Those of you who remember the build up before the 2012 Olympics in London will recall the craving from the land that gave us jellied eels as a culinary dish for Britain to field a football team at the Games.
"It is right and proper this land should be represented on the pitch of the occasion that it is staging", was the usual cry.
Pressure was heaped upon Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to acquiesce.
There were those in the Celtic provinces who resisted John Bull's crass attempt at a guilt trip.
While not independent politically, the concept served to give back some form of national identity to those within the United Kingdom.
Games against England involving one of the Celtic provinces were always seen as a 90-minute opportunity to get one over the big brother in the four-way partnership.
It worked the other way round too with England legend Bobby Charlton on more than one occasion lamenting the fact that his nation and Scotland no longer meet on an annual basis.
Prior to 2012, there had been a Great Britain football team in the Olympics but only on an amateur basis (in accordance with the original Olympic ideal which seems to have taken a wrong turning somewhere).
But then someone thought that a professional team should be in the 2012 Games and the Celtic provinces got nervous.
With justification because the UK having four separate teams in international football had got up the noses of some folk around the globe.
They wanted the concept of separate Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland teams to be abolished.
Not because of any particular hatred of them but it would mean three less voting nations at the Fifa table - especially the special status according to them for being the 'original lawmakers'.
The four home nations make up an entity separate from Fifa, the International Football Association Board (Ifab).
Fifa recognises Ifab's jurisdiction over the laws of the game. While the former is a 50 per cent partner in the latter, 75 per cent is needed to amend a law.
Ifab's four members hold a useful hand of cards and some on the outside have hated this state of affairs.
In the early 1970s, with football growing in Africa and Asia and in a bid to increase their own World Cup place allocation, moves were made to end the home nation privileges which were quelled due to the Uefa nations rallying behind the British FA's in order to preserve the vast number of World Cup berths they already had.
In 1972, the Uruguayan delegate tabled a motion to Fifa calling to dissolve the home nation teams and merge them all into a United Kingdom side.
The proposal was withdrawn after the home nations agreed to pay Fifa a share of receipts from the now-defunct Home Championship.
The League of Wales was formed in the early 1990s after warnings Wales’ independent status would be under threat if they did not have a competitive league.
In 1992 British delegates at Ifab were told by Fifa that if they voted against back-pass rule it would jeopardise their separate status.
All of this without the precedent of professional footballers playing for a unified British team in a competitive fixture.
So naturally the Celtic nations were nervous. Especially when Lord Sebastian Coe, when told of said nations' concerns, replied: "F*** em".
In the end, a deal with Fifa was struck that because Britain was the host nation of the 2012 Olympic Games, this would be a one-off.
A handful of Celts defied the wishes of their national associations and played for both the men's and women's teams.
Thankfully, Fifa (for once) stuck to an agreement and footballing sovereignty was preserved.
The English FA tried to shoehorn the idea in for next year's Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro only to be bluntly reminded by the Celts that 'one-off' meant just that.
They backed down.
But some south of the Tweed and east of Offa's Dyke still will not let this rest.
"You're just being difficult out of self-interest" is the usual accusation.
However, put the boot on the other foot and (if the general election coverage regarding Scotland's potential influence over England was anything to go by) our bigger neighbour would be refusing any truck with this as well.
Journalist, Nigel Adderley, has had a bit to say about this on Twitter in light of England reaching the last eight of the Women's World Cup that is taking place in Canada right now.
Scotland too have missed out in the past when it comes to the Olympics.
In 1996, the men's under-21 side came fourth in the 1996 European under-21 Championship.
That finish meant Scotland had qualified for the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, USA.
But because of the aforementioned risks of jeopardising Scotland's Fifa membership, not to mention the Welsh and Northern Irish ones who would undoubtedly have fallen in a domino effect, the SFA declined to participate under the British banner.
Like Adderley, we were disappointed but understood the wider implications that would put into doubt our existence on the international footballing stage had we walked out at Atlanta saltire-less.
However, usually when talk of a British team emanates from London, the hidden motive is that there is a Celt that the England team wouldn't mind playing for them.
George Best and Kenny Dalglish were coveted under the convenient guise of trying to set up a Great Britain side in the 1970s.
More recently, Welshmen Ryan Giggs and Gareth Bale have had those munching gammon and pineapple salivating over their warm pints of fizzy.
But with the attention now being drawn on the women's standing regarding a British team, Scotland's Kim Little and her talents have not gone unnoticed.
Little is without doubt one of the world's best players.
Unfortunately, while the team has improved over the last decade, Scotland have yet to qualify for a major tournament.
Julie Fleeting before her, a legend of the game, did not have the chance to play in a World Cup or a European Championship.
One of the all-time greats before her, Rose Reilly, had to change her nationality to Italian to even get the chance to play the game professionally let alone play in a major event - which she did with Italy.
Little is a player whom many nations, not just England, wouldn't mind in their ranks - a female Dalglish if you're looking for a loose context.
She did play in the one-off British team in the Olympics three years ago.
There is an argument being rolled out that she should not be denied the chance next year.
If for the sake of that argument it happens and because the 'one-off' agreement has therefore been breached, Fifa turn around and say, "that's it - all four of you play as Britain from now on"?
There will be patronising scribes from the banks of the Thames, while digesting their bubble and squeak, who will spit out the tired old line of....
"These Scots, Welsh and Irish are never going to get the chance to play at a big tournament anyway."
It is a shame that George Best never got to do that, but he was given a chance to get there in 1982 only to blow it. http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/an-ulsterman-in-the-spanish-works
Likewise Julie Fleeting for Scotland's women.
But this lazy argument is dispelled by the fact that Denis Law managed it, John Charles too as did Pat Jennings.
Heck, even Kevin Keegan, one of England's all time greats, managed 26 minutes in a World Cup - there might have been more opportunities but England, like the Celt nations now, once had a bugbear about qualifying.
Besides, Gareth Bale looks like shattering the argument as Wales, given their flying start to European Championship qualifying, would have to make the mother of all cock-ups in order not to make France 2016.
For Kim Little, given Scotland's improvement over the last 10 years has seen them now get to the stage where they are knocking on the door of making a big event.
Time is on her side for that to happen.
But given how she was treated when she played for the one-off team in the 2012 Olympics, would the London wish of a combined side hold much appeal for her?
Little, if you remember, was pilloried for not singing the British national anthem, "God Save The Queen" before each Team GB game.
Ryan Giggs and Craig Bellamy, who played for the men's team, also copped the same flack.
That well-known expert on the history and politics of the three kingdoms, Fatima Whitbread, bellowed out: "If you are competing under a British flag you need to feel British."
Need to feel? A year previously, Little had lined up for Scotland and heard the opposition's anthem. It was "God Save The Queen" and she was playing against.... England.
So singing an anthem that she, and Giggs and Bellamy too for that matter, had heard in the past as the song for an opposing team would have felt somewhat bizarre - lest we forget the 'rebellious Scots to crush' line in it.
But there may be a way around British football's 'Olympic question' - although it would need to disentangle something that the British themselves put in place over a century ago.
In the three modern Olympics that took place before London held the 1908 Games, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (this was before 26 out of the 32 Irish counties formed an independent nation remember) competed as separate entities in the hockey event.
England and Ireland had also played in the polo competition.
The current International Olympic Committee ruling states that only countries with an IOC committee in place can enter the Olympic Games - this was enforced in 1908.
This rule was designed to 'stop political protests from athletes' such as the one done by Irish long-jumper, Peter O'Connor.
An event called the Intercalated Olympics (celebrating 10 years of the modern Olympic Games) was staged in 1906.
O'Connor, competing for Britain (all of Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom at the time) won a silver medal.
However, at the medal ceremony, O'Connor made an act of protest and climbed the flagpole to remove the Union Jack flag and replace it with a green one with a golden harp and shamrock with the line "Erin go Bragh" (Ireland forever) written underneath.
It was a flag symbolising Ireland and O'Connor, with the help of fellow Irish athlete Con Leahy who guarded the flagpost from those trying to stop his friend, was making the pride in his own nation be seen.
The IOC ruling, at Britain's behest, was put into place and nations within a political nation state were prohibited entry.
Home nations aside, the 1908 Games, due to this new rule, saw Finland (part of Tsarist Russia at the time) being told they had to march under the Russian flag and compete as Russia.
They turned up flagless at the opening ceremony in protest.
New Zealand were chosen ahead of Australia to represent an entire continent - Australasia.
And despite the IOC rule, Austria-Hungary split up for the occasion and competed separately while one nation within its empire, Bohemia (the Austro-Hungarian equivalent of Scotland or Wales) flouted said law and participated.
The new rule brought up more trouble than expected and some sound advice was provided by the official report on the 1908 Olympic Games in London which was unfortunately ignored.
"it might on another occasion be better to consider separate entries from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales…as well as from both New Zealand and Australia"