Even before Mick Pork pointed me in the direction of David Herdson's piece in Political Betting (aka Stormfront Lite) today, I was toying with the idea of offering my thoughts on this subject, because it isn't just southern Tories like Herdson who take the view that a decent run for England at the World Cup would have have been good for the Yes campaign. The theory goes like this - the London media drive us crazy for the next few weeks by talking at their UK-wide audience as if we are all English, and we eventually become so offended that Don't Knows and soft Nos start asserting their own national identity in a political sense. But my guess is that it's largely people who have football fanatics as friends and family who imagine that would have happened. Indeed, it may well have happened within that section of the population, but that is far from being the whole of Scotland. By contrast, casual viewers of the World Cup could easily have ended up being swept along with the Eng-er-land fixation of the media and found themselves practically thinking they are English (brainwashing often works, remember). And then of course there is the large section of the population who wouldn't have given a monkey's one way or the other. So I personally think that the net effect of a good England run would have been neutral at best, and possibly mildly harmful for Yes at worst.
Frankly, I'm relieved to see England go out, because it means that our status as neutrals will henceforth be reflected in the television coverage we watch. Although now that all four "Home Nations" are in exactly the same position as countries who have been knocked out of the World Cup, it'll be interesting to see whether that is fully reflected in the coverage, or whether England's future prospects will still be considered worthy of discussion in a way that the prospects of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not. (OK, I think we already know the answer to that!)
Herdson goes on to indulge in this piece of fantastical thinking about how the Commonwealth Games might not be good for the Yes campaign either -
"There are of course other opportunities over the summer for Scottish patriotism to fuse with nationalism in a rather more positive way (i.e. rather than being simply anti-English), the Commonwealth Games being the most obvious. A successful Games, however, could be used by both sides: either to assert Scotland’s ability to deliver top level events on its own or, alternatively, to show that independence is unnecessary to it being able to do so."
Jesus. Anyone who has been following the funding arrangements for the Commonwealth Games cannot help but conclude that this is something that Scotland has managed to do in spite of being part of the United Kingdom, in contrast to the Olympics, which London managed to do because of money drawn from every part of the UK, including Scotland.
However, I do agree that it remains to be seen what the effect of the Commonwealth Games will be. It will distract attention from the referendum campaign at a crucial moment. The BBC will present the event from a wholly British perspective, with no Scottish opt-outs, and with viewers invited to think of the distinction between the four "Home Nations" teams as being a mere formality. I still think the benefits will outweigh those factors, but at this stage it would be foolish to imagine we can be 100% confident of that.
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Ipsos-Mori's 'state of the nation' poll provides dramatic new evidence that the No vote is soft
The think-tank 'British Future' (who, judging by both their name and their analysis, are anything but impartial on the matter in hand) have published the results of an Ipsos-Mori survey that asked voters in Scotland and the rest of the UK a variety of questions on a broad range of topics - including the independence referendum question itself. Oddly, however, respondents were offered an extra 'Neither' option, in addition to the standard 'Yes' (or apparently 'Agree' in this poll), 'No' ('Disagree') and 'Don't Know'. So the outcome isn't directly comparable to the last Ipsos-Mori poll, but is fascinating nonetheless.
Should Scotland be an independent country? (Scottish-domiciled respondents only)
Yes ("Agree") 32% (+1)
No ("Disagree") 49% (-6)
Neither 10% (n/a)
Don't Know 9% (-5)
(The percentage changes listed above are based on the assumption that this poll was not filtered by certainty to vote. If it turns out that such a filter was applied, then the No vote is down a whopping eight points, the Yes vote is down two, and Don't Knows are down one.)
Now a couple of health warnings here - the Scottish sample size was unusually small at just under 400, although that certainly isn't so low a number as to be meaningless (for example, two of the three Angus Reid referendum polls from last year had sample sizes of about 500). Also, we don't know if the results were only weighted to be representative of Great Britain as a whole, or whether the Scottish sample was weighted separately. The latter possibility seems much more likely given that British Future are making quite a song and dance about their Scottish results, but we may find out more information when Ipsos-Mori publish details of the poll on their own website.
If we assume for the moment that this result is robust, though, what does it tell us? Just like the Ipsos-Mori poll for the Law Society, it provides further evidence that the No vote is softer than the Yes vote. All it seems to take is for respondents to be provided with an additional de facto 'undecided' option, and the No vote instantly plummets, while the Yes vote remains steady.
The poll also confirms the unsurprising finding of recent surveys that Scottish independence is considerably more popular in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK, which may reflect nagging fears south of the border about the true cost of losing Scottish oil revenues. This is certainly something of a blow for the tedious Tory trolls who used to taunt us with the line "Scottish independence is less popular in Scotland than in England". Those days are over, chaps. Oh, and talking of trolls, this was the brave face that No campaign troll-in-chief Blair McDougall was trying to put on the poll earlier -
"New poll in morning with pretty clear message for us from rest of UK - please don't leave."
Hmmm. So if the implication is that we should always listen to "pretty clear messages" from south of the border, I presume we should also be listening to the pretty clear message from voters in the rest of the UK that David Cameron must stop running away from taking part in a TV referendum debate with his opposite number Alex Salmond? (As of yet, we have no polling evidence on whether English and Welsh voters think that Vladimir Putin, Mariano Rajoy or any of the other foreign leaders that the UK government have begged for help in keeping the Jocks in their place should be allowed to deputise for Cameron in the debate.)
Cynics who reckon that Scots don't really give a monkey's about independence one way or the other will be dismayed to learn that Scottish respondents say that the referendum is by far the most important event of the coming year to them personally. The grotesque 'celebration' of the start of the horrors of World War I limps in at a distant fourth place with 13% saying it is important, only just ahead of the football World Cup - at which Scotland won't even be represented. Incidentally, a mere 13% of respondents in Scotland will be supporting England at the World Cup, which is less than the 15% of respondents who will be supporting whichever team England happen to be playing. 20% regard themselves as genuine neutrals, 10% will be supporting a specific team other than England, and the remainder won't be watching the World Cup at all. Not much comfort for the "UK is a big happy family" worldview there, and I must admit I'm really surprised by those numbers - particularly given that almost 10% of the population of Scotland are English themselves!
The other interesting finding from this poll is on national identity...
More or wholly Scottish 49%
Equally Scottish and British 31%
More or wholly British 19%
I know that Scottish Skier will be concerned that this once again indicates that Ipsos-Mori may be getting their Scottish sampling wrong, because both the census results and the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey suggest that Scottish identity is stronger than that (much, much stronger in the case of the census).
* * *
YET ANOTHER BOOST FOR THE YES CAMPAIGN IN PROVISIONAL SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS UPDATE
I've been swithering over whether I should take this poll into account for the Poll of Polls. At first, the answer seemed like an obvious 'no', because the methodology is so different from past (and presumably future) Ipsos-Mori polls, with a smaller sample size, fieldwork conducted online rather than by telephone, the peculiarity of offering two distinct 'Neither/Don't Know' options, and the likelihood that no certainty to vote filter was applied for the headline numbers. We also don't know for sure whether the Scottish sample was weighted properly, and I have one or two doubts over the question used. (The British Future report lists the actual referendum question with no alterations, but places a very suspicious asterisk next to it, for which no explanation is provided.)
The counter-argument, though, is that the purpose of the Poll of Polls is to calculate a straightforward average of the latest headline findings from all British Polling Council pollsters, regardless of the methodology they choose to use at any given time. So I'm going to provide a provisional update that takes account of this poll, but I'll revert to the previous update if it turns out that the Scottish sample wasn't separately weighted, or that the question asked bore no relation to the referendum question. Fortunately, one thing we do know for sure is that the fieldwork for this poll took place later than the fieldwork for the last published Ipsos-Mori referendum poll, albeit only just (6-11 December).
Unsurprisingly, the provisional update shows the pro-independence campaign closing the gap still further...
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 32.7% (-0.3)
No 47.5% (-1.3)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 40.8% (+0.5)
No 59.2% (-0.5)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 39.6% (n/c)
No 60.4% (n/c)
If this update is confirmed, then the 1.3% drop in the headline No vote is by far the biggest individual change we've seen since the Poll of Polls started - as only one-sixth of the sample differs with each update, movements in the figures are usually much more glacial in nature. The No lead has dropped from 15.8% to 14.8%, and the Yes campaign now require a mere 7.4% swing to draw level.
* * *
There's an editorial in today's Scotland on Sunday that references the Ipsos-Mori poll, and if the familiar phraseology is anything to go by it seems to have been wholly or partly penned by Kenny Farquharson. It also indirectly mentions the anti-independence campaign's wizard plan to bombard Scotland with nuisance phone calls from English people trying to persuade us to vote No (they'll almost certainly be activists from the London parties posing as 'ordinary people'). It concludes with this utterly bizarre example of logical gymnastics -
"The SNP makes reassuring noises about the social union with the rest of Britain continuing after independence. But what happens when the people in that social union – our friends, relatives and colleagues from Liverpool, Newcastle, the Welsh valleys and the rolling hills of Antrim – ask us not to sacrifice the UK’s political union? Such a moment will be the ultimate test for the kind of Yes voter who says 'I’m not a nationalist, but...' Because it is very difficult to characterise the ignoring of that plea as anything other than act of political nationalism."
OK, let's think this through, step by step. Imagine you're a member of the Green party who is definitely not a nationalist, but you've nevertheless reached the pragmatic conclusion that the kind of transformative change you want to see in Scottish society is far more likely to come about through independence than by sticking with the Westminster system. However, you then receive a telephone call from someone who wants you to vote against independence. According to Kenny (or whoever wrote the editorial), the simple fact that this person has an English accent is sufficient to mean that your own opinion has become invalid - and if you want it to become valid again you have to henceforth call yourself a nationalist. Er, why? How does that work? How does an English political activist telling you "we should stay united because of EastEnders and the Queen and stuff" suddenly mean that your own logic about Westminster's inability to deliver transformative change no longer applies?
Unless the activist is offering you some kind of vote swap (I'll vote Green at Westminster if you vote No), there's no reason whatever to suppose you would be given even the slightest pause for thought. Indeed, the fact that your support for independence is founded on policy objectives rather than nationalist emotion means that you're even less likely to be open to that kind of heartstring-tugging persuasion. If this 'love-bombing' wheeze reminds me of anything, it's the Guardian's idea of getting its readers to write to Ohio residents in 2004, asking them to vote for John Kerry - and we all know how that went down.
* * *
UPDATE (2.50pm) : More details of the poll have now been released, and on that basis I'll be removing it from the Poll of Polls - see the comments below.
Should Scotland be an independent country? (Scottish-domiciled respondents only)
Yes ("Agree") 32% (+1)
No ("Disagree") 49% (-6)
Neither 10% (n/a)
Don't Know 9% (-5)
(The percentage changes listed above are based on the assumption that this poll was not filtered by certainty to vote. If it turns out that such a filter was applied, then the No vote is down a whopping eight points, the Yes vote is down two, and Don't Knows are down one.)
Now a couple of health warnings here - the Scottish sample size was unusually small at just under 400, although that certainly isn't so low a number as to be meaningless (for example, two of the three Angus Reid referendum polls from last year had sample sizes of about 500). Also, we don't know if the results were only weighted to be representative of Great Britain as a whole, or whether the Scottish sample was weighted separately. The latter possibility seems much more likely given that British Future are making quite a song and dance about their Scottish results, but we may find out more information when Ipsos-Mori publish details of the poll on their own website.
If we assume for the moment that this result is robust, though, what does it tell us? Just like the Ipsos-Mori poll for the Law Society, it provides further evidence that the No vote is softer than the Yes vote. All it seems to take is for respondents to be provided with an additional de facto 'undecided' option, and the No vote instantly plummets, while the Yes vote remains steady.
The poll also confirms the unsurprising finding of recent surveys that Scottish independence is considerably more popular in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK, which may reflect nagging fears south of the border about the true cost of losing Scottish oil revenues. This is certainly something of a blow for the tedious Tory trolls who used to taunt us with the line "Scottish independence is less popular in Scotland than in England". Those days are over, chaps. Oh, and talking of trolls, this was the brave face that No campaign troll-in-chief Blair McDougall was trying to put on the poll earlier -
"New poll in morning with pretty clear message for us from rest of UK - please don't leave."
Hmmm. So if the implication is that we should always listen to "pretty clear messages" from south of the border, I presume we should also be listening to the pretty clear message from voters in the rest of the UK that David Cameron must stop running away from taking part in a TV referendum debate with his opposite number Alex Salmond? (As of yet, we have no polling evidence on whether English and Welsh voters think that Vladimir Putin, Mariano Rajoy or any of the other foreign leaders that the UK government have begged for help in keeping the Jocks in their place should be allowed to deputise for Cameron in the debate.)
Cynics who reckon that Scots don't really give a monkey's about independence one way or the other will be dismayed to learn that Scottish respondents say that the referendum is by far the most important event of the coming year to them personally. The grotesque 'celebration' of the start of the horrors of World War I limps in at a distant fourth place with 13% saying it is important, only just ahead of the football World Cup - at which Scotland won't even be represented. Incidentally, a mere 13% of respondents in Scotland will be supporting England at the World Cup, which is less than the 15% of respondents who will be supporting whichever team England happen to be playing. 20% regard themselves as genuine neutrals, 10% will be supporting a specific team other than England, and the remainder won't be watching the World Cup at all. Not much comfort for the "UK is a big happy family" worldview there, and I must admit I'm really surprised by those numbers - particularly given that almost 10% of the population of Scotland are English themselves!
The other interesting finding from this poll is on national identity...
More or wholly Scottish 49%
Equally Scottish and British 31%
More or wholly British 19%
I know that Scottish Skier will be concerned that this once again indicates that Ipsos-Mori may be getting their Scottish sampling wrong, because both the census results and the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey suggest that Scottish identity is stronger than that (much, much stronger in the case of the census).
* * *
YET ANOTHER BOOST FOR THE YES CAMPAIGN IN PROVISIONAL SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS UPDATE
I've been swithering over whether I should take this poll into account for the Poll of Polls. At first, the answer seemed like an obvious 'no', because the methodology is so different from past (and presumably future) Ipsos-Mori polls, with a smaller sample size, fieldwork conducted online rather than by telephone, the peculiarity of offering two distinct 'Neither/Don't Know' options, and the likelihood that no certainty to vote filter was applied for the headline numbers. We also don't know for sure whether the Scottish sample was weighted properly, and I have one or two doubts over the question used. (The British Future report lists the actual referendum question with no alterations, but places a very suspicious asterisk next to it, for which no explanation is provided.)
The counter-argument, though, is that the purpose of the Poll of Polls is to calculate a straightforward average of the latest headline findings from all British Polling Council pollsters, regardless of the methodology they choose to use at any given time. So I'm going to provide a provisional update that takes account of this poll, but I'll revert to the previous update if it turns out that the Scottish sample wasn't separately weighted, or that the question asked bore no relation to the referendum question. Fortunately, one thing we do know for sure is that the fieldwork for this poll took place later than the fieldwork for the last published Ipsos-Mori referendum poll, albeit only just (6-11 December).
Unsurprisingly, the provisional update shows the pro-independence campaign closing the gap still further...
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 32.7% (-0.3)
No 47.5% (-1.3)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 40.8% (+0.5)
No 59.2% (-0.5)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 39.6% (n/c)
No 60.4% (n/c)
If this update is confirmed, then the 1.3% drop in the headline No vote is by far the biggest individual change we've seen since the Poll of Polls started - as only one-sixth of the sample differs with each update, movements in the figures are usually much more glacial in nature. The No lead has dropped from 15.8% to 14.8%, and the Yes campaign now require a mere 7.4% swing to draw level.
* * *
There's an editorial in today's Scotland on Sunday that references the Ipsos-Mori poll, and if the familiar phraseology is anything to go by it seems to have been wholly or partly penned by Kenny Farquharson. It also indirectly mentions the anti-independence campaign's wizard plan to bombard Scotland with nuisance phone calls from English people trying to persuade us to vote No (they'll almost certainly be activists from the London parties posing as 'ordinary people'). It concludes with this utterly bizarre example of logical gymnastics -
"The SNP makes reassuring noises about the social union with the rest of Britain continuing after independence. But what happens when the people in that social union – our friends, relatives and colleagues from Liverpool, Newcastle, the Welsh valleys and the rolling hills of Antrim – ask us not to sacrifice the UK’s political union? Such a moment will be the ultimate test for the kind of Yes voter who says 'I’m not a nationalist, but...' Because it is very difficult to characterise the ignoring of that plea as anything other than act of political nationalism."
OK, let's think this through, step by step. Imagine you're a member of the Green party who is definitely not a nationalist, but you've nevertheless reached the pragmatic conclusion that the kind of transformative change you want to see in Scottish society is far more likely to come about through independence than by sticking with the Westminster system. However, you then receive a telephone call from someone who wants you to vote against independence. According to Kenny (or whoever wrote the editorial), the simple fact that this person has an English accent is sufficient to mean that your own opinion has become invalid - and if you want it to become valid again you have to henceforth call yourself a nationalist. Er, why? How does that work? How does an English political activist telling you "we should stay united because of EastEnders and the Queen and stuff" suddenly mean that your own logic about Westminster's inability to deliver transformative change no longer applies?
Unless the activist is offering you some kind of vote swap (I'll vote Green at Westminster if you vote No), there's no reason whatever to suppose you would be given even the slightest pause for thought. Indeed, the fact that your support for independence is founded on policy objectives rather than nationalist emotion means that you're even less likely to be open to that kind of heartstring-tugging persuasion. If this 'love-bombing' wheeze reminds me of anything, it's the Guardian's idea of getting its readers to write to Ohio residents in 2004, asking them to vote for John Kerry - and we all know how that went down.
* * *
UPDATE (2.50pm) : More details of the poll have now been released, and on that basis I'll be removing it from the Poll of Polls - see the comments below.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Rangers vote
A quick story for your delectation. I was on the same bus last night as a group of four ever-so-slightly drunk Rangers supporters. A soldier stepped onto the bus in full uniform, prompting a chorus of cheers. He mumbled something sheepishly, which given the reaction it caused, I presumed to be something along the lines of "actually, I support Celtic". The Rangers fans were undaunted : "Aye, but you're still in the BRITISH Army. In fact, that's even better!"
For some reason, the conversation turned a few minutes later to the independence referendum. Given the mood-music, I wasn't expecting too many signs of encouragement - but I was wrong. Out of the four, there was just one definite No, one extremely soft No, one definite Yes, and a Don't Care. The Yes supporter was even offering some rather impressive lines of argument that will be familiar to all of us - this isn't about keeping Alex Salmond in power, we'll still be Rangers supporters, we can still feel British as well as Scottish, this is simply about Scotland doing what's in its own national interest, and so forth. There were, admittedly, a few inexplicable references to "Gerry f****** Adams", but on the whole the standard of discussion was startling high, especially given the amount of alcohol that had presumably been consumed.
If this is remotely typical of the Rangers support, we're not doing at all badly.
For some reason, the conversation turned a few minutes later to the independence referendum. Given the mood-music, I wasn't expecting too many signs of encouragement - but I was wrong. Out of the four, there was just one definite No, one extremely soft No, one definite Yes, and a Don't Care. The Yes supporter was even offering some rather impressive lines of argument that will be familiar to all of us - this isn't about keeping Alex Salmond in power, we'll still be Rangers supporters, we can still feel British as well as Scottish, this is simply about Scotland doing what's in its own national interest, and so forth. There were, admittedly, a few inexplicable references to "Gerry f****** Adams", but on the whole the standard of discussion was startling high, especially given the amount of alcohol that had presumably been consumed.
If this is remotely typical of the Rangers support, we're not doing at all badly.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
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...
"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...
Saturday, August 4, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, August 3, 2012
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.
"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.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Dispelling a couple of "Team GB is universally loved" logical fallacies
Paul Fletcher has been indulging in some more political propagandising about the supposedly overwhelming popularity of the BOA's decision to force the four nations of the UK to "unite" for the Olympic football tournament -
"And yet the numbers that have turned out to support GB suggest there is an appetite to see a united football team at the Olympics. An impressive 227,751 supporters have attended GB's three group games in Manchester, London and Cardiff."
Hmmm. Well, those numbers certainly show there's an appetite for something. Unfortunately for Fletcher, there are a number of possibilities for the source of that enthusiasm, of which his preferred explanation is only one. Other more likely possibilities include the desire to watch an Olympic event of any type, and a desire to see English and Welsh players compete on home soil at a major event, regardless of the team they are required to play for. The most likely explanation of the lot, however, is that many English supporters simply make little or no distinction between Great Britain and England (Great Britain is seen as Greater England), and for them, supporting Great Britain is an extension of supporting England. Which, of course, is the Celtic objection to the whole enterprise in a nutshell - loss of identity, a fear which is hardly allayed by the righteous indignation over Welsh and Scottish players failing to sing the English anthem. And on that subject...
"It had been said that many of the Welsh fans inside the stadium in Cardiff would boo God Save the Queen. Nonsense. The crowd belted it out and backed their team with a passion that any fanbase would be happy to claim."
It's a brave man who uses the word "nonsense" before embarking on the patently absurd claim that he 'knows' that the 'home' supporters belting out God Save the Queen were all - or even predominantly - Welsh. By my rough calculation, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is approximately 25 miles from the English border. And there was absolutely no distinction made on intra-UK nationality in the selling of tickets. Whisper it gently, but it's just possible that rather a lot of the Greater England Patriots belting out 'their' national anthem in Cardiff were, in fact, English.
But other than that, what a truly fabulous point, Paul.
"And yet the numbers that have turned out to support GB suggest there is an appetite to see a united football team at the Olympics. An impressive 227,751 supporters have attended GB's three group games in Manchester, London and Cardiff."
Hmmm. Well, those numbers certainly show there's an appetite for something. Unfortunately for Fletcher, there are a number of possibilities for the source of that enthusiasm, of which his preferred explanation is only one. Other more likely possibilities include the desire to watch an Olympic event of any type, and a desire to see English and Welsh players compete on home soil at a major event, regardless of the team they are required to play for. The most likely explanation of the lot, however, is that many English supporters simply make little or no distinction between Great Britain and England (Great Britain is seen as Greater England), and for them, supporting Great Britain is an extension of supporting England. Which, of course, is the Celtic objection to the whole enterprise in a nutshell - loss of identity, a fear which is hardly allayed by the righteous indignation over Welsh and Scottish players failing to sing the English anthem. And on that subject...
"It had been said that many of the Welsh fans inside the stadium in Cardiff would boo God Save the Queen. Nonsense. The crowd belted it out and backed their team with a passion that any fanbase would be happy to claim."
It's a brave man who uses the word "nonsense" before embarking on the patently absurd claim that he 'knows' that the 'home' supporters belting out God Save the Queen were all - or even predominantly - Welsh. By my rough calculation, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is approximately 25 miles from the English border. And there was absolutely no distinction made on intra-UK nationality in the selling of tickets. Whisper it gently, but it's just possible that rather a lot of the Greater England Patriots belting out 'their' national anthem in Cardiff were, in fact, English.
But other than that, what a truly fabulous point, Paul.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
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.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)