Most interesting thread... I've enjoyed reading through it. A few comments:

# Loved the football story. Context of information is always important.

# Always enjoyed singing and hearing "Flower of Scotland". Always introduced it as having recently been regarded as the "unofficial national anthem of the Scottish independence movement" or words to that effect.

# I'm not totally convinced of the need for "official" national anthems. Are they really that important? Our U.S. national anthem is a terrible piece of music (not sure it deserves to be called music, actually.) I've always regarded Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" as the best choice for a U.S. anthem, if we have to have one. Musically, "Hail To The Chief" is much superior to the "Star Spangled Banner", but the words are not what I'd choose.

# Based on the lyrics alone, Burns' "A Man's A Man For A' That" would be an almost perfect national anthem (for ANY country -- but, of course it rightfully "belongs" to Scotland.) The music is OK, but not exceptional... a really great n.a. should be a little more stirring, I think (just my opinion). I also really like the lyrics to the other Roy Williamson song, but am not familiar with the melody.

# As an aside - it's nice to read through a thread here at the Mudcat where the Corries are not bad-mouthed by some supercilious folk-purists. Maybe that bad-mouthing of a great singing duo has lessened recently, but a couple of years ago was rampant.

# Which is most important for a national anthem, the music or the words? Ideally, both, I'd think. Of existing national anthems I'd be inclined to give my vote to Les Marseillaise. The feeling that is evoked when the French patrons at Ricks sing it and override the Nazi singers in "Casablanca" is profound. (Almost like the feeling evoked by 65,000 Scots singing "Flower Of Scotland." Would love to have heard that!)

Reiver 2