WHEN my colleague, Doug Gillon, called the other day to say EventScotland had told him they were planning a bid to stage the 2015 Rugby World Cup, I shuddered.
The memory of Fred McLeod, then acting chief executive of the Scottish Rugby Union, making a similar suggestion in the midst of the organisation's deep troubles last year was all too familiar.
McLeod did a good job during his caretaker spell in charge but that was one of his few misjudgments since it seemed ridiculously ambitious at a time when the sport was in danger of falling apart.
Consequently, even if people were pursuing such a project, my initial feeling was they would have been better keeping it to themselves until there were much better signs of an upturn in commercial and spectator interest in the sport.
That reaction was nothing short of pathetic.
Perhaps it was induced by awareness that there are some people in key positions in this country who think they are boasting when referring to Scotland as a "big, small country", whatever that means. More likely it was the still too vivid memory of the debacle that was Scotland's involvement in the 1999 World Cup.
Either way, there was no excuse for such negativity. Of course Scotland should be looking to stage the Rugby World Cup and of course this is the right time.
There are only two bigger events in world sport - soccer's World Cup and the Olympic Games - and there is no realistic prospect of either coming to Scotland. Far too many countries with much greater bargaining power want to stage the soccer tournament while the British staging of the Olympics in 2012 means that whether or not Scotland gains independence in the near future, it will be a long time before it comes anywhere near these islands again. By contrast, this country is just the right size to stage the Rugby World Cup and 2015 would be the right time.
The mix of stadia, four at the 50,000 mark in Glasgow and Edinburgh and many more capable of accommodating between 10,000 and 20,000, will be ideal for the tournament at that stage, while we are not yet at the point where there are many other countries that could stage the tournament and have not done so.
What is important is to take any notion of dependence on the Scottish rugby community and its still struggling administrators out of the equation. Scotland continues to be the one major rugby nation yet to buy into the professional game, but that is irrelevant in these terms.
The World Cup is an event aimed, as it should be, at the entire rugby world. In many ways what has already become evident following the decision to award the 2011 tournament to New Zealand is that the key thing is not how much the host nation loves the sport, but how well it can accommodate it.
In trying to identify the right ground to stage the final, the Kiwis are struggling with problems Scotland would not have.
As for attendances, the vast numbers f looding in from the rest of the UK, not to mention the Southern Hemisphere, would doubtless ensure Scots bought in, whether or not the professional game has grown substantially in the interim as we hope.
It is tempting to suggest next year's tournament, when Murrayfield will host a couple of matches in the France 2007 event, will give an indication of how a Scottish bid might fare. Yet it would be a mistake to read too much into that.
Organisers are hoping Edinburgh will effectively become a French province for the period in question, but that is quite different from being the principal and preferably only hosts.
Scotland is the perfect size to stage a Rugby World Cup with all its venues within easy range of one another. It has the perfect mix of stadia and hotel accommodation around its major cities.
What a wonderful opportunity it would be for the nation to sell itself to the rest of the world and for rugby to sell itself to Scotland. I am ashamed of myself for ever thinking otherwise.
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