This is from Ethan Grant at the Bleacher Report -
"When it comes to Sunday's matchup, Djokovic and Murray are no strangers to staring each other down on opposite sides of the court. As noted by Live Tennis on Twitter, some of their matches have been legendary...
The duo last squared off at the Australian Open final, where Djokovic bested the Brit in four sets to win the first Grand Slam of the 2013 season. In doing so, Djokovic ran his head-to-head record against Murray to 11-7.
The lone meeting on grass, though, did go in Murray's favor.
The pair met in the semifinals at the Olympics, and Murray won in electrifying 7-5, 7-5 fashion. He also beat Djokovic in the 2012 U.S. Open final, but Djokovic has won the last three matches since.
Like the 77-year English drought at Wimbledon, expect that streak to end on Sunday."
Hmmm. Now I must admit that I haven't been closely following the girls' doubles, or the boys' singles, or the over-45s' invitational doubles, so I suppose it is just conceivable that some kind of 77-year "English drought" at Wimbledon will be ending today. But that sure as hell won't be happening in the men's singles final, which is being contested by a Serbian and a Scot. On the plus side, though, Andy Murray does have the chance to end an even longer drought than the presumably imaginary one suggested by Grant - he stands on the brink of becoming the first Scowimblian singles champion since Harold Mahony in 1896. Indeed, Ireland arguably have a stronger claim to Mahony (although he was born in Edinburgh), in which case Murray could be the first authentic Scowimblian singles champion ever. So quite a moment.
* * *
I have the same thought almost every year - why is the women's singles final not played over the best of five sets, rather than three? It's such a big setpiece occasion, and yet more often than not it's over before it's even started. Even an attack of nerves as dreadful as Sabine Lisicki's would probably have eased by a third set, and we'd have had a chance to see what she was really capable of.
It's become taboo to say anything at all in defence of the very small differential in prize money that existed between men and women at Wimbledon until a few years ago, but arguably that was a perfectly rational way of reflecting the fact that the men's champion plays far more sets of tennis en route to the title. I don't really understand why the push for equality focused solely on prize money and not on the number of sets that women play, because the latter point is surely far more important in shaping public perceptions of the women's game.
I suspect the objection would be that five-set women's matches would wreak havoc with the tournament schedules, which may be a fair point - but it still isn't an excuse for leaving the final as a three-setter.
* * *
It was refreshing that it was Garry Richardson rather than Scowimblian superstar Andy Murray that took most of the brickbats for that excruciating interview on Wednesday, although it baffles me that Richardson is still in his role of post-match interrogator after years on end of treating us to his Partridge-esque repertoire. It's also surprising that nobody (as far as I've seen) has referred in recent days to his encounter a few years back with Anna Kournikova, which was probably even worse and earned an on-air rebuke from John McEnroe. The fact that Richardson's fellow interviewer Phil Jones is such a consummate professional just brings his own shortcomings into even sharper relief.
* * *
Were the TV commentators just being diplomatic, or did they really not notice that the engraver had made a monumental blunder by failing to leave a space between 'M.' and 'Bartoli'?
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Friday, July 5, 2013
YouGov's attention to detail
I got mildly excited a few minutes ago when I checked the YouGov website and saw the words "Scottish Omnibus Survey", but it turned out to be not quite what I was expecting. This is the breaking news - 8% of part-time workers in Scotland think that Serena Williams would beat Andy Murray in a three-set match.
It has to be said that YouGov aren't so hot on independence referendum polling at the moment, but as far as hypothetical tennis scenarios are concerned - they've got all the angles covered. Stick with them to discover how many times female skateboarders in Glenrothes think that Elena Baltacha will be foot-faulted if she plays Urszula Radwanska in the second round of the 2015 French Open.
It has to be said that YouGov aren't so hot on independence referendum polling at the moment, but as far as hypothetical tennis scenarios are concerned - they've got all the angles covered. Stick with them to discover how many times female skateboarders in Glenrothes think that Elena Baltacha will be foot-faulted if she plays Urszula Radwanska in the second round of the 2015 French Open.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
A tale of one Scowimblian and one Scolionian
On Saturday, Richie Gray will become the third different Scolionian in as many weeks to serve as the sole Scottish representative in the 23-man British and Irish Lions test squad. If the fate of his two predecessors is anything to go by, he won't actually be allowed to take the field of play, in which case all 240 minutes of this year's series against Australia will have passed by without any Scottish input whatsoever. Quite literally the only Scottish thing about this Lions test team has been the thistle on the jersey.
I haven't mentioned my misgivings about this turn of events up till now, because self-evidently this hasn't been the traditional tale of Anglocentric powers-that-be forgetting that the Celtic nations exist. Instead we've had a New Zealander - who is the current coach of Wales and a former coach of Ireland - selecting Welsh-dominated sides that have also contained a fair smattering of English and Irish players. At first glance, it was hard to think of any particular reason why he would be discriminating against Scottish players, other than an honest perception that they aren't good enough (which he can arguably be forgiven for based on the national side's results in recent years).
However, now that Brian O'Driscoll's sensational omission from Saturday's squad has opened the floodgates for criticisms from other parts of these islands that Gatland is effectively selecting a 'Wales + Guest Stars' team, perhaps we can at last feel emboldened to air the concerns that our Scolionians aren't getting a fair crack of the whip. Indeed, a cynical person might almost conclude that Gatland is just randomly choosing a different token Scot to sit on the replacements bench each week, but without any real intention of bringing that player on unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
One Welsh newspaper has, to its credit, picked up on these concerns already, and even quotes a disgruntled Scotland supporter as saying he'll be supporting Australia on Saturday. I wouldn't quite go that far, but it's certainly hard to passionately get behind a team that you have no stake in.
That said, I'm not sure Keith Wood's misty-eyed nostalgia for the days when the Lions represented a genuine blending together of four nations' strengths is entirely justified. I had a look at the team's historical results the other day, and I was finding it increasingly hard to understand how on Earth the "legend of the Lions" ever got going in the first place - their track record really isn't that much to write home about. Incredibly, the famous 1971 series was their one and only victory over New Zealand, and their record against the Southern Hemisphere's other traditional superpower South Africa is only marginally better. There's no real evidence at all of the "Better Together" effect that Brit Nat politicians like to bang on about during events like the Olympics - if anything, there's some evidence that the reverse is true, with examples of individual 'Home Nations' outperforming the Lions against exactly the same opposition. In 1983, the "worst ever Lions" were pulverised by a New Zealand team that later in the year was beaten by England at Twickenham and could only manage a draw against Scotland at Murrayfield. And in 2001, Martin Johnson led the Lions to defeat in Australia, but two years later led a theoretically weaker England side to victory in the World Cup final against the same opposition.
* * *
So not a vintage year for the Scolionians whatever happens on Saturday, but by marked contrast Andy Murray is now well on his way to further cementing his place as the greatest ever Scowimblian. Things didn't look quite so promising at about 5.30 this afternoon, so huge credit to Murray for digging himself out of what looked like an impossible hole. Let's hope he spares our nerves on Friday, although I wouldn't bank on it! If he manages to dodge that bullet, we can all look forward to the London media once again trotting out that age-old question - can Andy Murray become the first British player to win a Grand Slam title since Andy Murray way back in 2012?
I haven't mentioned my misgivings about this turn of events up till now, because self-evidently this hasn't been the traditional tale of Anglocentric powers-that-be forgetting that the Celtic nations exist. Instead we've had a New Zealander - who is the current coach of Wales and a former coach of Ireland - selecting Welsh-dominated sides that have also contained a fair smattering of English and Irish players. At first glance, it was hard to think of any particular reason why he would be discriminating against Scottish players, other than an honest perception that they aren't good enough (which he can arguably be forgiven for based on the national side's results in recent years).
However, now that Brian O'Driscoll's sensational omission from Saturday's squad has opened the floodgates for criticisms from other parts of these islands that Gatland is effectively selecting a 'Wales + Guest Stars' team, perhaps we can at last feel emboldened to air the concerns that our Scolionians aren't getting a fair crack of the whip. Indeed, a cynical person might almost conclude that Gatland is just randomly choosing a different token Scot to sit on the replacements bench each week, but without any real intention of bringing that player on unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
One Welsh newspaper has, to its credit, picked up on these concerns already, and even quotes a disgruntled Scotland supporter as saying he'll be supporting Australia on Saturday. I wouldn't quite go that far, but it's certainly hard to passionately get behind a team that you have no stake in.
That said, I'm not sure Keith Wood's misty-eyed nostalgia for the days when the Lions represented a genuine blending together of four nations' strengths is entirely justified. I had a look at the team's historical results the other day, and I was finding it increasingly hard to understand how on Earth the "legend of the Lions" ever got going in the first place - their track record really isn't that much to write home about. Incredibly, the famous 1971 series was their one and only victory over New Zealand, and their record against the Southern Hemisphere's other traditional superpower South Africa is only marginally better. There's no real evidence at all of the "Better Together" effect that Brit Nat politicians like to bang on about during events like the Olympics - if anything, there's some evidence that the reverse is true, with examples of individual 'Home Nations' outperforming the Lions against exactly the same opposition. In 1983, the "worst ever Lions" were pulverised by a New Zealand team that later in the year was beaten by England at Twickenham and could only manage a draw against Scotland at Murrayfield. And in 2001, Martin Johnson led the Lions to defeat in Australia, but two years later led a theoretically weaker England side to victory in the World Cup final against the same opposition.
* * *
So not a vintage year for the Scolionians whatever happens on Saturday, but by marked contrast Andy Murray is now well on his way to further cementing his place as the greatest ever Scowimblian. Things didn't look quite so promising at about 5.30 this afternoon, so huge credit to Murray for digging himself out of what looked like an impossible hole. Let's hope he spares our nerves on Friday, although I wouldn't bank on it! If he manages to dodge that bullet, we can all look forward to the London media once again trotting out that age-old question - can Andy Murray become the first British player to win a Grand Slam title since Andy Murray way back in 2012?
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Who's talking the most nonsense about Edward Snowden? Rod Liddle.
Our old friend Rod "Scotland is NOT a nation" Liddle has penned a piece in the Spectator with the supremely ironic title "Who’s talking the most nonsense about Edward Snowden? It’s a tough contest". It really isn't, Rod.
"Edward was a fairly low-level CIA technical contractor in Hawaii when he released to the world details of his government’s clandestine electronic surveillance programme (Prism) and also some stuff about our own much-loved GCHQ in Cheltenham. Apparently shocked to the core to discover that the security services were secretly spying on people, Edward was gripped by a spasm of narcissistic outrage and said: ‘I don’t want to live in a society which does these sorts of things.’ No, indeed — at which point he duly fled the immoral and abusive USA for a bolthole in the open, transparent, consensual and liberal People’s Republic of China, where ‘these sorts of things’ are beyond the pale."
What someone who has been down a hole for the last few weeks might be forgiven for not picking up from those words is that Snowden in fact fled to Hong Kong, which may be technically part of the People's Republic of China, but is universally recognised (except by those playing tedious rhetorical games) as a distinct jurisdiction with radically different values and traditions. It does, by all accounts, have a relatively good track record of protecting free speech that puts mainland China to shame. It's true that it doesn't have such an impressive democratic tradition, but whose fault is that? Why, that would be the United Kingdom, that renowned "beacon of liberty throughout the world". If Britain had democratised Hong Kong in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s, and given the new system a chance to bed down before the handover to China in 1997, it would have been very hard for Beijing to reverse the process. Instead there was a last-minute reform package in 1995 which seemed to have the sole purpose of salving London's imperial conscience, and which was unsurprisingly dispensed with by the new regime two years later. China can now quite accurately claim to have control over a Hong Kong that is more democratic than it was for all but two years of its period as a British colony.
"He had been expected to depart the next day on a flight to the freedom-loving bastion that is Cuba, from which destination he was expected to take a further flight to Venezuela and hence to that last recourse for faux-leftish narcissistic whistle-blowers, Ecuador. This supposed stage of his trip, then, comprises exclusively belligerent and corrupt gringo-hating quasi-socialist banana republics where the respective records on human rights leave a little to be desired, frankly. Ecuador, for example, has recently been castigated by both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for ‘undercutting’ freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as having a corrupt and politically partisan judiciary and locking up people on trumped-up terrorism charges. When he eventually arrives in Quito, will Edward be forced to conclude once more that he does not wish to live in a society which ‘does these sorts of things’? Or will he manage, somehow, to square it with his overweening conscience — in the manner of that other supreme narcissist, the WikiLeaks weirdo Julian Assange, who is still holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and appears every so often on the balcony to wave to his deluded supporters (Mr J. Pilger Esq.) and smirk at Jemima Khan.
The notion, for either Assange or Snowden, that there might be greater evils in the world, and that they might well be aiding these greater evils, simply does not impinge. For Snowden, clearly, it is the precise opposite of that old exhortation, my country right or wrong. It’s any country but my country, no matter how wicked it might be. It is again the unthinking absolutism of the fool, or the tyrant."
Hmmm. You, Rod, might not be able to understand why the human rights abuses committed on an unimaginable global scale by the world's sole superpower are of slightly more concern to the average international citizen than the human rights abuses committed by Ecuador, but I can assure you there are intelligent hamsters in Auchtermuchty who can.
"Edward was a fairly low-level CIA technical contractor in Hawaii when he released to the world details of his government’s clandestine electronic surveillance programme (Prism) and also some stuff about our own much-loved GCHQ in Cheltenham. Apparently shocked to the core to discover that the security services were secretly spying on people, Edward was gripped by a spasm of narcissistic outrage and said: ‘I don’t want to live in a society which does these sorts of things.’ No, indeed — at which point he duly fled the immoral and abusive USA for a bolthole in the open, transparent, consensual and liberal People’s Republic of China, where ‘these sorts of things’ are beyond the pale."
What someone who has been down a hole for the last few weeks might be forgiven for not picking up from those words is that Snowden in fact fled to Hong Kong, which may be technically part of the People's Republic of China, but is universally recognised (except by those playing tedious rhetorical games) as a distinct jurisdiction with radically different values and traditions. It does, by all accounts, have a relatively good track record of protecting free speech that puts mainland China to shame. It's true that it doesn't have such an impressive democratic tradition, but whose fault is that? Why, that would be the United Kingdom, that renowned "beacon of liberty throughout the world". If Britain had democratised Hong Kong in the 1950s, 60s or even 70s, and given the new system a chance to bed down before the handover to China in 1997, it would have been very hard for Beijing to reverse the process. Instead there was a last-minute reform package in 1995 which seemed to have the sole purpose of salving London's imperial conscience, and which was unsurprisingly dispensed with by the new regime two years later. China can now quite accurately claim to have control over a Hong Kong that is more democratic than it was for all but two years of its period as a British colony.
"He had been expected to depart the next day on a flight to the freedom-loving bastion that is Cuba, from which destination he was expected to take a further flight to Venezuela and hence to that last recourse for faux-leftish narcissistic whistle-blowers, Ecuador. This supposed stage of his trip, then, comprises exclusively belligerent and corrupt gringo-hating quasi-socialist banana republics where the respective records on human rights leave a little to be desired, frankly. Ecuador, for example, has recently been castigated by both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for ‘undercutting’ freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as having a corrupt and politically partisan judiciary and locking up people on trumped-up terrorism charges. When he eventually arrives in Quito, will Edward be forced to conclude once more that he does not wish to live in a society which ‘does these sorts of things’? Or will he manage, somehow, to square it with his overweening conscience — in the manner of that other supreme narcissist, the WikiLeaks weirdo Julian Assange, who is still holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and appears every so often on the balcony to wave to his deluded supporters (Mr J. Pilger Esq.) and smirk at Jemima Khan.
The notion, for either Assange or Snowden, that there might be greater evils in the world, and that they might well be aiding these greater evils, simply does not impinge. For Snowden, clearly, it is the precise opposite of that old exhortation, my country right or wrong. It’s any country but my country, no matter how wicked it might be. It is again the unthinking absolutism of the fool, or the tyrant."
Hmmm. You, Rod, might not be able to understand why the human rights abuses committed on an unimaginable global scale by the world's sole superpower are of slightly more concern to the average international citizen than the human rights abuses committed by Ecuador, but I can assure you there are intelligent hamsters in Auchtermuchty who can.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
When is a bet not a bet?
Just a very quick postscript to what I wrote on Thursday. Last year I entered into two private bets on the outcome of the independence referendum with a (characteristically delightful) PB Tory calling himself John O'Hersham (not his real name). The first was a £100 bet that Yes would win, and the second was a £50 bet that the No vote would not exceed a 12.5% lead over the Yes vote. Intriguingly, John's sole reaction to my seemingly permanent banning from PB was to anxiously check whether I still regarded those bets as valid - my firm impression is that as a southern Tory he's been lured by the prevailing London media narrative into the delusion that the bets represent free money for him. Frankly, although I wouldn't presume to call the outcome of the referendum itself this far out, my own judgement is that as far as the second bet is concerned the odds lie firmly in my favour.
I was perfectly happy to let him wallow in misplaced complacency for another year and a quarter, but what did trouble me slightly was that in his sunny optimism over the two aforementioned bets, he appeared to have overlooked a third bet we entered into at the same time, which as it happens I have just won - on whether 16 and 17 year olds would have the right to vote in the referendum (or whether "children would be voting", as one of his fellow travellers sneeringly put it). I asked him if he was now prepared to settle that bet. In all honesty I can't say I was entirely surprised that he tried to brazen his way out of it, but the approach he took in doing so was truly breathtaking-
"I am well aware of that without any need of a reminder from you. All our bets will be settled together when the referendum actually takes place."
This was my response -
"Oh really? Who decided that?
It appears that what you are in need of a reminder of is the meaning of the term 'good faith'. There was no agreement between us whatsoever that you had the right to defer settling a lost bet for FIFTEEN MONTHS at your own convenience.
I cannot legally force you to honour this bet, but I expect you to. If you haven't done so within a reasonable timescale (let's say a few weeks) I will be drawing the obvious conclusion about your good faith."
I have also now sent him the following email -
"Hello John,
Just in case you never become aware of this, I have responded to the extraordinary comment you left on my blog this morning.
I do not necessarily expect you to pay up today or tomorrow, but for the avoidance of doubt I do not consider a fifteen or sixteen month delay in settling the bet (or anything even remotely close to that) to be acceptable.
I'll look forward to hearing from you about your preferred method of payment.
Regards,
James"
They say there's honour amongst thieves. But is there honour amongst PB Tories? We'll find out.
* * *
Staying on the subject of votes at 16, this was the verdict of the Electoral Reform Society's Katie Ghose in the Guardian -
"Next year's referendum will be the first test of what happens when young people are given the opportunity to put citizenship education into practice while it is still fresh in their memory. We should not be surprised if this cohort goes on to show higher levels of civic engagement in the future. The danger is that their contemporaries around Britain, and indeed subsequent generations of Scottish young people, fail to match them."
In respect of the latter point, I can only assume Katie must be praying for a Yes vote, because I cannot see any credible chance that future generations of young people will be denied the vote in an independent Scotland, whereas the overwhelming likelihood is that they will continue to be denied the vote if we remain part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it's very hard to understand why anyone who is serious about constitutional and electoral reform (paging the Liberal Democrats) would vote anything but Yes. With independence, you get : votes at 16, an entirely elected national parliament with members voted for by proportional representation, a written constitution, and a cast-iron commitment to membership of the European Union. With the UK, you get : no votes at 16, a semi-unelected national parliament with its elected members voted for by first-past-the-post, no written constitution, and a severe risk of an involuntary departure from the European Union.
* * *
UPDATE : Fair play to John O'Hersham - he's had a change of heart and has now said he is prepared to settle the bet.
I was perfectly happy to let him wallow in misplaced complacency for another year and a quarter, but what did trouble me slightly was that in his sunny optimism over the two aforementioned bets, he appeared to have overlooked a third bet we entered into at the same time, which as it happens I have just won - on whether 16 and 17 year olds would have the right to vote in the referendum (or whether "children would be voting", as one of his fellow travellers sneeringly put it). I asked him if he was now prepared to settle that bet. In all honesty I can't say I was entirely surprised that he tried to brazen his way out of it, but the approach he took in doing so was truly breathtaking-
"I am well aware of that without any need of a reminder from you. All our bets will be settled together when the referendum actually takes place."
This was my response -
"Oh really? Who decided that?
It appears that what you are in need of a reminder of is the meaning of the term 'good faith'. There was no agreement between us whatsoever that you had the right to defer settling a lost bet for FIFTEEN MONTHS at your own convenience.
I cannot legally force you to honour this bet, but I expect you to. If you haven't done so within a reasonable timescale (let's say a few weeks) I will be drawing the obvious conclusion about your good faith."
I have also now sent him the following email -
"Hello John,
Just in case you never become aware of this, I have responded to the extraordinary comment you left on my blog this morning.
I do not necessarily expect you to pay up today or tomorrow, but for the avoidance of doubt I do not consider a fifteen or sixteen month delay in settling the bet (or anything even remotely close to that) to be acceptable.
I'll look forward to hearing from you about your preferred method of payment.
Regards,
James"
They say there's honour amongst thieves. But is there honour amongst PB Tories? We'll find out.
* * *
Staying on the subject of votes at 16, this was the verdict of the Electoral Reform Society's Katie Ghose in the Guardian -
"Next year's referendum will be the first test of what happens when young people are given the opportunity to put citizenship education into practice while it is still fresh in their memory. We should not be surprised if this cohort goes on to show higher levels of civic engagement in the future. The danger is that their contemporaries around Britain, and indeed subsequent generations of Scottish young people, fail to match them."
In respect of the latter point, I can only assume Katie must be praying for a Yes vote, because I cannot see any credible chance that future generations of young people will be denied the vote in an independent Scotland, whereas the overwhelming likelihood is that they will continue to be denied the vote if we remain part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it's very hard to understand why anyone who is serious about constitutional and electoral reform (paging the Liberal Democrats) would vote anything but Yes. With independence, you get : votes at 16, an entirely elected national parliament with members voted for by proportional representation, a written constitution, and a cast-iron commitment to membership of the European Union. With the UK, you get : no votes at 16, a semi-unelected national parliament with its elected members voted for by first-past-the-post, no written constitution, and a severe risk of an involuntary departure from the European Union.
* * *
UPDATE : Fair play to John O'Hersham - he's had a change of heart and has now said he is prepared to settle the bet.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Advantage Scotland
It's slightly mind-boggling that YouGov appear to have devoted more effort to tracking public opinion about Andy Murray's national identity than to tracking independence voting intentions (as far as I can see there hasn't been a published YouGov poll on independence VI since 2012!), but for what it's worth the figures on Murray are rather refreshing. This is the perception of the British public as a whole, remember -
Thinking about Andy Murray, do you think of him as a Scottish sportsman or British sportsman?
Scottish 53%
British 35%
Those are fairly astounding figures a year on from the "Oh my God, he's touching OUR flag! Oh my God, he's singing OUR anthem!" moment at the Olympics. I'm not entirely sure about YouGov's spin, though -
"the polling appears to mostly contradict what many have claimed about British attitudes towards the tennis star – namely, that to non-Scottish Britons he is "Scottish when he loses and British when he wins"."
The way I would put it is that a determined - verging on embarrassing - effort by the establishment to gently extinguish Murray's Scottish identity in the public consciousness (most disgracefully by conflating his supposed 'maturing' process with a movement towards Britishness) has failed. It obviously deserved to fail, but it's still slightly surprising that it has. Probably the reason is that the hate campaign against Murray from a few years ago has come back to haunt the London media - it's a bit difficult to paint Murray as an anti-English brat and then embrace him as a True Brit icon, even with a cobbled-together 'maturing' narrative to explain away the dramatic transformation.
"Interestingly, though more people from England and Wales think of Murray as British now than in 2011, the proportion of Scots who think of Murray as Scottish has declined from 85% in 2011 to just 70% today."
That sentence doesn't make any sense. Do YouGov really believe that the other 30% of Scots don't think of Murray as Scottish? In a forced-choice question, you go with your perception of Murray's primary identity, but I'm sure virtually everyone would regard Murray as both Scottish and British, for the simple reason that he is. That will remain the case if Murray becomes a registered Scottish player post-independence. As I've pointed out many times, the word 'Britain' is not synonymous with 'whatever political state London happens to be capital city of at any given moment'.
Thinking about Andy Murray, do you think of him as a Scottish sportsman or British sportsman?
Scottish 53%
British 35%
Those are fairly astounding figures a year on from the "Oh my God, he's touching OUR flag! Oh my God, he's singing OUR anthem!" moment at the Olympics. I'm not entirely sure about YouGov's spin, though -
"the polling appears to mostly contradict what many have claimed about British attitudes towards the tennis star – namely, that to non-Scottish Britons he is "Scottish when he loses and British when he wins"."
The way I would put it is that a determined - verging on embarrassing - effort by the establishment to gently extinguish Murray's Scottish identity in the public consciousness (most disgracefully by conflating his supposed 'maturing' process with a movement towards Britishness) has failed. It obviously deserved to fail, but it's still slightly surprising that it has. Probably the reason is that the hate campaign against Murray from a few years ago has come back to haunt the London media - it's a bit difficult to paint Murray as an anti-English brat and then embrace him as a True Brit icon, even with a cobbled-together 'maturing' narrative to explain away the dramatic transformation.
"Interestingly, though more people from England and Wales think of Murray as British now than in 2011, the proportion of Scots who think of Murray as Scottish has declined from 85% in 2011 to just 70% today."
That sentence doesn't make any sense. Do YouGov really believe that the other 30% of Scots don't think of Murray as Scottish? In a forced-choice question, you go with your perception of Murray's primary identity, but I'm sure virtually everyone would regard Murray as both Scottish and British, for the simple reason that he is. That will remain the case if Murray becomes a registered Scottish player post-independence. As I've pointed out many times, the word 'Britain' is not synonymous with 'whatever political state London happens to be capital city of at any given moment'.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Political Betting's Smithson embarks on another "I will not be defied!!!!" rant and then bans me yet again
Apologies for anyone getting bored by this, but as you know I made a promise to the PB moderation team that if they continued to muck me about I would simply repost the exchanges here. Regrettably, that's now become necessary for a third time -
Mick Pork : Sadly as everyone on PB knows by now one persons mischief and jolly japes is another persons smears and tension filled trolling. Or something. ;)
I trust Malcolm did not storm off in the huff vowing never to return?
There's been a bit too much of that of late from some of our right wing friends sadly. :)
Alan Brooke : ah yes Tories like Old Nat, Stuart Dickson, JJPG2 famously huffed and vowed never to return. Good to see them still posting.
Mick Pork : OldNat left of his own accord without making a complete t*at of himself like some I could mention and the site is poorer without him. You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson. Don't know if you're telling the truth about JJPG2, sorry. Before my time.
Me : "You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson."
Exactly. He was banned for the heinous crime of using the words "pure comedy gold".
Mike Smithson : You know the rules. If you want to continue posting here you do not discuss moderation
You break this time and time again and I am getting sick of it.
If you have issues contact me directly.
Me : Mike, you know my position. It has not changed and it will not change. I will not be bullied. Sorry.
Mike Smithson : When you come onto my site you accept the house rules.
If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences.
Me : "When you come onto my site you accept the house rules."
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
"If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences."
Nope. If you ban me or delete my posts for no good reason, that is a decision you've made, not me. That is your responsibility, and something that you have to justify (if you can). It's not something that I "must accept", and I have no intention of doing so.
* * *
I was of course then banned yet again, and unlike last time (only a few days ago) my photo has now disappeared and been replaced by a "banned" image. That might indicate this is intended as an indefinite ban.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back on, he was indeed banned again just days later simply for using the words "pure comedy gold".
It's not hugely surprising that Smithson subsequently introduced the Kafkaesque "the first rule of moderation is that you don't talk about moderation", because it's the only hope he has of covering up his past antics (and perhaps more to the point the ongoing antics of his 'noble volunteer' Tory moderation team), which he simply can't even begin to justify. So I've been banned for breaking that rule, while Tory posters continue with their free licence to be abusive, and in many cases frankly racist.
That's the profoundly ugly state of the site that Mike has moulded through his own free choices, and if he thinks that's a site that he can be proud of, and one on which he's happy to build his career as a media pundit, then I think that's rather sad.
Mick Pork : Sadly as everyone on PB knows by now one persons mischief and jolly japes is another persons smears and tension filled trolling. Or something. ;)
I trust Malcolm did not storm off in the huff vowing never to return?
There's been a bit too much of that of late from some of our right wing friends sadly. :)
Alan Brooke : ah yes Tories like Old Nat, Stuart Dickson, JJPG2 famously huffed and vowed never to return. Good to see them still posting.
Mick Pork : OldNat left of his own accord without making a complete t*at of himself like some I could mention and the site is poorer without him. You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson. Don't know if you're telling the truth about JJPG2, sorry. Before my time.
Me : "You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson."
Exactly. He was banned for the heinous crime of using the words "pure comedy gold".
Mike Smithson : You know the rules. If you want to continue posting here you do not discuss moderation
You break this time and time again and I am getting sick of it.
If you have issues contact me directly.
Me : Mike, you know my position. It has not changed and it will not change. I will not be bullied. Sorry.
Mike Smithson : When you come onto my site you accept the house rules.
If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences.
Me : "When you come onto my site you accept the house rules."
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
"If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences."
Nope. If you ban me or delete my posts for no good reason, that is a decision you've made, not me. That is your responsibility, and something that you have to justify (if you can). It's not something that I "must accept", and I have no intention of doing so.
* * *
I was of course then banned yet again, and unlike last time (only a few days ago) my photo has now disappeared and been replaced by a "banned" image. That might indicate this is intended as an indefinite ban.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back on, he was indeed banned again just days later simply for using the words "pure comedy gold".
It's not hugely surprising that Smithson subsequently introduced the Kafkaesque "the first rule of moderation is that you don't talk about moderation", because it's the only hope he has of covering up his past antics (and perhaps more to the point the ongoing antics of his 'noble volunteer' Tory moderation team), which he simply can't even begin to justify. So I've been banned for breaking that rule, while Tory posters continue with their free licence to be abusive, and in many cases frankly racist.
That's the profoundly ugly state of the site that Mike has moulded through his own free choices, and if he thinks that's a site that he can be proud of, and one on which he's happy to build his career as a media pundit, then I think that's rather sad.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Yet another problem that London rule "isn't to blame for"
Well, I've had another highly instructive day. As you probably know, life expectancy in Scotland is considerably lower than in the rest of the UK, and there are pockets of Glasgow where it is lower than even the Gaza Strip. As this situation has arisen entirely on London's watch, you'd think it would be an open and shut case that the UK government must take at least a modicum of responsibility for it. But no - my CyberTory friends advise me that such an idea is ludicrous. Here is their list of excuses -
But...but...health is devolved! (Yes, but it's only been devolved since 1999, and the life expectancy differential has been in evidence since the 1950s. Fourteen years is scarcely enough time to turn around decades of damage caused by London misrule - and arguably it's six years rather than fourteen, because when Labour were in power at both Holyrood and Westminster the Scottish Government functioned more like the Downing Street-controlled Scottish Office of old. In any case, health policy is far from being the only determinant of life expectancy that is controlled by government, and many of the others such as welfare are still the sole preserve of Westminster.)
But...but...it's preposterous to suggest that Westminster is to blame when everyone knows this is all down to the Jocks' bad diet and lack of exercise! (So no-one has ever resorted to comfort eating or alcohol abuse after becoming unemployed, or being bullied by Atos? Can you truly see no connection to Westminster policy there?)
But...but...that's only Westminster POLICY you're talking about. It's absurd to blame the policies of individual governments on constitutional structures! (So how exactly do you think we ended up with all those government policies we didn't vote for, if not as a direct result of constitutional structures? Scotland didn't exactly win the Thatcher government in a game of cards, you know.)
But...but...pointing out that Westminster is to blame for the poor life expectancy of Scots is NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING! (Has anyone seen my irony-ometer lying around somewhere? I seem to have mislaid it.)
But...but...nobody knows what causes the poor life expectancy of Scots. It's a total mystery! (My personal favourite. Anything good that happens in Scotland = conclusive proof that we are 'better together' in this, the most glorious political union that our planet has ever been blessed enough to witness. Anything bad that happens in Scotland = BAFFLING.)
Well, I'm convinced. In future, I'll try not to be so impertinent as to expect the No campaign to actually defend the track record of the union. Let's not over-think things too much, as we join with Blair McDougall, Alistair Darling and the rest of the Scottish Labour family in saying "Play it again, Dave"...
But...but...health is devolved! (Yes, but it's only been devolved since 1999, and the life expectancy differential has been in evidence since the 1950s. Fourteen years is scarcely enough time to turn around decades of damage caused by London misrule - and arguably it's six years rather than fourteen, because when Labour were in power at both Holyrood and Westminster the Scottish Government functioned more like the Downing Street-controlled Scottish Office of old. In any case, health policy is far from being the only determinant of life expectancy that is controlled by government, and many of the others such as welfare are still the sole preserve of Westminster.)
But...but...it's preposterous to suggest that Westminster is to blame when everyone knows this is all down to the Jocks' bad diet and lack of exercise! (So no-one has ever resorted to comfort eating or alcohol abuse after becoming unemployed, or being bullied by Atos? Can you truly see no connection to Westminster policy there?)
But...but...that's only Westminster POLICY you're talking about. It's absurd to blame the policies of individual governments on constitutional structures! (So how exactly do you think we ended up with all those government policies we didn't vote for, if not as a direct result of constitutional structures? Scotland didn't exactly win the Thatcher government in a game of cards, you know.)
But...but...pointing out that Westminster is to blame for the poor life expectancy of Scots is NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING! (Has anyone seen my irony-ometer lying around somewhere? I seem to have mislaid it.)
But...but...nobody knows what causes the poor life expectancy of Scots. It's a total mystery! (My personal favourite. Anything good that happens in Scotland = conclusive proof that we are 'better together' in this, the most glorious political union that our planet has ever been blessed enough to witness. Anything bad that happens in Scotland = BAFFLING.)
Well, I'm convinced. In future, I'll try not to be so impertinent as to expect the No campaign to actually defend the track record of the union. Let's not over-think things too much, as we join with Blair McDougall, Alistair Darling and the rest of the Scottish Labour family in saying "Play it again, Dave"...
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Rhoda Grant and 'entitlement'
I've just spotted an article in the Edinburgh Evening News from just over a week ago, about the owner of an escort agency who is facing a potential jail term, but who vehemently denies that his business has anything to do with prostitution. It has the rare distinction of including a quote from Labour MSP Rhoda Grant on the sex industry that I actually agree with -
"Escort agencies call themselves something different but it is well understood what people are really buying. No one pays that amount of money for companionship."
I think that's probably right. I know of no credible evidence that any escort agency truly makes money on the basis of non-sexual companionship. Escorts are certainly able to refuse to have sex with any potential client they don't want to have sex with, but the flipside of that decision is that no payment will occur, because everyone knows the payment is either wholly or predominantly in exchange for sex. The idea that clients are only buying companionship is largely a fiction designed for PR purposes and legal cover.
So 1-0 to Rhoda. Unfortunately she then throws it all away with this piece of mind-bending gibberish -
"What he’s basically saying is these people [disabled and vulnerable men] are lesser human beings and not entitled to or able to find a real relationship. I know plenty of disabled people in loving relationships. To say to certain categories of people that they have to pay for sex or company is discrimination at its very worst."
Dear God. Who exactly is forcing anyone to pay for sex, or denying them the ability to have a sexual relationship by any other means? If there was a law to that effect, and Rhoda was spearheading the fight to repeal that law, I'd be right there in her corner. Unfortunately she's not doing that. The legislation that she's proposing will have absolutely no effect on the ability or otherwise of disabled and vulnerable men to successfully form 'real' relationships. But for those disabled and vulnerable men who fail to form such relationships and then seek consensual paid sex as an alternative, Rhoda's plan is to throw them into jail, and treat sex workers who pocket a considerable amount of cash as 'victims' of disabled and vulnerable men. She regards this, astonishingly, as an 'anti-discrimination' measure.
The other word that leaps out at me is 'entitled'. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that Rhoda is implying that disabled men are literally entitled to a 'real relationship' - which presumably suggests a relationship that is sexual, even if it has many other facets as well. If so, that's extraordinary. After all, the basic premise of those like Rhoda who want to criminalise the purchase of sex is that no-one has an entitlement to sex. That doesn't just refer to the blindingly obvious point that an individual does not have an entitlement to sex if no-one consents to have sex with them - it also means they do not have an entitlement to sex even if someone does consent, but does so in 'the wrong way', ie. in exchange for payment. And yet Rhoda suddenly seems to be going to completely the other extreme and declaring that not only does everyone have a right to sex, but also to a fully-fledged relationship to go along with it. How exactly does she propose to enforce that 'entitlement'?
OK, she doesn't. It's waffle.
A useful analogy is the medical supply of blood. A person might need/want a blood donation, but that does not mean they have any right to demand that others donate blood. If no blood is made available, there is no right to the blood of others, and everyone accepts that. By the same token, disabled or vulnerable people have absolutely no right to sex if others are unwilling to consent to it. But if people are willing to donate blood for whatever reason, would it still be justifiable for the state to ban the process on the grounds that "nobody has the right to others' blood"?
Of course it wouldn't. So why does Rhoda think it's any of of her business to prevent women having consensual sex with disabled men, just because she personally finds their reasons for doing so distasteful? We already know what her response would be - it's that women only need the money because of poverty. So yes, rather than criminalising vulnerable people, let's end poverty. That would mean the number of people prepared to have sex in exchange for money would decrease dramatically, and that would be a good thing. It would constitute an enhancement of freedom, because people would at last be freely choosing their ideal way of life, rather than freely choosing the 'least worst option' available. But it would also mean that the number of people willing to work as cleaners or shelf-stackers would decrease dramatically, for exactly the same reason. Would Rhoda and the Labour party (so wedded to the Blunkett doctrine that even the most menial and unpleasant work is good for the human spirit and somehow "heals the sick") join me in celebrating that enhancement of freedom? I somehow doubt it.
We've arrived at the curious position where Labour still believe in socialism, but only when they talk about sex work.
"Escort agencies call themselves something different but it is well understood what people are really buying. No one pays that amount of money for companionship."
I think that's probably right. I know of no credible evidence that any escort agency truly makes money on the basis of non-sexual companionship. Escorts are certainly able to refuse to have sex with any potential client they don't want to have sex with, but the flipside of that decision is that no payment will occur, because everyone knows the payment is either wholly or predominantly in exchange for sex. The idea that clients are only buying companionship is largely a fiction designed for PR purposes and legal cover.
So 1-0 to Rhoda. Unfortunately she then throws it all away with this piece of mind-bending gibberish -
"What he’s basically saying is these people [disabled and vulnerable men] are lesser human beings and not entitled to or able to find a real relationship. I know plenty of disabled people in loving relationships. To say to certain categories of people that they have to pay for sex or company is discrimination at its very worst."
Dear God. Who exactly is forcing anyone to pay for sex, or denying them the ability to have a sexual relationship by any other means? If there was a law to that effect, and Rhoda was spearheading the fight to repeal that law, I'd be right there in her corner. Unfortunately she's not doing that. The legislation that she's proposing will have absolutely no effect on the ability or otherwise of disabled and vulnerable men to successfully form 'real' relationships. But for those disabled and vulnerable men who fail to form such relationships and then seek consensual paid sex as an alternative, Rhoda's plan is to throw them into jail, and treat sex workers who pocket a considerable amount of cash as 'victims' of disabled and vulnerable men. She regards this, astonishingly, as an 'anti-discrimination' measure.
The other word that leaps out at me is 'entitled'. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that Rhoda is implying that disabled men are literally entitled to a 'real relationship' - which presumably suggests a relationship that is sexual, even if it has many other facets as well. If so, that's extraordinary. After all, the basic premise of those like Rhoda who want to criminalise the purchase of sex is that no-one has an entitlement to sex. That doesn't just refer to the blindingly obvious point that an individual does not have an entitlement to sex if no-one consents to have sex with them - it also means they do not have an entitlement to sex even if someone does consent, but does so in 'the wrong way', ie. in exchange for payment. And yet Rhoda suddenly seems to be going to completely the other extreme and declaring that not only does everyone have a right to sex, but also to a fully-fledged relationship to go along with it. How exactly does she propose to enforce that 'entitlement'?
OK, she doesn't. It's waffle.
A useful analogy is the medical supply of blood. A person might need/want a blood donation, but that does not mean they have any right to demand that others donate blood. If no blood is made available, there is no right to the blood of others, and everyone accepts that. By the same token, disabled or vulnerable people have absolutely no right to sex if others are unwilling to consent to it. But if people are willing to donate blood for whatever reason, would it still be justifiable for the state to ban the process on the grounds that "nobody has the right to others' blood"?
Of course it wouldn't. So why does Rhoda think it's any of of her business to prevent women having consensual sex with disabled men, just because she personally finds their reasons for doing so distasteful? We already know what her response would be - it's that women only need the money because of poverty. So yes, rather than criminalising vulnerable people, let's end poverty. That would mean the number of people prepared to have sex in exchange for money would decrease dramatically, and that would be a good thing. It would constitute an enhancement of freedom, because people would at last be freely choosing their ideal way of life, rather than freely choosing the 'least worst option' available. But it would also mean that the number of people willing to work as cleaners or shelf-stackers would decrease dramatically, for exactly the same reason. Would Rhoda and the Labour party (so wedded to the Blunkett doctrine that even the most menial and unpleasant work is good for the human spirit and somehow "heals the sick") join me in celebrating that enhancement of freedom? I somehow doubt it.
We've arrived at the curious position where Labour still believe in socialism, but only when they talk about sex work.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Shock as Britain's leading cat forum bans badgers
As you might remember, I recently made a solemn promise to the moderators of a certain Tory-dominated "non-aligned" political website that if they continued deleting posts of mine for no good reason, I would simply repost them here. Regrettably, it's become necessary to make good on that promise for a second time -
Plato : I don't for a second believe in psychics, but having seen Derren Brown in action - I can fully understand why anyone who wasn't certain it was cobblers would be convinced. He's a master of the art of mentalism and if he chose to be a charlatan would no doubt have made an enormous fortune.
That he's also a very accomplished magician and artist just shows what creativity and a top drawer IQ can accomplish - he's a rare beast.
His stage shows are incredible. This is rather fun taster.
Me : "I don't for a second believe in psychics"
Phew. For a moment there I thought you said you don't believe in physics.
Plato : @PB Moderator
Can you confirm if I and another PBer aren't to discuss each others posts?
You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request.
I'd appreciate a response as either someone is taking the p*** out of the site's rules or I'm getting rocks thrown at me when under the impression that I can't throw them back.
I have no interest in doing so as its very boring for everyone else - but if I choose to do so, I'd like to do it knowing I won't be banned.
Me : "You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request."
I take it you are aware that the post you have just written (along with umpteen other near-identical ones) means that you are not in fact complying with that request? Perhaps you weren't. You are now.
* * *
After that exchange was deleted, I decided to give the moderation team an opportunity to demonstrate their even-handedness once more, by allowing me to post a badger video in response to Plato's Derren Brown videos. Alas, my seven or so attempts to get the badger video up were met with instant deletion, and I have now been banned from the site. So these are the current PB rules as far as I can discern them -
1) A Tory poster calling an SNP poster a Nazi, a w**ker, a t*at or a member of the Ku Klux Klan = excellent, highly encouraged.
2) An SNP poster using the words "pure comedy gold" = instant lifetime banning.
3) Derren Brown videos/cat videos/reviews of chick flicks = highly relevant to a political betting forum, enriching of discussion.
4) Badger videos = sling your hook, you Jock scum.
Plato : I don't for a second believe in psychics, but having seen Derren Brown in action - I can fully understand why anyone who wasn't certain it was cobblers would be convinced. He's a master of the art of mentalism and if he chose to be a charlatan would no doubt have made an enormous fortune.
That he's also a very accomplished magician and artist just shows what creativity and a top drawer IQ can accomplish - he's a rare beast.
His stage shows are incredible. This is rather fun taster.
Me : "I don't for a second believe in psychics"
Phew. For a moment there I thought you said you don't believe in physics.
Plato : @PB Moderator
Can you confirm if I and another PBer aren't to discuss each others posts?
You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request.
I'd appreciate a response as either someone is taking the p*** out of the site's rules or I'm getting rocks thrown at me when under the impression that I can't throw them back.
I have no interest in doing so as its very boring for everyone else - but if I choose to do so, I'd like to do it knowing I won't be banned.
Me : "You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request."
I take it you are aware that the post you have just written (along with umpteen other near-identical ones) means that you are not in fact complying with that request? Perhaps you weren't. You are now.
* * *
After that exchange was deleted, I decided to give the moderation team an opportunity to demonstrate their even-handedness once more, by allowing me to post a badger video in response to Plato's Derren Brown videos. Alas, my seven or so attempts to get the badger video up were met with instant deletion, and I have now been banned from the site. So these are the current PB rules as far as I can discern them -
1) A Tory poster calling an SNP poster a Nazi, a w**ker, a t*at or a member of the Ku Klux Klan = excellent, highly encouraged.
2) An SNP poster using the words "pure comedy gold" = instant lifetime banning.
3) Derren Brown videos/cat videos/reviews of chick flicks = highly relevant to a political betting forum, enriching of discussion.
4) Badger videos = sling your hook, you Jock scum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)