Brillant Zonker
Don't think anyone was talking about, or laughing at, Scotland though. We're talking about England here. About losing to a team ranked 116th in the world, who won their first competitive game in 4 years at the weekend. v Azerbaijan. Who are ranked below Rwanda and Turkmenistan
I will tell you this. That result last night, was, I think, the worst result in Englands history. For a team with so many good players, to lose to such a poor team - and there is no escaping the fact that they are terrible is worse than losing to USA in the 1950 world cup, worse than losing to a bunch of part time Norwegian whalers in 1981, just simply the worst result ever. And seeing as your comparing England to Scotland it was also worse than drawing 2-2 in the Faroes, losing 6-0 to Holland or losing to Costa Rica at the WC in Italy as well.
You list a few of our losses, Lithuania and Hungary, but all a damn sight better than Northern Ireland (1 place higher than St Lucia in the world rankings!!).
Aye, aye, we're pish, we will never do anything. Still over the last 3 internationals we have thrown away a 2 goal lead in Austria with 10 mins to go to draw 2-2, were 14 mins away from beating Italy (obviously not a decent side though, otherwise we would surely have got humped

) and beaten, quite well actually, a decent Norwegian side last night.
England have been humped 4-1 in Denmark, fluked a win over Wales with a deflection and lost to Northern Ireland.
Who's got the better results out of that series of 3 games? Ain't England I can tell you. The question should really be - if Scotland are shite, what the hell does that make England
Aye, good, on you go to the World Cup, but the question must be, would it really be worth your while taking part? You might get a bit embarressed as you will be playing better sides than Wales and Northern Ireland.