OCT 12 — England’s preparations for Friday’s crucial world Cup qualifier against Montenegro – which resulted in a 4-1 home victory to leave Roy Hodgson’s men on the brink of winning their group – was somewhat overshadowed by an unexpected and passionate debate over the concept of nationality.

It was started by Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere, of all people, when he remarked upon England’s apparent pursuit of Manchester United starlet Adnan Januzaj, who shot to prominence last weekend with two goals in his team’s victory at Sunderland.

18-year-old Januzaj has not yet played international football but is eligible for Belgium by birth as well as Albania, Serbia and Turkey through family heritage. And now England are considering an attempt to snatch him away by taking advantage of the residency rule, which allows a player to become eligible for another country by spending five years living there.

Wilshere clearly isn’t in favour, saying: “If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English. The only people who should play for England are English people. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years, I’m not going to play for Spain.”

Those comments unleashed a frenzied reaction – some in favour and others against – with one notably fierce response coming from England cricketer Kevin Pietersen, who was born in South Africa and pointed out that nearly half the current cricket England team would not be able to represent the country if Wilshere had his way.

In Wilshere’s defence, it should be pointed out that he is a 21-year-old who has sportsman who has benefitted from only a limited education due to his choice of career; he is not a world-leading sociology expert. So it would be unfair to take his views too seriously, although he is, of course, entitled to an opinion.

And his comments do certainly open up an interesting debate about the complicated issue of nationality. As with any matter connected to identity, it is an extremely personal matter and there are countless examples to easily illustrate the complexity.

For starters, I have some British friends who moved to France a decade ago and now have three sons who were all born there and are growing up bilingual. Are those boys English because of their parents, or French because it is the country of their birth and education and the only nation in which they have lived?

Another friend of mine is Albanian by birth but moved to England around 15 years ago, which has entitled her to receive a British passport. Is she therefore British, or Albanian, or both?

Here’s another one. My maternal grandparents were Scottish but moved to England long before my mother was born. I have spent a cumulative total of around one week in Scotland and don’t feel in the slightest bit “Scottish”, yet I could represent Scotland in international sport. Is that right?

Ultimately, views on such a personal matter are destined to differ from one individual to the next. A number of my friends feel passionately loyal to England because it was the country where they were born and have always lived. I have no such emotions; I don’t resent being English, but neither am I proud of it. As far as I’m concerned, it was just an accident of birth that I happened to enter into the world upon a particular patch of land.

Disaffected nineteenth-century French writer Gustave Flaubert went even further, arguing that each person should be free to select their own nationality as they choose. “My native country is the one I love, the one that makes me dream, that makes me feel well,” he wrote. “I am as much Chinese as French...the idea of a native country, marked off red or blue on the map, has always seemed to me narrow-minded, blinkered and profoundly stupid.”

His views were extreme, of course, because a line has to be drawn somewhere for practical considerations if nothing else. And given the personal nature of the issue, however that line is drawn, it will always upset somebody.

For what it’s worth, I tend towards Flaubert’s views and believe nationality is not a fixed concept and should be largely left to the discretion of each individual. A line has to be drawn, but it should be moveable according to the personal preferences and circumstances of everyone whom confronts it.

Within countries, too, notions of national identity can only be vague and constantly subject to change. For example, there is really no such thing, and never has been, as a pure bred Englishman – only a cursory glance at Great Britain’s history of invasions and colonialism is required to understand that.

The same applies to practically every other country on earth. Movements between nations and amongst races have always been very fluid, and only a small minority of people anywhere in the world could trace their ancestral lines back through one single country for more than a few generations.

I’m sure plenty of people will disagree with me. That’s fine. One thing we should always do, however, is talk about it. Feelings of resentment, misunderstanding and envy can easily escalate into outright racism if they are allowed to fester; once individual stories are told and explained, it becomes much less plausible to bear grudges.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of his beliefs, then, perhaps Jack Wilshere has done us all a favour.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.