THE family at the next table was having a right old grumble.

They were on their holidays but they weren't happy, not one bit. Eavesdropping shamelessly, I heard the waitress ask them where they were visiting from.

Belgium, was the answer. And were they have a nice time, she asked?

They were not. So far, they said, Glasgow had been "dirty and boring". They couldn't wait to get home.

We were in Stravaigan, having a last supper before the family restaurant is taken over by the pub chain Greene King. Maybe it will change beyond recognition, maybe it won't. But my friend and I were keen to have one last memory of one of our favourite spots, just in case.

READ MORE: Govanhill abuse rumours do untold damage to Glasgow

Dirty and boring? I was outraged. It's one thing for us residents to call the city dirty. It's another thing for tourists to slag it off. Especially tourists from Belgium.

Come back to me when you're famous for something more interesting than a statue of a tiny guy taking a whizz.

My pal had brought his new girlfriend along and I was trying to make a good impression so I restrained myself - just - from leaning over and arguing back with these folks.

Instead, I gave them a tut, a bit of side eye and moaned about them to the waitress later on.

Dirty and boring?

Netflix has a gruesome documentary at the moment about the 1999 Woodstock festival in upstate New York. Trainwreck: Woodstock 99 details how the crowd became increasingly lawless during the music festival weekend, in large part because the organisers treated them, as multiple interviewees say, "like animals".

The place was left in a total mess without any attempts to clean up and so the people rioted.

Anyone walking down Victoria Road in the Southside these days might wonder when the people are going to start rioting. It's been years since the streets were such a constant midden, and not just on the Southside.

So... dirty? Dirty I can't argue with, not while looking anyone in the eye.

Boring though? Glasgow? Boring? Where had these people been during their holiday? Did they even leave their hotel room?

These are the same sort of people who keep awarding the UK nul points in Eurovision competitions. Not this year, though. This year Sam Ryder treated the competition with the respect it deserves and was rewarded with second place.

And now it looks almost certain that Glasgow is going to host Eurovision 2023. On Friday the shortlist was announced and Glasgow is, as expected, on it. We're the bookies favourite and, let's face it, far and away the best choice for hosts.

As council leader Susan Aitken pointed out, we're one of the world's premier events cities. Glasgow has ample experience in hosting large scale shindigs, from the Commonwealth Games to COP26.

READ MORE: George Square redesign plans are almost too good to be true

The city wouldn't need to build any new infrastructure in order to stage the competition as we have the Hydro ready and waiting.

Glasgow features in an ABBA song and we've produced a Eurovision winner - our time has been a long time coming.

There's bound to be a good deal of political squabbling around the event. There will be plenty of flag-waving and some discomfort about how many Union flags and how many Saltires.

Constitutional politics aside, what a glorious advert for the city. A global TV audience of 160 million is expected to tune in. Glasgow is already very much on the map but what a boost, to be able to host this event on our own behalf and, more importantly, be good hosts for our Ukrainian cousins as we do them proud in putting on a stonking good show.

While Glasgow takes pelters for its poor public transport systems, at least Glasgow Airport is a transit hub to be proud of. We've largely escaped the chaos that has dogged airports down south. So, even if they can't easily get around the city, at least visitors are more likely to make it into the city.

The main sticking point is going to be money. Hosting Eurovision doesn't come cheap. Malmo in Sweden managed to keep the costs down to £17 million and made back £16m on tourism spending.

Two stops over the bridge from Malmo, the Danish city of Copenhagen went all out and spent £36m, recouping just £13 in tourism. But for cities that have spent the most money, this has been due to having to build venues. As discussed, we're laughing on that front.

I hate to say that hosting Eurovision would be of greatest benefit to Glasgow because the council would be forced to clean the place up - we shouldn't need an international event to expect tidy streets.

Glasgow is the best and most obvious choice for supporting Ukraine and hosting the brightest, campest, most fun event in music. Not boring, most fun.

Susan Aitken also mentioned that Glasgow is "famed for the warmth" of its welcome to visitors. Which means less side eye, a bit less tutting and more chatting up tourists about how great the city is.

Altogether, the charm offensive starts now.