Team Muirhead scale the Scolympic heights - which is more than can be said for the Mirror and the Express...

First of all, huge congratulations to Eve Muirhead and her team for securing what will undoubtedly be regarded as one of the all-time great Scottish sporting achievements.  I'm sure I was one of many tens of thousands who stayed up to watch the whole game against Japan in the wee small hours.  However, if you'll forgive the shameless self-indulgence, I really must take a moment to mark the fact that the Olympic curling over the last couple of weeks has also unexpectedly provided me with a little highlight of my own blogging career.  

As long-term readers will know, I genuinely am a big curling fan.  I think it probably goes back to the fact that there seemed to be someone in the BBC Scotland hierarchy when I was growing up in the early 90s who was sympathetic towards curling and used to make generous space in the schedules for highlights packages from events like the Scottish Junior Championships.  (Those days are long gone, sadly.)  So I was exposed to the sport back then, and since around 1999 I've been religiously glued to either Eurosport or the World Curling channel on YouTube every November, March and April, when 99% of people probably don't have a clue anything is even happening.  I've been to the Scottish finals day in Perth a few times, and I remember in 2016 a very nice chap from UK Sport approached me in Braehead when I was practically the only spectator (an exaggeration, but only a slight one) for the Norway v Sweden men's semi-final in the European Championships, and said "bit of a disappointing turnout, isn't it?"  So I think it's reasonable to say I'm not exactly a fair-weather fan, unlike the jingoistic Brit journalists who jump on the curling bandwagon for a couple of days every four years and then immediately forget the sport even exists.

Yes, Douglas Dickie of the Mirror, and yes, David Walker of the Daily Express, I'm looking at you.  Thanks to James Sellars on Twitter, I've only just found out that my occasional wind-up tweets about "Scottish and European curling" and "Scolympic silver medals" have triggered no fewer than two barking mad articles in national newspaper websites - one in the Mirror yesterday entitled 'Scottish nationalists hijack Team GB curling silver medal for divisive agenda', (which cluelessly uses a photo of David Murdoch's silver medal-winning team from eight years ago!) and one in the Express way back on 8th February entitled 'Nationalist blogger slammed for 'hate-filled' anti-British comment on the Winter Olympics', with the sub-heading 'James Kelly, who is a pro-independence blogger and says he is an elected member of Alba's National Executive Committee, was criticised for his tweet about curling'.  Even better, the Express went to all the trouble of getting a Scottish Conservative spokesperson to make an official comment about my tweet.

Words fail me.  I've finally made the big time now, and it's all thanks to the Roarin' Game.  It's  amazing, isn't it?  Think of all the deadly serious topics I've covered at length on this blog over the years, from gun control to the death penalty, from Covid to the destruction of devolution.  Not even the remotest flicker of interest from the mainstream media.  But a bit of throwaway banter on Twitter about the indisputable fact that the "British curling team" are all Scottish, and it's like the end of civilisation as we know it.

One day, someone will write a book about the fascinating psychological phenomenon of a minority winter sport proving to be more "triggering" for the Brit Nat hordes than practically any other subject I can think of.  The Express noted that I was heavily criticised for my tweet, which is perfectly true, but what they didn't bother mentioning is that almost all of the criticisms came from borderline-fascists, many of whom seemed to think I couldn't be Scottish because I have an Irish surname.  "Is dat royt, James?" was a particular highlight.  Blair McDougall must be so proud.

I've learned something valuable over the last couple of weeks. If you want to *really trigger* the Brit Nats, you don't have to say 'It's Scotland's Oil' or even 'the Pentland Firth is the Saudi Arabia of tidal power'.

You just have to point out the curlers are Scottish.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 19, 2022

*  *  *

Please bear with me as I continue promoting Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive.  Opinion polls are so expensive that since I started commissioning them, fundraising has almost become like painting the Forth Bridge.  If you'd like to help this blog continue for another year, or to help us commission another full-scale poll like the six we've commissioned over the last two years, here are the various options for donating...

Via the new Scot Goes Pop general fundraiser for 2022.

Via the Scot Goes Pop polling fundraiser for 2021-22, which I set up in the autumn and is part-funded.

If you prefer to donate directly, that can be done via Paypal or bank transfer:  

My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Or email me for my bank details.  (My contact email address is different from my Paypal address, and can be found in the sidebar of the desktop version of the site, or on my Twitter profile.) 

I wouldn't have thought this was possible, but I've just lost even more respect for Craig Reedie

There's been a perception for quite some time that, in broad brush terms, and perhaps because of the personality traits that drive people to go down a certain path in life, creative types such as artists, writers and musicians are voting Yes, and elite sportspeople are more inclined to vote No.  The most useful thing about John Beattie's documentary on the relationship between sport and politics is that it challenged that perception, and reminded us that there are a great many sportspeople out there who have already firmly nailed their colours to the Yes mast, including household names such as Alex Arthur.

For the most part, it was an admirably even-handed programme, which was perhaps surprising given the extent to which it entered into "a personal view by John Beattie" territory.  But there was just one particular bit that left me absolutely fuming, and that was when the factual basis of Craig "Apolitical" Reedie's drivel about Scotland having no chance of entering a team to the Rio Olympics went unchallenged.  Indeed, it was worse than unchallenged, because Beattie went on to ask judo star Connie Ramsay if she would still support independence even if it meant passing up the chance to compete at the Olympics (answer : yes, she would).

The reality is that, even in the highly unlikely event that it did not prove logistically possible to enter a Scottish team for 2016, the top Scottish athletes would not miss out.  They would be able to take part via one of two methods, both of which have clear precedents in recent Olympic history -

1) Team GB, possibly under a different name, would continue on a transitional basis for one more Games.  The precedent for this is the 'Unified Team', which represented twelve of the fifteen ex-Soviet republics at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.  Yes, the BOA could theoretically veto Scottish involvement, but does anyone seriously think that such a glory-seeking organisation would turn down the chance to boost their team's medal haul?

2) The best Scottish athletes would compete outside any formal team as 'Independent Olympic Athletes'.  There are several precedents for this, most recently London 2012, when athletes from the new state of South Sudan and the freshly-dissolved territory of the Netherlands Antilles competed as independents.

But this is all ridiculously hypothetical, because whatever fairy-tale Reedie tries to weave, the overwhelming likelihood is that a Scottish team would go to Rio.  Unlike the collapse of the Soviet Union in the second half of 1991, independence will not be a bolt from the blue that nobody sees coming until just a few months before the Games - there will be lots of time to put arrangements in place.  It's worth remembering that international recognition of the independence of the three Baltic states was deemed utterly unthinkable until the Soviet coup of August 1991, and yet less than a year later all three countries were represented in Barcelona - they didn't even need to take part in the Unified Team on a transitional basis.

So much for Reedie's transparently agenda-driven 'predictions'.  But just when you thought the man couldn't sink any lower, he made what I can only describe as an utterly shameful comment.

John Beattie : So in a word, do you think Scotland, should there be a Yes vote, would have a team in 2016?

Craig Reedie : No, I think they would miss on the basis of adhering to the Olympic rules, and because simply I think they'd be timed out.

John Beattie : As a Scot, though, would you not fight very hard to get them in?

Craig Reedie : No, I wouldn't, because I was proud to be President, or Chairman, of the British Olympic Association, and I think the elite athletes from Scotland have been served very well by membership of Team GB.

Hang on, hang on.  That is a perfectly legitimate argument to deploy before the referendum in an attempt to persuade people to vote No.  But surely after the referendum, once there's nothing anyone can do to change the outcome, we all revert to being on the same side - we're all part of Team Scotland, and we'll all do whatever we can to make sure the nation's interests are protected and advanced.

Apparently not.  Apparently Reedie will take revenge on his own country if it makes the 'wrong' choice.  Let me make clear that I have absolutely no time for people who use the word 'traitor' about opponents of independence, but it's very, very hard to see Reedie's petty and vindictive stance as being anything other than a betrayal of this country's elite athletes, and indeed of the sport-loving population at large.

What to do if an English person phones you to beg Scotland not to "leave" : your cut-out-and-keep guide

1) Gently point out that Scotland isn't "going" anywhere, because it will retain the exact same geographical position after independence, and will remain firmly part of an island and cultural entity called Great Britain (barring the last-minute invention of that giant chainsaw).

2) If you form a suspicion that the person down the line is labouring under the "Madeley Misapprehension" that support for Scottish self-government must for some unspecified reason be motivated by anti-English sentiment, point them in the direction of this week's YouGov poll, showing that 65% of people currently planning to vote for independence have either a positive or neutral perception of England as a country.  If your caller still refuses to accept that fairer and more equal structures of governance on these islands will be perfectly compatible with excellent (and indeed improved) neighbourly relations between Scotland and England, ask them to explain their reasoning, and then judge for yourself whether the response you receive has been properly thought through.

3) Politely seek to ascertain whether the caller is motivated by admiration for David Cameron and/or political support for the Conservative party.  If the answer is 'yes', tactfully explain that while you respect their political convictions, such views are bound to detract from the relevance of any anti-independence arguments they might put forward, given that so many Scots primarily view the referendum as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that this country is never again ruled by a hostile Tory government that it did not vote for.

4) If the caller is unknown to you and proves evasive on the above point, continue to politely but persistently probe them on their personal and political background.  If their responses remain vague, caution them that you strongly suspect that their motivation for making the call is loyalty to a London political party rather than a spontaneous need to declare their love for "the greatest political union in the history of the known universe", and that their anti-independence points are bound to be judged in that light.

5) If they turn out to be a Labour rather than Tory activist and they try the silly "please don't abandon England to the Tories" line on you, courteously explain to them that Scottish votes have only changed the outcomes of two general elections since the Second World War - in 1964 and 1974.  You might ruefully point out in passing that our impact on the 1974 outcome was arguably undesirable in any case, because if Ted Heath had remained Prime Minister it's highly unlikely that Mrs Thatcher would have succeeded him, and the Tories would therefore have remained a much more moderate party.  Explain that the Left can only really hope to flourish in England when it is seen as a comprehensively English movement, rather than one that has much of its roots in Scotland and Wales.  Reassure them that independence will be a win/win outcome for the Left on both sides of the Tweed, with the near-certainty of no more Tory governments in Scotland, and a golden opportunity for a renaissance in the fortunes of English progressivism.  Conclude by observing that there's certainly no point in both countries continuing to suffer together under Tory rule, as has been the norm for as long as anyone can remember.

6) If you become convinced that the caller is a London party activist cynically posing as a 'concerned member of the public', and if you're blessed with plentiful reserves of patience, you could do a lot worse than to simply keep them talking for hours on end, in whichever way you see fit.  This will reduce the number of nuisance phone calls that other people receive.

7)  Ask the caller if he/she supports the plans of all three London parties to abolish the Barnett Formula after the referendum, thus dramatically reducing the level of public spending in Scotland.  In the unlikely event that they honestly and directly say 'yes', ask if they would support Scotland being granted full fiscal autonomy as a fair replacement for the current Barnett arrangements.  If the answer to that question is an honest 'no', tell them that they have your respect, but they do not have your vote.

8) If the caller "loves Scotland" enough to accept that either the Barnett Formula must be maintained or that full fiscal autonomy must be granted, ask them to immediately write to their MP with a plea to that effect, and to send you a copy of the letter and of any reply that is received.

9) If they decline to express any opinion on the future of the Barnett Formula or full fiscal autonomy, don't allow yourself to be fobbed off with the line that "these are matters that can be decided later" or "that isn't really what this referendum is about".  Remind them that anti-independence campaigners have based much of their case on predictions of economic doom and gloom, so it won't wash for them to now turn around and say "forget about your financial future, just think of the LURVE".

10) Ask the caller if their "love" for Scotland extends as far as a willingness to devolve sufficient powers for us to be insulated from Tory rule from within the United Kingdom, thus rendering independence somewhat less necessary.  Get them to specify what powers they think should be devolved and by what date.  Ask them to immediately send a plea to that effect to their MP, and to send you a copy of the letter and of any reply that is received.

11) If they're honest enough to admit that they don't support substantial further devolution to Scotland, and invite us to think of Tory rule that we didn't vote for as an unavoidable price to pay for London's "love", then tell them that they have your respect, but they do not have your vote.

12) Ask them if their "love" for Scotland extends as far as giving us a veto on whether nuclear weapons should continue to be stationed on our shores, and potentially putting up with Trident in their own backyards instead (if they can't accept that it should be scrapped outright).  If the answer is 'yes', ask them to immediately send a plea to that effect to their MP, and to send you a copy of the letter and of any reply that is received.  If, on the other hand, they're honest enough to say that they think unwanted weapons of mass destruction on our shores should be accepted as a price worth paying for London's "love", then tell them that they have your respect, but they do not have your vote.

13) If they pray in aid "that Team GB feeling", point out that it is quite normal for independent countries around the world to support the athletes of neighbouring nations at the Olympic Games, and that it is therefore highly likely that any Scot who currently takes pleasure in the achievements of Mo Farah or Jessica Ennis will continue to do so after independence.  It goes without saying that we will continue to take just as much pride in the likes of Andy Murray and Kim Little once they are competing for Team Scotland rather than Team GB.  What will disappear, however, is the mild fascism of the BOA that has resulted in the banning of Scottish flags at the Olympics, and the persecution of athletes such as Little who prefer not to sing a national anthem that they personally regard as alien.  Ask the caller whether they regard the current situation as consistent with the claim that Scotland will enjoy "the best of both worlds" by rejecting independence.  If they agree that it is not, ask them if they would be prepared to immediately write to the BOA demanding an end to the banning of Scottish flags, and to send you a copy of the letter and any response they receive.

14) If the caller keeps on telling you how much they "love Scotland", struggle against the temptation to ask if they agree with the chap on Channel 4 News who said that he wants Scotland to "stay" because it's the "most beautiful part of England".  Instead, ask whether they accept that the UK government's threats to act vindictively against us if we become independent (for instance by trying to have us thrown out of the EU or attempting to deny us access to the shared asset of sterling) are incompatible with claims of tender feelings for us as a nation.  If they do accept that, ask them to immediately write to Downing Street urging the Prime Minister to call a halt to these threats.  Ask them to send you a copy of the letter and any response that is received.

15) You might also care to add that "true love isn't possessive".

England Ashes debacle - another blow for McDougall?

Believe it or not, I do genuinely have a passing interest in cricket, so I decided to have a little peek at the final Ashes test on Sky.  As I write this, England have collapsed to 14-3, and doubtless it will be 17-7 by the time I finish.  Now obviously this is a national sporting tragedy, but does it have wider ramifications?  The headline on this post was intended as a joke, but if our friends in the London media truly believe that absolutely everything that happened during the London Olympics was a "disaster for Alex Salmond" (another one?!), that Andy Murray winning Wimbledon was a "good day for the union" (surely every day is a good day for the union?), and that Murray's SPOTY triumph was somehow "good for the No campaign" (yes, Mike "can't be arsed" Smithson really did say that), then I'm afraid the logic is inescapable.  According to media mythology, the recent success of the England cricket team is supposed to be one of the sporting factors that have bound the UK together, in spite of the minor detail that Scotland hasn't actually been represented by that team since 1992 (before then the cricket authorities were arrogant enough to use the name 'England' for a team representing the whole of Great Britain).  So, unavoidably, as the England team are now toiling badly and heading for a 5-0 drubbing by the Aussies, it must be considered something of a calamity for Blair McDougall and the No camp.

If that claim strikes you as being a tad silly, then it probably says something rather profound about the unionist media's past attempts to exploit our athletes' sporting successes.  But stand by for more of the same if Eve Muirhead and co strike gold in Sochi on February 21st.  After all, there isn't a Scot alive who wouldn't much prefer that an all-Scottish team's Olympic triumph be placed in the "Great Britain" column, is there?  It's rather like the cricket philosophy of old, but inverted.

YouGov poll : Scots reject No campaign's wish for key powers to remain at Westminster

YouGov have released the details of an SNP-commissioned poll that primarily inquired into where people think that key decision-making powers should lie.

Which government do you think should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland, including tax revenues from oil and gas?

The Scottish Government 52%
The UK Government 35%

Which government do you think would be best at deciding welfare and pensions policy for Scotland?

The Scottish Government 53%
The UK Government 34%

Which government do you think would be best at representing Scotland and Scottish interests in the European Union?

The Scottish Government 50%
The UK Government 39%

The point being of course that if voters feel that all these things should be controlled by the Scottish Government, it would be a touch odd to vote No to independence and ensure that every single one of them remains controlled by London. But perhaps there is a logically consistent way in which people who hold these views could still vote No? The only thing I can think of is that they might feel so strongly that Scotland is too wee and too stupid to control its own defence and non-EU foreign policies that everything else just pales into insignificance. But that seems unlikely. It can't possibly be that they feel they will be economically worse off under independence, because presumably the desire for Scottish control over tax, spending and welfare implies that they think a Scottish government will take those decisions more wisely. That's a pretty big consideration by any standards.

So while there's an outside chance that defence and non-EU foreign affairs may be what is swinging the balance for some, there comes a point where the Yes campaign are entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that if you actually mean what you say about wanting Scotland to control tax and spending, oil and gas revenues, welfare and pensions, and its own EU representation, it's probably best not to vote No and prevent all those things from happening.

The poll also asked whether David Cameron should reverse his apparent decision to run away from a televised debate on independence with Alex Salmond...

First Minister Alex Salmond has called for a head-to-head television debate with the Prime Minister David Cameron during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence, but it has been reported that Mr Cameron will refuse to take part in such a debate. Do you think that David Cameron should or should not take part in a TV debate with Alex Salmond?

Should take part 67%
Should not take part 19%

* * *

Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and alternate Lauren Gray for winning the world curling championship for Scotland yesterday, after an incredibly tight game against Sweden that was decided by the final stone. I seem to recall that when Hammy McMillan's rink won the world men's curling championship in 1999, and again when Jackie Lockhart's rink won the 2002 women's title, BBC Scotland hurriedly snapped up a highlights package from Canadian television. It would be nice if they could do so again this time and bring the event to a wider audience, because after all Scotland don't become world champions in team sports every day of the week. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, the entire final is currently available to watch for free at the TSN website. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to scroll through to the end to see the Olympic-style medal ceremony, complete with the raising of flags and Flower of Scotland being played in the team's honour. Best enjoy that spectacle while we can, because of course if Muirhead and co win Olympic gold in Sochi next year (as they will presumably now be slight favourites to do), it'll be the Union Jack and God Save the Queen!

Mind you, if that does happen it might just turn out to be the last Olympic gold for Great Britain ever, in any sport. Now there's a tantalising thought...

* * *

Yesterday was something of a landmark for this blog, as it received its second-highest number of visitors in its five-year history. (The outright highest number occurred on a freakish day in the spring of 2011 when one of my posts went viral on Twitter.) Thanks to everyone for dropping by on a very cold Sunday!

Tony Parsons closes in on gold in the hypocrisy and humbug events

I've never previously felt moved to leave a comment on the Daily Record website, but then I hadn't seen an example of jingoistic hypocrisy quite like this before -

"This was a rotten fortnight to be a bigot. This was when the barriers that divide us came crashing down.

English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish fought side by side. The old joke about Andy Murray – British when he wins, Scottish when he loses – got left out for the binmen. At the sight of all those Union flags, the SNP’s Alex Salmond no longer looked like the cat who got the cream...

For two weeks we were all British, laughing and crying together...

The British ran an Empire that covered the world for three centuries – why did we doubt we could run a sporting event for two weeks?...

And as they united the nation in the way that we have not been united since 1945, these Olympics revealed the true nature of our people.

All of our people...

You can love your own country without hating somebody else’s."

This was my reply :

The part of this article I find most confusing is the phrase "by Tony Parsons". Presumably this will be the same Tony Parsons who disgraced himself a few years back by penning a ranting article that branded Andy Murray an anti-English bigot, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever other than a baseless rumour that Murray wanted the English football team to lose (which would scarcely have been a sign of bigotry even if it had been true). Oh, but wait, perhaps that vile article was one of the "jokes" Tony refers to here? Must be.

As far as this piece touches on Scotland, the implicit message seems to be "Scottishness = bigotry, Britishness = maturity".

Grow up, Tony. I say that for your own sake, otherwise you might end up feeling slightly queasy at the sight of all those saltires at the Commonwealth Games in two years' time, just weeks before the independence referendum takes place.

As for the point about Alex Salmond, you may not have noticed this from your vantage point in London, but he does indeed still look like the cat that got the cream, mainly because the unprecedented success of Scottish Olympic athletes has been a source of immense pleasure and pride for all Scots, unionist and nationalist alike. But I can understand how that might seem a touch baffling to a divisive Brit Nat zealot such as yourself.

In 1988, East Germany went out on a high in their last-ever appearance at a Summer Olympics. Can Team GB do the same?

As we enter the final weekend of the Games, it already looks all but certain that Great Britain will finish third in the medal table on the most popular counting method. On the measure preferred by the North American media (total number of medals regardless of colour), GB have now slipped behind Russia, but fourth place would still represent an outstanding achievement. And of course one thing that is already absolutely guaranteed is that GB will have their best medal haul since London 1908, easily outstripping the team's lacklustre performance when the Games were most recently held on home soil in 1948. Undoubtedly, the gold rush has captured the imaginations of many, and led to an upsurge in the type of British/English/can't-quite-tell-the-difference-between-the-two nationalism that we might have imagined had ended with Euro '96, when England football supporters finally noticed that the Union Jack wasn't their most obvious choice of flag.

There is, however, a 'but'. We need turn the clock back less than a quarter of a century for a reminder that the apparent rude health of a country's Olympic team is no guide at all to the health of the country itself. In Seoul '88, the top two places in the medal table were occupied by countries that wouldn't even exist by the time Barcelona came round four years later. In particular, the East German team marked their swansong with their best ever performance at a Summer Games - just one year before the fall of the communist regime.

Few in eastern Germany seriously regret the demise of their former Olympic team. Just as people in Scotland generally feel Scottish more than British, people in eastern Germany feel German more than 'Ossi'. And of course, the sporting success enjoyed by the former communist state was achieved by thoroughly dubious means. All the same, the memories of political interference in sport and suspicions of widespread doping can't entirely dispel the residual affection felt by some for the defunct, all-conquering team. By the same token, the BOA's disgraceful bullying of Scottish and Welsh athletes who want to express a degree of national identity, and their haughty disdain for the rights and privileges of Scottish sports authorities, can't wholly tarnish the affection many Scots have felt for Team GB over the years. However unsatisfactory the setup, they've been our only representatives, and that counts for something. So in the case of both East Germany and Great Britain, it's perhaps rather fitting that the team should bid farewell to the Olympics on a high.

Thanks for the ride, guys - but now it's time for an exciting new Olympic chapter to unfold, as Team Scotland looks ahead to its potential debut in Rio.

* * *

We've heard a great deal over the last couple of weeks about how 'success' is a far more important consideration at the Olympics than the trifling matter of Scottish national identity. Imagine my bafflement, therefore, to encounter some inexplicable resistance among the ranks of PB Tories to the idea that success is also more important than British national identity, as I floated my bold - and frankly thrilling - plan for Team GB to dissolve itself into a world-beating Team EU in all future Olympic Games. A few intriguing objections emerged...

Team EU would be 'less than the sum of its parts'.

Well, quite. The Bahamas (an independent country with a population less than a tenth as large as Scotland's) defeated the mighty USA in the 4x400m relay last night. I doubt if the first thought of most in Nassau was "what we really need to do now is subsume ourselves into a greater whole", but you never know, I suppose.

'I don't see how adding Europeans would have helped the GB cycling team.'

Absolutely. Success in swimming, badminton, basketball, hockey, taekwondo, athletics, beach volleyball, archery, judo, gymnastics and table tennis is all totally irrelevant. As long as there's just one sport in which the GB squad can't be improved by the addition of Europeans, the argument for a Team EU is killed stone-dead. That's a scientific fact. Intriguingly, this also means that the Scottish domination of the GB curling squad has killed the argument for a Team GB at the Olympics stone-dead. Who'd have thunk it?

'Imagine the mayhem on the selection committees!'

Oh, I think this 'problem' is vastly overstated. The English Football Association would happily give way to their betters in the EU Olympic Association, and wouldn't worry their pretty heads about the consequences for their national team's participation in major events such as the World Cup. After all, everyone knows that the average English football supporter would much rather see one or two English players win the World Cup as part of Team EU than see a sub-standard England team merely reach the quarter-finals.

'Far fewer British athletes would have the chance to compete at the Olympics.'

Hmmm. This is a particularly surprising objection, because it seems to imply that success in winning medals is not, after all, the primary consideration, and that the opportunity for the greatest number of athletes to compete is what we should be chasing instead. This principle would of course mean that a Team Scotland is by definition preferable to Team GB, but I'm sure I must be missing something.

Scotland salutes you again, Andy - this time as the champion

I've been trying to assess where Andy Murray stands now, in the wake of his sensational win over Roger Federer to secure Olympic gold. While I was actually watching the match, it seemed obvious that he was in the process of achieving something that was at least the equivalent of that elusive Grand Slam title, and yet somehow the elation doesn't seem quite as overwhelming as it would undoubtedly have been had he won Wimbledon last month. Perhaps that's simply because there are so many other events to distract us, but I still have a feeling that in a month's time we'll be back to asking "can he win his first Grand Slam?". However, regardless of what happens in the future, at least there's no longer any way that Murray's career is going to be looked back on as a failure, and that must be a huge weight off his mind. And the tennis event at the Olympics has also come of age over the last week - it's travelled a long way since the Seoul and Barcelona Games when it was regarded as a fairly pointless sideshow that half of the top players didn't even bother turning up for.

There's nothing more entertaining at moments of Scolympian triumph than observing the eager efforts of Political Betting's Tory contingent to Britify the gold medallist in question. In case you missed the fun, it went something like this -

He's touched the Union Jack! Astonishing! Look at the flag! Look at Murray! You see? No distance at all between the two! The Murray shoulder is in ACTUAL CONTACT with OUR flag! He's one of us!

He's singing the anthem! Oh my God! He's actually singing OUR anthem! OK, he's sort of mumbling it...but that'll do! He's one of us! No doubt about it!

He even knows the WORDS to the anthem! Well, he knows some of the words, anyway. At least seven of them. But nobody else knows the words to the anthem either, so that means...he's one of us! Irrefutable proof!

And he hasn't produced a claymore, started screaming "Death to the English" and attacked the Duchess of Cambridge! That's what we all expected him to do...but he hasn't! Incredible! True Brit!

Gosh, how that boy has MATURED...

For my own part, I don't possess the mind-reading talents of PB Tories, and I wouldn't presume for a moment to know what Andy Murray's views on the constitutional future of Scotland are - if, indeed, he has any such views at all. But what does seem reasonably likely is that he would be just as proud to compete for a Team Scotland at the Olympics, if such a thing came into existence. And what a supremely proud moment it would be for this entire country if Murray, as defending Olympic champion, was to carry the saltire into the stadium in Rio for its debut appearance at an opening ceremony in four years' time.

That can happen, if we make it happen. It's in our own hands.

Meet the man who thinks that wanting Scotland to have its own Olympic team makes you a racist

It's been quite a while since I last posted an epic exchange from Political Betting, but I'm veritably spoiled for choice this weekend. I could go with the hysterical reaction to my suggestion last night that it was rather fitting that the BOA's arrogance over the GB football teams had ended in failure, with the men's team following the women's team in being eliminated at the quarter-final stage. This was the typically restrained verdict on me from Sean Thomas, aka "best-selling international thriller writer" Tom Knox (nope, me neither) -

"He wants to break up my beloved country. And he's a liar. And he's not even British.

F*** him and the mangy, spavined, Irish-American-Quebecois horse he rode in on...

Nonetheless he wants to dismember my country.

In other, less tolerant nations he would be electrocuted as a traitor. Not least because his political "beliefs" so obviously spring from his Quebecois-Irish background, and have FK all to do with any spurious "Scottishness".

That said, I am glad we are peaceable and democratic, and I am glad he is allowed to express his vile, pettifogging and interminable lies without his scrotum being attached to electrodes - but I reserve the right to hurl abuse at him."

But it was an exchange earlier in the day, also on an Olympic theme, that really took my breath away. The fact that even one or two of the Tory usual suspects thought that Antifrank had gone too far tells its own story...

Antifrank : The SNP do need to decide how they wish to react to the three (so far) gold medals that Team GB has won with hybrid English/Scottish teams. Even a casual viewer might decide that the two countries are "better together" in this respect at least.

Me : No, that depends on the casual viewer's preconceptions. Many will be thinking "we could have had a Scottish bronze here, if the Scottish gold medallist had teamed up with another half-decent Scottish athlete".

Antifrank : I refer you to my first comment. That you would prefer an inferior but racially pure team is very revealing.

Me : That is a deeply offensive lie, utterly unworthy of you as a serious poster, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

Antifrank : I infer from your last post that you prefer to see Scots only bronzes to mixed English/Scots golds. What's your beef?

Me : Do you actually understand what the term "racially pure" means?

Antifrank : Do you actually understand the avatism that the SNP routinely flirts with?

Me : This is utterly pathetic. Stop trying to deflect, and address the point. Do you accept that I do not want a "racially pure" national team, or don't you?

Antifrank : Would you prefer a pure Scots team of inferior quality or a mixed English/Scots/Welsh/Irish Team GB?

Me : I really thought you were better than this, Antifrank. You're now resorting to sophistry, and you know it. "Racially pure" means ethnically pure. You've now deleted the word "racially" to lend creative ambiguity to the meaning.

Won't wash. SNP-style Scottish nationalism is civic nationalism - all ethnicities, all creeds.

Please withdraw your earlier comment.

Antifrank : Stop playing with primary school nationalism. Civic nationalism would celebrate success. You have made it clear that nationalism outranks performance in your eyes. I think you need a major rethink of your priorities.

Me : I'm sorry, mate, but all the bluster in the world isn't going to get you off the hook here.

Your claim was that I want a "racially pure" national team. Do you now accept that you were wrong? It's a very simple question, and I await your answer.

Antifrank : What upsets you about having English team members alongside Scots, if not their race?

Me : It does not upset me. I thoroughly welcome it. I look forward to people of English origin competing for an independent Scottish Olympic team, just as they do at present for the Scottish Commonwealth Games team.

Now that your absurd misapprehension (more like unthinking prejudice, frankly) has been corrected, will you withdraw your earlier comment? Yes, or no?

Antifrank : Your position is now hopelessly confused. You seem to be complaining about the current arrangement under which we can have mixed nationality teams, while wanting pure Scottish teams that do worse than mixed nationality teams. Make your mind up!

Me : What in God's name are you talking about, man? Do you honestly believe that what you've just said makes any sense, or is this the most desperate attempt at deflection yet?

Do you, or do you not, accept that I do not want a "racially pure" national team?

Corporeal : Antifrank, nationality is different to race.

Surely you comprehend that?

Antifrank : (to Corporeal) In the context of Scottish athletics, show me how the difference is meaningful. I doubt the average SNP headbanger is imagining a Scottish Usain Bolt lookalike when they talk of a Scots only team. More likely something off the back of a porridge oats box.

(to me) Given that you have stated contradictory positions on this thread alone, I'm no longer sure what you want. Your main objection to the current set-up if your last post is to be believed is to the name Team GB.

Me : "In the context of Scottish athletics, show me how the difference is meaningful."

I believe the name you're searching for is Ifeoma Dieke. And if you define people of English origin as being of a different race, it makes a huge difference, because a significant minority of the Scottish population is of English origin.

"I doubt the average SNP headbanger is imagining a Scottish Usain Bolt lookalike when they talk of a Scots only team. More likely something off the back of a porridge oats box."

Congratulations. You've just lost all credibility when talking about Scottish politics in the future. You evidently don't know the first thing about the SNP - the first political party to be represented by an ethnic minority MSP.

"Given that you have stated contradictory positions on this thread alone, I'm no longer sure what you want."

What I want is remarkably simple - I want you to withdraw your deeply offensive and demonstrably untrue earlier comment.

If you think I've contradicted myself (hint : I haven't) please set out the nature of the contradiction in vaguely comprehensible language, and I'll address the point.

"Your main objection to the current set-up if your last post is to be believed is to the name Team GB."

You're becoming ever more bafflingly absurd by the minute. Why would a Scottish national team be called "Team GB? If that really was my only objection, it would be a rather superfluous one.

Antifrank : Reconcile

1) " "Would you prefer a Team Scotland bronze over the Team GB gold?"
Yes, of course."
with
2) " "What upsets you about having English team members alongside Scots, if not their race?"
It does not upset me. I thoroughly welcome it."
We have that in Team GB already. So I conclude that you object (superfluously as you say) to the name.

But on the assumption that you are going to contort in some way to stick by statement 1, you still have the basic problem that you prefer purity over success. So I see nothing to apologise about.

Me : Sigh. OK, I will try to make this astonishingly simple principle even simpler for you.

a) Team GB as presently constituted is a multi-ethnic team representing the territory of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

b) Team Scotland after independence will be a multi-ethnic team representing the territory of Scotland.

I want b) not a). That is, as you will note, rather more fundamental than a "name change".

Now will you please withdraw your offensive earlier comment? If not, why not?

Antifrank : You have confirmed that you prefer purity over success. What is there to apologise for?

And you are simply wrong. What you want is no more fundamental than a name change. If a team comprising Smith and McDonald compete for Team GB or Scotland, what difference does it make apart from satisfying small closed minds in either case?

Me : "What is there to apologise for?"

Because you falsely accused me of racism, and that's offensive.

I used to have a great deal of respect for you, Antifrank, but the way you've wriggled this afternoon...well, others can make their own minds up.

Antifrank : We can agree on "purity obsessive" then.

Me : I'm afraid we don't agree on anything. Your claim that there would be no difference between Team Scotland and Team GB other than a name change is literally the most risible thing I've ever read on PB - and that's quite an accolade.

Do you actually believe this guff?

Antifrank : That you have no answer to my example other than bluster shows that I am right.

Me : Antifrank, pomposity and self-satisfaction isn't going to get you off the hook either.

What "example" do you want me to answer? I'm extremely eager to do so, I can assure you. I'm looking forward to you admitting you were wrong.

Antifrank : There are ten uses on this thread of the words "racist" or "racism". These are the first two occasions on which I have used either. Is the SNP's position on this issue connected to race, however? Of course it is. What beast do they think they're poking when they prod their stick at this?

Me : "There are ten uses on this thread of the words "racist" or "racism". These are the first two occasions on which I have used either."

But this is not the first time I've used the phrase "utterly pathetic". How exactly do you think you can say someone wants "racial purity" without believing they are a racist?

"Is the SNP's position on this issue connected to race, however? Of course it is."

That is another lie. If you think you can justify it (hint : you can't) let's see some hard evidence. I can claim Sweden has a tropical climate until I'm blue in the face, but it doesn't make it true.

"What beast do they think they're poking when they prod their stick at this?"

I look forward to the translation of yet another incomprehensible comment.

Antifrank : No need to apologise: I have, of course, been highly inflammatory on this thread. Some of my words have been deliberately written to be misread, though the correct meaning has always been there for those that take the time to read them.

Me : I'm trying very, very hard not to laugh.

"And for my final trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will pretend that my foot-in-mouth syndrome was a cunning plan right from the start."

Don't give up the day job.

Antifrank : But James, everything I wrote is true. You would prefer a Scottish team that was racially pure to a successful Team GB team. You've made that quite clear.

Me : Another deeply offensive lie. Please link to where "I made that clear". Please do so now.

Antifrank : It's your chance to disavow it then.

Would you prefer either:

1) Scottish team, comprising McDonald & McCloud, both from Aberdeenshire farming stock of impeccable racial purity and getting a bronze medal for the Scottish team or

2) McDonald & Smith, the latter from Suffolk farming stock of equal English racial purity and getting a gold medal for Team GB?

Me : Why should I give a monkey's whether they're "of impeccable racial purity" or not? Have you actually been listening to a word that I (or Carlotta Vance for that matter) have been saying this afternoon?

Antifrank : Have you actually read what I have written (as opposed to superimposing your own concerns) at any point this afternoon?

Me : Unfortunately for both of us, the answer is yes. This was your original claim -

"you would prefer an inferior but racially pure team"

That was an offensive lie when I first read it, it is an offensive lie now. It will remain an offensive lie on every subsequent reading. Withdraw it, please.

Antifrank : Let's go back to my example. Are you saying that you would in fact prefer option 2? It goes against several of your posts on this thread.

Me : No, I would not prefer Option 2. I would refuse to choose either option because they both imply that racial purity was a factor in the selection of the teams. That goes against everything I stand for.

Now will you withdraw your claim, please? If not, why not?

Antifrank : No, I stand by my claim that you would prefer option 1, based on the evidence of your responses on this thread. (The racial purity, I acknowledge, is something that you vehemently deny plays part of your decision-making process, but you have confirmed repeatedly your desire to see Scottish-only teams performing, even if mixed Team GB teams would do better.) Given that, I have nothing to withdraw.

My point stands. Narrow nationalism is more important to you than success. That is completely wrongheaded.

Me : As Andy Marr might put it, you look like a smaller man today, Antifrank. You've been given umpteen opportunities to extricate yourself from the claim of racism - I would have happily accepted an apology or withdrawal, but instead you prefer to be an offensive buffoon.

Suit yourself. I'm off to watch the tennis.

In actual fact, it trundled on for quite a bit longer than that, but it was just going round in circles by that point, so I won't bore you with the rest. However, there was one gloriously ironic bit when he refused to answer my question as to whether he would rather be represented by a Team GB than by a Team Europe, and if that didn't imply that he preferred "narrow nationalism to success". I then asked him if according to the precedent he had set, I was now entitled to "infer from his previous responses" that his answer was indeed Team GB. He loftily replied that "this is simply something I don't care about".

Righty-ho...

Some more Olympic photos

First of all, congratulations to Andy Murray on reaching his second 'Wimbledon final' in the space of a month.  It's been said that Bradley Wiggins is already a shoo-in for Sports Personality of the Year, and that may well be true, but a Murray gold might yet make things interesting in December.

Secondly, commiserations to the badminton players who were disqualified for deliberately trying to lose their matches.  I for one don't think they did anything wrong.  'Cheating' in my book is drug-taking, bribing officials, tampering with your opponents' food, etc, etc.  There's a fundamental difference between cheating and tactical astuteness.  An obvious comparison can be made with another Olympic sport, curling, in which an accepted and celebrated part of tactical play is that you generally don't attempt to score at all unless you can score more than one, in order to retain last stone advantage.  Pretty much ever curler on the planet would be serving a lifetime ban if the 'not giving of your best efforts' principle had been literally applied to their own sport.

Meanwhile, I've been back to Hampden twice more for the Olympic football - last Saturday for two women's first round matches, and yesterday for the women's quarter-final between Sweden and France, which was the last game in the event to be played in Glasgow.  My abiding memory from last Saturday will be of standing near to the pitch in the run-up to the North Korea v France match, as the rain lashed down rather majestically, and as Set Fire to the Rain by Adele blared out from the loudspeakers.  I briefly made eye contact with a woman who may have been the North Korean assistant coach, and I kept thinking how odd it was to be so close to some real-life North Koreans - they're so rarely allowed to travel, after all.

As for yesterday, two highlights (other than the game itself!) stood out.  The first was the wee girl who spotted that most of the players from one team (Sweden) had blonde hair and that most of the players from the other team (France) had dark hair, and quickly decided that she wanted the blondes to win.  You see, Duncan?  The Olympics isn't about nations, it's about hair colour and nout else.  Then, on the way back to the train station, I could have sworn that I'd got myself stuck behind la famille Baker.  A boy asked his dad if it would be OK to kill an intruder with a bow and arrow, to which the dad basically replied by telling him not to be so silly - simply stabbing the guy with the arrow would get the job done far more efficiently.  The conversation took an even more educational turn as I discovered that skeletal remains from medieval societies have demonstrated that it is highly inadvisable to encourage young children to take up archery, in case one of their arms ends up being overdeveloped in comparison to the other.  You learn something new every day.

As this will be my last batch of Olympic photos, I might as well chuck in a couple of 'bonuses' (I use the word in the loosest sense).  I took some pictures of the Olympic torch relay as it passed through Glasgow and Edinburgh back in June, but I was too embarrassed to post them at the time because, as you'll see, the one thing I seemed utterly incapable of getting a clear picture of was the torch itself!  It went past too quickly in Glasgow, and in Edinburgh the batteries in my camera ran out at the crucial moment.  However, you can just about spot it in the Glasgow photos if you look very, very closely.

There are also some snaps of the free concerts that took place in the Merchant City on match days, to give people the chance to hear some live music either before or after their trip to Hampden.  A good idea in theory, but unfortunately not many people turned up - location was probably the problem.  I felt a bit sorry for the acts, some of whom were very good.  I didn't manage to catch many names, although one I did pick out was La Suite Bizarre, who were brilliant in a barking mad sort of way.

As ever, click on any picture to enlarge.

The Duncan Hothersall conundrum

One or two of you may have noticed that my previous post triggered a brief Twitter spat with Scottish Labour's one-man online presence (or so it seems at times) Duncan Hothersall, who decreed that I was guilty of "bitter nationalism". The exchange followed a familiar pattern - I pointed out that he is a British nationalist, he denied it, I challenged him to justify the denial given that he enthusiastically supports the existence of a British state, and he then resorted to some highly entertaining obfuscation and sophistry. The most creative example of the latter was this -

"Ha. The Olympics, despite protestations from your side, is not about nationalism, just nations."

Now that's very interesting. One of the arguments unionists like to make is that the British state is different and morally superior to other states because it isn't a nation state, but rather a "multi-national state". OK, we all know this is bunkum, but let's pursue the point just for a moment. Britishness, the theory goes, transcends nationalism, because Britain isn't a nation at all, it's just a state. The nations belonging to the state are Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales - the UK state, therefore, is supposedly a shining example of Duncan's much-vaunted "internationalism" in action.

But wait just a moment - if that's the case, and if the Olympics is "just about nations" rather than about nationalist politics, why is the Scottish nation barred from taking part? Why are Scottish athletes banned - literally banned - from displaying the flag of their own nation? And why the attempts to browbeat Scottish and Welsh athletes into singing an anthem they clearly regard as foreign, and which they don't want to sing?

I'm confused, Duncan.

Rebellious Scots to crush

When I first heard a suggestion that Scottish footballers playing for Great Britain had refused to sing God Save the Queen as a matter of principle, I thought it sounded like wishful thinking. But of course the story was perfectly true, so all credit to Kim Little and Ifeoma Dieke. I'm sure most of us wish they hadn't ignored the SFA's pleas not to take part in the GB Olympic team in the first place, but they've certainly restored some Scottish pride by their actions on Wednesday. I haven't heard whether they stuck to their guns in the second game, but let's hope they weren't browbeaten into singing what Little clearly regards as a foreign anthem.

According to the Daily Mail, the BOA are outraged by the duo's actions. Well, that's a remarkable coincidence, because "outraged" is exactly what most Scottish football supporters are with the British Uniformity Fascists at the BOA for playing fast and loose with Scotland's status as an independent footballing nation. So now we're all united in feeling precisely the same emotion - isn't the Olympics wonderful?

Prize for the most absurd on-the-record reaction, however, goes to Fatima Whitbread -

"I think it’s a poor show if you are competing under a British flag and you don’t feel proud to be British.

It’s fine for you to believe in Scottish independence and to have your own beliefs – there has always been a bit of a rivalry – but if you are competing under a British flag you need to feel British."

So it's "fine" for athletes to have their own political beliefs - just so long as they give up any hope of competing in the Olympics. That's what she means, make no mistake about it - there's no option for Scots to compete at the Games under any other flag than the British one, so the Fatima Principle means that at least 30-40% of the entire Scottish population would be rendered ineligible at a stroke.

But of course it's even worse than that, because there's no indication at all that Kim Little is actually pro-independence. If anything, her decision to participate in Team GB suggests she might be a unionist. Question : if the BOA's version of Britishness isn't even inclusive enough to accommodate the instincts of mainstream, moderate Scottish unionism, isn't it the case that they are only interested in a Team GB that represents an imaginary Britain, rather than the one we actually live in?

A Team GB that truly aspires to represent all Britons would by definition be consciously and full-bloodedly representing a large number of people who want to end the United Kingdom, who are left cold by the Union Jack, and who regard God Save the Queen as an alien anthem. That's how big the tent needs to be - and that's the distance by which the BOA are utterly failing in their duty to the territory they purport to serve.

The good things about the Olympic opening ceremony

I don't plan to genuflect towards the London imperial altar too often over the next couple of weeks, but I do think there were three genuinely refreshing and praiseworthy aspects to the Olympic opening ceremony -

1) The in-your-face dedication of an entire section to the NHS. That was a bold and unambiguously political statement, and while the four National Health Services of the UK may have overwhelming public support, I'm sure there were still a number of Thatcherites foaming at the mouth. I can't even begin to imagine what our 'libertarian' chums in the US made of it.

2) Shami Chakrabarti being given her moment in the sun as one of the eight bearers of the Olympic flag. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw her - she may have some friends in the Conservative Party, but she remains a true radical, and was thus a fairly astonishing choice for such a role.

3) The choice of non-celebrities to light the Olympic flame, making the moment more important than the person.

* * *

Having made the claim in my previous post that this is not the first Olympics to be partly held in Scotland, I thought I'd better check if I was right. At first I was beginning to wonder, because the Wikipedia article on the 1908 Games only lists Southampton and the Solent as venues for the sailing events. However, the Official Report tells a different story...

"B.— CLYDE OLYMPIC MATCHES.

AUGUST 11.

The series of matches for the selected 12-metre cutters under the direction
of the Olympic Committee of the Yacht Racing Association began from Hunter’s
Quay on Tuesday, August 11. The yachts engaged were Mr. Chas. MacIver’s
Mouchette, designed by Mr. Alfred Mylne, and Mr. T. C. Glen-Coats’s Hera, designed by the owner. The wind was from west-north-west, tending more northerly,
of moderate force, puffy at times, but steady for the most part, and there was no
more than a pleasant curl on the water. Each boat had an amateur crew of
ten, and the owner steered in each case. The matches were conducted by the
Clyde Corinthian Yacht Club, Commodore Robert Wylie’s steam yacht Verve was
flagship, and a committee consisting of Messrs. W. W. Aspin, secretary, Wm.
York, secretary of Royal Clyde, W. F. King, F. W. Robertson, W. R. Copland,
and J. A. Gardiner were in charge of the details, and Mr. C. Newton-Robinson
represented the Y.R.A.

The start was fixed for half-past eleven, and both cutters appeared then
under all lower canvas, jackyarders, and jibtopsails for a free reach to Inverkip.
Thence it was a beat to Dunoon, an easy reach to Kilcreggan, and a close-haul
home, twice round, twenty-six miles."

In pictures : the opening day of the 2012 Glasgow Olympics (which is apparently also being partly held in London)

A couple of months ago, I suggested that it would be "every Scot's patriotic duty to show an interest in an Under-23 match between Egypt and Belarus". Well, I'm not actually sure whether I'll be taking an interest in that particular game, but in a sense I did follow my own strictures, because I went along to Hampden for the opening day of the Olympic football competition. There were two games - USA v France, and North Korea v Colombia. I'm an American citizen, so I supported France in the first game, and I'm a fierce anti-communist, so it was North Korea all the way for me in the second game.

One or two people raised their eyebrows when I mentioned that I was paying good money to watch women's football. But I must say that as a non-expert, the skill level in the USA v France game seemed pretty high. It was certainly an exhilarating watch - France took an early 2-0 lead, only for the US to come back to win 4-2.

You may have heard that there was then a slight interruption before the second game. There was, of course, no official explanation - we were just told that "the delay is due to a behind the scenes issue, which we are working to resolve". One or two people next to me started muttering that it must have something to do with Kim Jong-Il, apparently unaware that the Dear Leader is no longer with us. Someone else suggested that we might be in for a repeat of the Scotland v Estonia scenario from 1996, with one team taking to the pitch, kicking the ball for three seconds, and then punching the air with the joy of victory.

The crowd (or at least the hardy minority who stuck around) amused themselves during the unexpected hiatus by booing, hissing, doing the conga, booing, hissing, doing a Mexican wave, booing, hissing, singing Flower of Scotland, booing and hissing. For my part, I passed some of the time by taking a couple of 'self-portraits'. I include one in the collection of photos below, mainly in fond tribute to my new cap, which is now very much my old cap, because I later contrived to lose it during the short walk back to Mount Florida railway station (God knows how).

There were two little clues as to what was really going on. The announcer read out the names of the North Korean team approximately seventeen thousand times for no apparent reason, and the big screen featured a fixed picture of the (real) North Korean flag for about half an hour - presumably the thinking was "OK, we'll keep it up there for the rest of the bloody night if you want, now will you play?". Once the game finally got under way, the neutrals seemed to take their revenge by getting firmly behind Colombia - there were plenty of Come On Colombias from just behind me. I was sorely tempted to scream Come On The Democratic People's Republic of Korea! at the top of my voice, but I thought better of it.

At the start of the session, there was a pre-recorded message from Alex Salmond. He received warm cheers from the American and French supporters after wishing them well, but I winced slightly when he declared himself delighted that an Olympic event was taking place in Scotland for the first time ever. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall looking at the Official Report from the 1908 London Olympics, and spotting that the sailing event took place on the Clyde.

Actually, when I first got broadband internet, just about the first thing I did was download some of the Olympic Reports from years gone by (dial-up could never handle the job). I've always had a fascination for the Games, and that brings me to what I was doing at Hampden. I yield to no-one in my cynicism towards LOCOG, Lord Coe and the Brit Nat zealots at the BOA, but the Olympic movement is bigger than all of them. And with a little slice of the Olympics taking place in Scotland for the first time in 104 years, I think I was probably always going to be tempted to buy a ticket - even if Egypt v Belarus U23s had been the only thing on offer.

(Click the photos to enlarge)