did just that 15 years ago.