The English hold the key to our rugby future. What a bloody awful position to be in. If I was a logical thinker, I'd still be a full-time chartered accountant, worrying about stock cut off and the like. As that's no job for a grown man, I'm not. But let' s start at the beginning.
If the SRU's crowd figure of over 23,000 people at Murrayfield on Saturday is right, then we have just witnessed the clubs of Scotland giving us something districts never have.
Let's leave that old chestnut aside, and instead salute the Hawks for what they did. I suppose, in life, you need people to guide and help you, and you just have to hope that the players, who won the game, realise just how much of what they did was helped by Brian Simmers, and Iain Russell, and forwards' coach Bill MacDonald.
Simmers, especially, for having the vision in the first place. Many of the Hawks, and Kelso players, I will guarantee, have just experienced their best rugby days. I hope, too, that the SRU know how the Hawks have helped change rugby for the better.
But let's open this up.
Fran Cotton spoke at The Herald Scottish rugby awards on Saturday, the day after ''peace'' had broken out between the RFU and the English clubs.
Fran called it surrender by the RFU. He says that playing for England is all about exce llence, while club rugby is about making profit for some owners.
There will be a motion of no confidence in the RFU put at their next meeting. Fran is to put the motion.
The RFU originally signed a contract which said they would enter teams into Europe. The peace deal with their clubs says that they won't play in Europe. They have broken a contract. The peace deal includes an undertaking to do their best to have the Five Nations put back to May. There is absolutely no doubt that the clubs have won the way in England. If it stays the way it is, that is.
I know it's complicated but, please, hang in there.
The SRU, our rulers, are putting forward a clause to make it impossible for anyone to own a Scottish rugby club. Partly, I'm sure, because they think there are some people who would rape the scene for profit. But an undeniable motive would have to be that powerful clubs do, and always will, present a real threat to the governing body.
What really got me thinking on Saturday, was the question: What value is a European Cup now without English clubs?
The TV folk, like Sky, want viewing figures in the right market so that they can sell space in advert breaks. Without English clubs, nobody in England's really going to watch it. Which means the money's not going to be there. Which means the tournament, in its current extensive format, isn't going to carry on.
If I were the French clubs I'd body swerve the thing as well. Without the English clubs there really isn't a challenge. And I'm viewing that from their side, not ours.
Yet we, the Scots, have combined our four districts into two so that they can be stronger in Europe. A Europe that might just be about to fall off the cliff and into the English Channel itself.
What the heck to we do if there's no European competition? Play the Glasgow Caledonia Reds against the Edinburgh Border Reivers 36 times a year, and call it the world series? The Yanks do things like that.
Or do we try to enter into some form of inter district championship with the Irish?
So, you either believe one of two things. You either believe that England will stay as they are in some form of truce, in which case the clubs will decide if they want to play in any European com petition and if so they will decide what format it is. Or, you believe that England are hauled over the coals; their clubs are brought back into line; and they might even play their provinces in Europe.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article