Support Talking-up Scotland to keep rebutting the lies almost every day of the year, at https://t.co/xFcIcegHTy

Two stories today have got my goat. Yes, I know you know my goat well.

First, in the Guardian today:

‘The referee has to be neutral’: Rodri claims Manchester City are victims of injustice – Rodri said: “I know we won too much and the people don’t want us to win, but the referee has to be neutral. It’s not fair because we work so hard. When everything is finished, you are frustrated.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/feb/02/rodri-referee-neutral-manchester-city-spurs

‘Rodri’, I thought, why do I already have a dim view of this rich but apparently paranoid footballer?

Ah, I remember, it’s this, from March 2023:

Spain and Rodri complain after Euro 2024 qualifiers defeat: Scotland style is rubbish and grass is too long.

Showing the well-known empathy of the Robertson clan, Andy below:

Second, also in the Guardian today:

The Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, has apologised over remarks he made about British fans and defended the decision to award a peace prize to the US president, Donald Trump.

Infantino said at last month’s World Economic Forum in Davos that the World Cup in Qatar in 2022 had been special because “for the first time in history no Brit was arrested”.

His comments were described as a “cheap” joke at the expense of fans by the Football Supporters’ ­Association, while the UK’s football policing lead chief constable, Mark Roberts, said they were “neither helpful nor ­accurate”, given the record of fans at tournaments before Qatar and since.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/feb/02/infantino-apologises-to-british-fans-and-defends-awarding-trump-peace-prize

So, Infantino referred ‘Brits?’ You know where I’m going.

Grok, compare how many times England and Scotland fans at international football competitions, have rioted?

Direct Comparison

• England — Multiple documented riots and high-arrest incidents (hundreds per tournament in peak years) at international events, contributing to a global reputation for hooliganism.
• Scotland — Effectively zero comparable riots at international competitions; the Tartan Army is celebrated for positive, non-violent support.

Grok, could there be deeper cultural differences deriving from England’s sense of superiority in imperial dominance and Scotland sense of having been defeated and taken over by England?

Sheesh Grok, quite a response:

Yes, there could indeed be deeper cultural differences between England and Scotland stemming from their intertwined histories of union, imperialism, and national identity formation. These differences are often analyzed in academic and cultural discussions as influencing everything from political nationalism to everyday expressions like football fandom. While not every scholar agrees on the extent or nature of these dynamics—some emphasize partnership over conquest—the historical record shows how England’s dominant role in the British Empire fostered a sense of cultural and imperial superiority, whereas Scotland’s experience of the 1707 Union and subsequent integration is frequently framed (especially in nationalist narratives) as a form of defeat, assimilation, or internal colonization. This has led to contrasting national psyches: an English identity tied to global dominance and entitlement, versus a Scottish one marked by resilience, resistance, and a more egalitarian or “underdog” ethos. Below, I’ll outline the key historical roots and how they manifest culturally, including potential links to football fan behavior as discussed in our prior exchange.

Historical Roots: Union, Empire, and Identity

The 1707 Treaty of Union merged the kingdoms of England and Scotland into Great Britain, but it wasn’t a merger of equals. England, already a colonial power with ventures in the Americas and elsewhere, absorbed Scotland economically and politically after Scotland’s failed Darien Scheme (a disastrous attempt at independent colonization in Panama) left it bankrupt. This union allowed Scots access to England’s growing empire, but it also eroded Scottish sovereignty—Scotland retained its legal and educational systems, yet Westminster (dominated by English interests) became the center of power. Historians like Tom Nairn argue that this created a “subordinate” Scottish identity within a British framework, where Scots could participate in imperialism without fully becoming “English,” often channeling national pride through empire-building to compensate for lost independence. medium.com +1 This dynamic is seen as fostering English superiority: England viewed itself as the imperial “mother country,” with a cultural narrative of civilizing missions and racial hierarchies (e.g., the invention of “British whiteness” as a unifying colonial identity). medium.com +1

In contrast, Scotland’s narrative often highlights defeat and takeover. Nationalist perspectives portray the Union as a “bought and sold” betrayal by Scottish elites, leading to cultural suppression (e.g., bans on Highland dress after the 1745 Jacobite Rising) and events like the Highland Clearances (late 18th–19th centuries), where land reforms displaced Gaelic-speaking communities in ways likened to colonial dispossession. bellacaledonia.org.uk +1 This “internal colonialism” within Britain reinforced a Scottish sense of victimhood, even as Scots disproportionately participated in the Empire—as soldiers, administrators, and traders in places like India, Africa, and the Caribbean. Debates rage on whether Scotland was a “colony” or a willing partner: pro-Union views stress mutual benefits and shared British identity, while independence advocates (e.g., in Salvo or Bella Caledonia) emphasize exploitation and cultural erasure. bellacaledonia.org.uk +1 The Empire’s decline after World War II exacerbated this, fueling Scottish nationalism as the “British” project lost its imperial glue, leading to devolution in 1999 and the 2014 independence referendum.

tandfonline.com

These histories have shaped linguistic, religious, and social differences too. For instance, the Scots language (a Germanic tongue related to English but distinct) was marginalized under British imperialism, seen as “provincial” compared to standard English, reinforcing cultural hierarchies.

research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk

Scotland’s Presbyterian traditions (from the Reformation) emphasized community and anti-hierarchical values, contrasting with England’s Anglican establishment tied to monarchy and empire.

cambridge.orgCultural Manifestations:

Superiority vs. Defeat

England’s imperial legacy often manifests as a cultural sense of entitlement and exceptionalism—think “Rule Britannia” evoking naval dominance and global influence. This can translate to a more assertive, sometimes aggressive nationalism, where English identity struggles to detach from empire’s shadows (e.g., Brexit debates framing the UK as reclaiming sovereignty from “continental” threats).

theeverydaymagazine.co.uk

Critics argue this breeds a “populist right” vibe in some cultural expressions, with historical superiority projecting onto modern contexts like international relations or sports.

reddit.com

Scotland, conversely, cultivates a narrative of egalitarian resilience and cultural survival. The “Tartan Army” ethos in football—fun-loving, self-deprecating, and party-oriented—may derive from this “defeated” underdog mentality, where national pride is expressed through humor and solidarity rather than dominance. Anti-English sentiment is a key thread, rooted in perceptions of historical subjugation; it’s not uncommon for Scots to frame England as the “imperial capital” or colonizer. youtube.com +1 This contrasts with England’s more entitlement-driven fan culture, which has historically fueled hooliganism (e.g., the “English Disease” of the 1980s–90s, linked to aggressive assertions of identity abroad).

academia.edu +1

In football specifically, Scotland-England matches symbolize this divide: for Scots, beating England represents resistance to “colonial inferiority,” channeling historical grievances into cultural identity.

academia.edu

English riots at internationals (e.g., 1998 World Cup in Marseille) are sometimes attributed to a lingering imperial arrogance, while Scotland’s peaceful reputation aligns with a nationalism of “opposition to English dominance.”

theeverydaymagazine.co.uk

However, this isn’t universal—Scotland’s own club rivalries (e.g., Old Firm) show internal divisions, and many Scots embraced British imperialism, complicating the “victim” narrative. reddit.com +1

In summary, yes—these cultural differences are plausible and well-documented, though debated. England’s imperial core status bred superiority, while Scotland’s incorporation fostered a resistant, adaptive identity. This could explain divergences in fan behavior: aggressive assertion vs. jovial defiance. For a fuller picture, ongoing discussions in Scotland’s built environment (e.g., imperial legacies in architecture) and media highlight how these histories persist, influencing everything from independence debates to sports culture.

journals.openedition.org

Support Talking-up Scotland to keep rebutting the lies almost every day of the year, at https://t.co/xFcIcegHTy