I spent some time at the World Badminton Championships in Glasgow last week, which was another pleasing reminder that the Commonwealth Games was not quite the one-off event that it appeared at the time. There have been several big sporting events in Glasgow since 2014, some of which probably wouldn't have been possible without the Commonwealth Games, because we wouldn't have had a suitable venue otherwise.
There was one little moment that had me raising my eyebrows, though. When the time came for the English announcer to introduce one of the English players, he deepened and loudened his voice, slowed his delivery, and put on a knowing tone as he said: "and NOW...his opponent...representing ENGLAND..." The subtext was pretty unavoidable: "yes, ladies and gentlemen, it's the moment we've all been waiting for, someone from OUR home team".
I do try to be charitable, and it occurred to me that maybe you could explain this by the announcer thinking "well, England's a neighbouring country and there's a lot of English fans in, so let's make them feel at home". But in actual fact, there were more Danish supporters in the arena than English supporters. (I know that sounds unlikely, but it's true - badminton is a huge sport in Denmark and a large contingent had made the journey over.) There was no special treatment for the Danish players.
Later on, I was asked to fill in a UK Sport questionnaire, which was strikingly similar to the one I filled in at the European Curling Championships last November. It specifically asked whether I was proud that "the UK" was hosting the event. In fairness it also asked if I was proud that Scotland was hosting the event, but the UK question was asked first. I wasn't asked at any point whether I was proud that Europe was hosting the event.
As you may have seen on Twitter, I was then bemused to discover that the BBC website described the Adcocks' bronze medal as "Great Britain's first medal since 2011". Great Britain does not compete at the World Badminton Championships and therefore does not win medals. The Adcocks won a bronze medal for England, and yet for Saturday's order of play the BBC listed them as "Adcock and Adcock (GB)".
Whether consciously or unconsciously, the narrative shared across the BBC, UK Sport and the announcer in the arena itself seemed to be that the separate representation of Scotland, England and Wales was just an odd technicality and that we're all one big happy family really. That was also very much the underlying premise of the BBC's coverage of the Commonwealth Games, just weeks before the first independence referendum.
On a similar note, it's no great surprise to see Sky News describe the Queensferry Crossing, which was actively frustrated by the UK government, as a "British triumph".
Firstly,the news where we are.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah blah blah blah.
And now the news where you are.
Maybe the announcer was simply at the wind up. Maybe you were supposed to boo and hiss like in a panto.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I watch Scotland play in sports - especially the footie - I sincerely wish that we had more UK wide sporting teams. I'm done cheering people to failure.
Just curious, would you ideally prefer Scotland to have the status of Dorset within a nation called Britain?
DeleteIf I'd been raised with it, I wouldn't know anything different.
DeleteAt least people in Dorset have a national football team that, on a good day and with luck on their side, could maybe do something quite impressive.
Jeremy Corbyn already thinks other countries are regions of England....Symptomatic of London cosmo types not really knowing much outside of London.
DeleteHowever to be fair Europeans often refer to the UK as England....So its not just our nearest and dearest neighbours.
Yeah, even German academics sometimes refer to the UK as England! Which is crap of them really. Worst of all my hero Chomsky sometimes does the same thing.... Sob
DeleteJeremy Corbyn's Marxism traditionally doesn't really give much thought to national identity. He doesn't give a toss about Scotland but then he doesn't particularly care about England or Britain either. He just wants the world to be one big carey sharey blob. No borders, no nations - just citizens of the world. A socialist world.
DeleteYes, it's ignorant to refer to the UK as England, but how often do you see people referring to The Netherlands as Holland? Equally ignorant.
DeleteIt's endemic, particularly in sport where national identity is important.
ReplyDeleteWe should start a collection. I came across this guddle the other day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Individual_Speedway_World_Championship
It's endemic, particularly in sport where national identity is important.
ReplyDeleteWe should start a collection. I came across this guddle the other day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Individual_Speedway_World_Championship
Whatever you do, don't look at the number of hits you get when you google "England's Andy Murray"
ReplyDeleteBut you haven't been raised with it.
ReplyDeleteBut I wish I had been. The idea of Scottish distinctiveness leaves people countryless. You're not allowed to fully embrace Britishness but at the same time you can't really fully embrace Scottishness either because A) it isn't a proper country and, B) the institutions it has to make it look and feel like a country - like our national football team for example - are bloody awful.
DeleteFull integration would have been preferable.
I fully embrace my Scottish identity warts and all. I detest the butchers rag and everything that it represents in respect of Scotland.
DeletePoor James scraping the barrel in anti English hatred. My maw used tae moan about Peter West being anti Scottish biased in the old Come Dancing.
DeleteUnknown, with language like that I think your loyalties lie across the Irish Sea rather than with Scotland.
DeleteAye the Jocks were fast forward with the bayonet when not fighting with each other... The Jocks built the Empire...Meanwhile Paddy the remnants of the Famine built the British infrastructure...And Paddy and the Jocks blame the English for dragging them from feudalism and the Clan structure.
DeleteIf the British flag is a symbol of butchery, what exactly is the German flag - pure unfiltered evil in canvass form? Yet if Angela Merkel clicked her fingers, Nicola Sturgeon would come running.
DeleteSo many double standards I've lost count!
Slip sliding around there and falling on your arse with that one.
DeleteAnd the Soviet Hammer and Sickle in the perfect workers state where most of the socialist workers perished in the Gulag or in the Stasi holiday camps. Then we have the Chinese flag.
DeleteAldo how are things looking now are you still embracing an independent Scotland?
DeleteYep. Britain has nothing on Germany, Russia and China for sheer brutality and inhumanity. Yet the nats want to be part of greater Germany, get their news from Russia Today, and buy their steel from China :0)
DeleteGWC2 what does the St Andrews flag represent?
DeleteA guy getting executed upside down, Scott. The Romans crucified Saint Andrew but he did not want to be crucified upright like his Saviour as he did not consider himself worthy so asked specifically to be crucified upside down.
DeleteBloody eejit.
Beatie, I assume it represents a fictional character called St Andrew. Some daft Scots want a public holiday! I did visit Amalfi once where the bones are buried, allegedly.
DeleteGWC2 and Aldo the flag represents my country and nation and your fear.
DeleteNo, I'm pretty sure it represents a guy getting nailed to a cross with his head on the floor. A fitting symbol for Scottish independence also though, I'm not denying that.
DeleteI never thought my Catholic education would come in handy for anything but it sure gives you a first rate knowledge of historical sado masochism dressed up as religious devotion.
DeleteMost Scots would prefer being buried upright. The money widnae faw oot their pookets.
DeleteGWC2 and Aldo the flag represents my country and nation and your fear.
DeleteGWC2 keep practicing with the Scots language, no idea what pookets are but really funny for a southerner to try. I would write paukit.
DeleteIt isn't a country or a nation, Scott. It's a region of a country and I hail from it as well as yourself. I'm not particularly afraid of anything just now. Well, maybe my boss as I took a day off today. But nationalism? Nah - a busted flush and on the way down.
DeleteGWC, cheers mate - coffee spat all over the place!
GWC2 keep practicing with the Scots language, no idea what pookets are but really funny for a southerner to try. I would write paukit.
DeleteMaybe they call them pookets up in tcheuchter land - or Tory land as it's called these days...
DeleteAldo Scotland is a country, you need to educate yourself. So we have a pretender as in GWC2 and and an uneducated moron who writes that Scotland is not a country. I suppose England isn't a country either? No wonder the UK is such mess if this limits of you two.
DeleteIt's not a country in any meaningful sense. It is more accurately designated as a region of the UK with a high level of autonomy over law and public services. But it isn't a country, not in the conventional sense.
DeleteAnd your fellow travellers agree with me. I read Wings over Scotland the night of the referendum. It was full of comments like 'Scotland has opted to be a mere region', 'Scotland is a pretendy country' etc.
It's not just me saying it - it's your own side.
Aldo is England a country of meaningful sense and designated as a region?
DeletePS what's my side?
No, it isn't. It was merged out of existence in 1707. There is only one country here in the widely understood sense of that word - the UK.
DeleteI figure your side is nationalism from what you have said so far.
Sorry Aldo the lack of Education is bewildering. I suggest you read the Act of Union as it describes two countries Scotland and England and not forming a new country but a union. I hope you know what union means.
DeleteI don't think you figure anthing as you are obviously lacking education to even attempt to figure.
"...that the Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall on 1st May the next date hereof and forever after be united into a single kingdom by the name of Great Britain" - Article 1, treaty of union, 1707.
DeleteTwo kingdoms were replaced with a single kingdom. Scotland and England were effectively extinguished out of existence and replaced with a new country - Britain.
"Shall on the next date hereof and FOREVER after". The treaty isn't reversible. At least, not by unilateral action. Westminster needs to approve any split.
Go read a book.
A Kingdom is not a country it's a union of crowns and that's completely different, what you are quoting. All treaties, can be reversed. Please stop arguing semantics and or comparing different subjects to fit your ill-informed narrative.
DeleteA Kingdom is not a country it's a union of crowns and that's completely different, what you are quoting. All treaties, can be reversed. Please stop arguing semantics and or comparing different subjects to fit your ill-informed narrative.
DeleteNope, the union of the crowns took place more than a century earlier, in 1603.
DeleteThe treaty can be reversed but only with the permission of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Come on, this is really basic stuff!
Aldo
All this nonsense from Britnats about Scotland not being a country/nation.
DeleteScotland absolutely is,otherwise the Tories would never have agreed to be bound by the outcome of an independence referendum.
What Scotland is not,is a state.
In order to achieve statehood,you need international recognition and that comes from first of all holding a plebiscite to agree that your people desire that outcome.
It is not for Westminster to say whether wr have that right or not,they have signed up to international agreements which bind them to that position.
Of course,once the Tories remove themselves from accountability to courts not under their control,then we may well be in different territory but for now,we absolutely have that right.
Sorry Aldo the lack of Education is bewildering. I suggest you read the Act of Union as it describes two countries Scotland and England and not forming a new country but a union. I hope you know what union means.
DeleteI don't think you figure anthing as you are obviously lacking education to even attempt to figure.
Aldo is England a country of meaningful sense and designated as a region?
DeletePS what's my side?
The vast majority of countries are states. The concept of a country that is not a state is something of a sop to the people in that area who are uneasy about the reality of their situation - which is that they've been merged out of existence and their 'country' is now largely an historical curiosity.
DeleteAldo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA flag represents a country Beatie! Help ma boab and St Andrew, crivens and jings,
ReplyDeleteI think genuinely there are a lot of English who intermingle Britain/England together without any thought or hindrance.
ReplyDeleteMy Irish pal used to get it too! He'd say he was from Ireland and there was the occasional ''Isn't that part of England+?"Most of them are too thick/naive to know the difference between English and Britain.
Kevin, I am sorry your Irish pal got it... Being a Scot I did not get it...Erseium entactium!
DeleteMy partners grandmother always maintained she could tell a Catholic from the way they walked.
DeleteIt wisnae an Orange Wok! Wis it?
DeleteMore likely walking very gingerly with a somewhat pained facial expression.
DeleteThe upside down cross was for St. Peter and nothing to do with Andrew and his X shaped scaffold. So much for paying attention at R.E. In a Catholic School, Aldo.
ReplyDeletePassive lier and a very large ego comes to mind. Lacks creditabliity to argue facts from fictional thoughts.
DeletePassive lier and a very large ego comes to mind. Lacks creditabliity to argue facts from fictional thoughts.
DeleteLuckily I was not subjected to man made fiction...
DeleteIt appears that after almost 20 years I have conflated the two stories.
DeleteBut the saltire still represents death - and a long, lingering painful one at that. Or martyrdom, depending on how you look at it. It's not a particularly positive or happy symbol though.
Aldo
Just admit that you're wrong. Just for once.
DeleteI did - and in doing so explained the reason for the mistake. Then I went on to explain that the substantive point still stands (that the saltire represents something horrific).
DeleteDo you hold others to the same standard of honesty? Be honest now.
Aldo
I do indeed. I assume you don't like the Union Jack as it represents three horrific events?
DeleteI didn't say I didn't like the Saltire. Some guy asked what it represents and I told him - crucifixion. But as a national flag I suppose it's alright. I'm not particularly bothered with flags. That's more a nationalist thing.
DeleteAldo
Fair enough. I actually agree with you in that I'm not too bothered about flags either.
DeleteQueensferry Crossing: "A British triumph". As with all major construction projects in these islands, an awful lot of "Paddies", citizens of the Republic of Ireland were involved. Still, I suppose Ireland is one of the "British Isles".
ReplyDeleteAnd, never forget the system which made the British Empire great - the English decided what was to be done, and the Scots made certain the Irish and the Welsh did the exact opposite.
You live in a fantasy world... The days of intensive labour gangs and the pick and shovel are gone...Paddy is more sensible now ripping off the EU for billions with help from the British taxpayer.
DeleteYou seem to be suggesting that for a small independent country like Ireland,being in the EU has been beneficial for them.
DeleteNot suggesting anything but perhaps you are suggesting that sponging from others is beneficial.
DeleteHas been for England for a long time.
DeleteYour mention of England just shows your hatred towards the English fash bhoy..
DeleteWould the Queensferry crossing have been possible without the 13 billion sterling annual subsidy and civil engineering expertise drawn from all over the UK?
DeleteAldo
I assume by "subsidy" you're referring to the partial share of our own tax take that is returned to us after going to London?
Delete50 billion approx in. 65 billion approx back out. As Donald Trump might say 'a yugely great deal!'
DeleteAldo
The Nat sis have their own figures which match their ideaology and fascist anti English agenda...They are collaborators with the German French EU agenda against their own people....Just scumbag low life vomit pouring into a municipal drainpipe...
ReplyDeleteIf they have their own figures they should publish and have an army of civil servants pour over them and we can decide which is more reliable - GERS or alternate GERS.
DeleteFor the time being there is only one authoritative source of this information and I'm inclined to believe in it rather than what bloggers and conspiracy theorists tell me to think. The worst I ever heard was that the 30-40 billion quid that is spent by the UK in and on Scotland is either made up or spent on rubbish. In reality it almost entirely funds welfare and provides a hefty chunk of expenditure on healthcare - as well as covering defence and other vital services.
The nats think it gets spent on jewellery for Tory mistresses.
Aldo
I am sure that since the Nat sis moved enmass to Westminster a few mistresses and bum bhoys are lurking...I mean it is not just the domain of the other parties!...We Scots have moral standards innatt.
DeleteLondon is so big and diverse that anything you could ever want is there, on your doorstep, on tap - and if you're a backbencher in a small opposition party you don't particularly need to worry about getting recognised. Just don't make the mistake of running for high office a few years down the line (Jeffrey Archer, Mark Oaten).
DeleteAldo
Pity to see this thread monopolised by two unionist trolls.
ReplyDeleteOne whose every post of hate filled bile condemns him. The other's ill-informed, matter-of-fact denial of Scottish identity is the most pathetic example of the "cringe" I have seen in a long time.
It is just so sad.
Me Bungo Pony
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete