GB or not GB?

Dave Coull · GB or not GB?

Under which of the categories of discussion on Our Scotland should this be discussed? It COULD come under "Football (for all topics on Scottish and World Football)". But it clearly has implications for "Scottish Politics and Independence". It also clearly has implications for "UK and Ireland Politics". What about "Campaigns/Events"? Even at this early stage it is shaping up to be a "campaign", in fact, the campaign has already started, and at least one of the organisations involved in the campaign has an "official spokesman" on the campaign (see the report below). And the actions of at least a significant section of the crowd at the Scotland international match on Wednesday 20th August was the first "Event" in that campaign.

However, on reflection, I think "Scottish News, Life, and Society" might be best. The event on Wednesday, and the fact that the campaign is in today's "Scotland On Sunday", makes it "News", and, even for folk who are not football fans, Scotland international matches, the behaviour of Scotland fans, and these being on the television, radio, and in the newspapers, is clearly a fact of Scottish "Life and Society". So, here is a relevant article by Kate Foster which appears in today's "Scotland On Sunday".

Tartan army raps Brown's 2012 UK team plan
By Kate Foster

GORDON Brown yesterday provoked the wrath of Scotland's football fans by calling for a British team to compete in the 2012 Olympics. Speaking from Beijing, the Prime Minister said he was "determined" the move would go ahead.

Britain has not entered a football team in the Olympics since 1960 because of fears it could jeopardise the future of the individual England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Irish national sides.

Brown's views were yesterday supported by England footballer David Beckham who said he believed football deserved its place in the Olympics and left the door open to possibly playing for Great Britain in 2012.

Brown said: "I think when people are looking at the Olympics in 2012 – Britain, home of football, where football was invented, which we gave to the world – I think people would be very surprised if there is an Olympic tournament in football and we are not part of it."

The English Football Association backs Brown, but an SFA spokesman said: "We are absolutely opposed to Team GB. We think it will threaten the independent status of the home nations."

Tam Ferry, the Tartan Army's spokesman for the No Team GB campaign, added: "I think Gordon Brown should be running the country, not sticking his nose in places where it's not wanted."

Dave Coull

Oh, and I just noticed that today's Scottish Sunday Express has this story as it's main front page splash.

NEW THREAT TO SCOTLAND TEAM

by Mark Stevenson

SCOTLAND’S status as an independent football nation was in jeopardy last night after Gordon Brown promised a British team for the next Olympics.

The Prime Minister lit the blue touch paper on the controversial issue by saying he was “determined” to see a united team by 2012.

Political opponents and sporting figures said the move could spell the end for the Scottish national side.

Mr Brown admitted high-level talks took place yesterday with Sepp Blatter, the president of world football’s governing body, FIFA, to discuss the issue.

First Minister Alex Salmond immediately said Mr Brown’s attempt to push through a Team UK were “disgraceful”.

He added: “The comments from the Prime Minister are extraordinary. The Scottish FA and indeed the Welsh FA have made it clear they will not put at risk their international standing in order to have an Under-23 UK team at the next Olympics.

“The pressure that Gordon Brown and his Ministers are trying to build on this issue is disgraceful and ridiculous.”

In a television interview on Sky News yesterday, Mr Brown said he was “determined” to ensure that the UK had both a men’s and women’s football team competing in London.

Sepp Blatter has previously said that fielding Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish players as part of an Olympic team could threaten each country’s football bodies.

But Mr Brown, a keen supporter of Raith Rovers, said: “I hope there will be a team by 2012. It will be Team UK. I hope we can get an agreement on that.

“I think when people are looking at the Olympics in 2012 – Britain, home of football, where football was invented, which we gave to the world – I think people would be very surprised if there is an Olympic tournament in football and we are not part of it.”

The last British football team to enter the competition was in 1972 but no side has taken part since because of fears it could jeopardise the future of the individual nations.

In 1908 the Great Britain Olympic side was represented entirely by the English national amateur team which went on to win the gold medal.

The plan for a single team for 2012 is backed by the English FA and the Northern Irish, but the SFA and Welsh officials have rejected the proposals.

Yesterday SFA chief executive Gordon Smith said: “We don’t want anything to do with a British team and made that clear from very early on.

“I have met Gordon Brown, but our position remains the same. A Team UK would raise questions in terms of our future as an autonomous footballing nation.

“Right now we have our own association, league and national team and that is not something we are willing to compromise.

“I don’t see a change of heart on this. There’s no backing for this from our administration or our supporters.”

Pete Wishart, the SNP culture, media and sport spokesman, said: “This is a spectacular own goal for Brown. He is out of touch with the overwhelming views of football supporters.

“All the national supporters groups oppose this move and see it as a threat to the status of their nations to field independent
football squads.

“Not only do all the national supporters associations oppose such a move, but the majority of football associations in the UK have said they do not want to take part in a single UK team as it could threaten their existence.”

The Tartan Army is also fiercely opposed to any plans for a national UK team in the Olympics and has accused Mr Brown of losing touch with Scotland.

Spokesman Alan Duncan said: “When is Gordon Brown going to realise that nobody wants a Team UK, a position that could threaten our own independent national side?

“To be honest, nobody up here takes anything that Brown says seriously anymore.

“He has proven time and time again that he is more interested in being English than Scottish. He even admitted to supporting the England team.

“Scotland is focussed on trying to qualify for World Cups and European championships.”

Former Scotland manager Craig Brown has previously warned that a single Team UK could lead to the end of the national team.

Writing in the Sunday Express earlier this year, he said: “In my opinion, it would be axiomatic that such a ‘temporary’ merger could lead to the eventual permanent combination of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales into a single footballing entity in future major tournaments such as the World Cup and European Championships.”

Last night former Scotland star Frank McAvennie urged the Prime Minister to stick to politics. He said: “I think that Gordon Brown has enough on his plate to start messing up football.”

But England midfielder David Beckham believes football deserved its place in the Olympics despite the controversy the move would cause.

He said: “For me, football is the best sport in the world so for me it should be top of the list.

“There are so many other great sports and so many other athletes who have worked so hard to get here, but it’s still important.”

Aventinian

I don't think we can really take what the SNP say into regard: they would the GB team at the Olympics didn't exist at all and we didn't compete quite simply because they have a vitriolic hatred of all things British.

The other objections have been shown to have no basis. Assurances have been given, assurances will likely be strongly given to Gordon Brown if he meets with FIFA and I cannot possibly envision this ludicrous disaster scenario.

It is an anomaly that we do not send a football team to the Olympics, and one that shouldn't be around to survive based on Nat rumour-mongering, unfounded fears and a few vested interests.

Interesting how the two articles contradict though: one saying the last time Team GB played football at the Olympics was 1960, the other 1972; and I think it's also well know that the reason it stopped fielding a British team was the professional/amateur issue rather than any fears over the Home Nations' sides being abolished.

Holebender

Another contradiction... one article says Beckham might play and the other says it would be an under-23 team.

Aventinian

As I understand it, there are three over-23s allowed per team.

Just sloppy journalism really.

Pip

Out of interest, why are so many people concerned that this is the thin-end-of-the-wedge? As someone who's not an expert on the behind-the-scenes workings of international football I'm not clear on why it jeopardizes the national teams and leagues.

Dave Coull

from today's Herald, 25/8/08

PM Drops Baton Over GB Football Team

by Douglas Fraser (Scottish Political Editor of the Herald)

Roman emperors used to keep the plebs happy with a combination of bread and circuses. Some things don't change, and two millennia on, it helps distract from the soaring price of bread for the Olympics to provide the ultimate circus.

Yesterday, the torch was handed to London, and a new era of sporting politics and political sport began. That is likely to be a significant theme through the next four years and beyond, to Glasgow's 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Apart from money worries, the Labour Government faces growing uncertainty over what will comprise Great Britain the next time Team GB takes to the Olympic arena. The SNP, unsurprisingly, wants an independent Scotland to have its own Olympic team. But unionists hope the impact of medal success in Beijing will demonstrate Scottish athletes are stronger together and weaker apart from Britain, and that such a sporting message will reach the bits of Scotland that politics rarely does.

Indeed, Gordon Brown hopes to see his Scottish compatriots drawn in to Britain more firmly. Visiting Beijing, he restated the case for an all-Britain football team to compete at the London games.

You don't have to be a nationalist to have problems with that. It could undermine the case for maintaining the historic anomaly of the UK having four national teams competing internationally.

The First Minister Alex Salmond reckons the Prime Minister has scored an "own goal" with his "extraordinary blunder" ahead of the imminent Glenrothes by-election.

"What does the Prime Minister think the people of Fife would think about putting at risk the future of the Scottish football team?" Mr Salmond asked yesterday. "The fact is that Gordon Brown has become so obsessed with his British campaign he has lost touch with reality."

Cathy Jamieson, Labour's acting Holyrood leader, distanced herself from Mr Brown's call.

The PM could have chosen simply to bask in the reflected glory of Beijing's medals bonanza, but has instead dropped the baton by drawing attention to political difficulties in his own backyard.

Dave Coull

Pip asks "why are so many people concerned that this is the thin-end-of-the-wedge? As someone who's not an expert on the behind-the-scenes workings of international football I'm not clear on why it jeopardizes the national teams and leagues".

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the behind-the-scenes workings of international football either, Pip, but it's fairly easy to see why the Scottish Football Association and other non-political organisations are concerned about the threat to the historic independence of Scottish Football. Even leading Labour Party figures in Scotland have distanced themselves from the prime minister's desire for a team GB. The very first international football match was a Scotland versus England game. By the time other countries got involved, and a wider international footballing organisation, FIFA, was formed, separate Scottish, English, Welsh, and Irish teams were an established fact. But apart from these four teams, FIFA consists of the teams of STATES. So FIFA has always regarded this as something of an anomaly, and officials of FIFA have made repeated efforts to get this "anomaly" removed. FIFA officials (and indeed the governments of many countries) would argue that if a GB team can play in the Olympics, then there is no reason why the "anomaly" can't be abolished, with a GB team competing in in all international events.

What follows is a "Brief History of the Scottish FA", from the SFA's web site:

Following the formation of Scotland’s earliest football clubs in the 1860s, football experienced a rapid growth but there was no formal structure, and matches were often arranged in a haphazard and irregular fashion. It was clear that the clubs would benefit from regular competition and organisation.

Queen’s Park FC, founded in 1867, took the lead, and following an advertisement in a Glasgow newspaper in 1873, representatives from seven clubs - Queen’s Park, Clydesdale, Vale of Leven, Dumbreck, Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers, Eastern and Granville - attended a meeting in Dewar’s Hotel on 13 March, 1873. Furthermore, Kilmarnock sent a letter stating their willingness to join.

That day, these eight clubs formed the Scottish Football Association, and resolved that ‘the clubs here represented form themselves into an Association for the promotion of football according to the rules of The Football Association and that the clubs connected with this Association subscribe for a challenge cup to be played for annually, the Committee to propose the laws of the competition’. The SFA was thereby founded in 1873 and is the second oldest association in world football.

The world's first international match actually took place in Glasgow one year earlier on 30 November 1872 - St. Andrew's Day. Scotland's opponents were England, the 'auld enemy', the Football Association having been founded in 1863, and the match at Hamilton Crescent ended in a 0-0 draw.

The sport experienced a meteoric growth, and by the start of the 20th century football had become Scotland’s most popular spectator sport.

The SFA and the Football Association, together with the Football Association of Wales (founded in 1876), and the Irish Football Association (founded in 1880), set up the International Football Association Board in 1886 to control the Laws of the Game. FIFA, founded in 1904, became a member of the Board in 1913 and today the IFAB still acts as the guardian of the Laws of the Game.

The Scottish Football Association joined FIFA in 1910 and was a founder member of UEFA in 1954.

Dave Coull

I see that, according to today's Daily Record, Cathy Jamieson MSP, contender for the leadership of the Labour MSPs and current acting leader, has proposed a "qualifying" competition between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern ireland to see which team gets to represent GB at the London Olympics. She says this would preserve the separate international identities of the teams. If Scotland won the competition, then it would be the Scottish team representing GB. But the odds might be on it being England. Well, at least then it would clearly be an ENGLISH team in the Olympics, and Scots could decide whether they wanted to support it or some other team. Gordon Brown won't like this idea, but Cathy Jamieson probably figures it's a good idea to distance herself from Gordon anyway.

Rinty

I agree with jamiesons stance on this. I would love to see us play england, NI and Wales for a British championship the year before the olympics with the winner taking part as a one-off.

The current holders of the 'home internationals' are Northern Ireland, who also beat England in recent years, as have Scotland, so England would be favourites but not certainties.

Brown is really pushing this and will alienate himself from Scottish voters more and more if he continues.

The scottish, welsh and NI FAs have already decided on this. So any attempt by the English FA and the British Govt to overrule that decision and oput Englands decision forward as a Uk decision will backfire.

Dave Coull

The GB or not GB controversy continues. This is from today's Scotsman, 26/8/08

GB United or an own goal that will split UK ?

By Martyn McLaughlin

IT IS by far the most popular sport on these shores, but when the world descends on London in four years' time, it is set to be baffled by the absence of a unified Great Britain football team. Unless, that is, Gordon Brown gets his way.

After the Prime Minister made clear his wish to see the four home nations rally together to compete as one side, the backlash to one of sport's thorniest issues began, as could be expected.

Having been an issue of contention for more than a decade, the row over whether the likes of Barry Ferguson and Wayne Rooney might line up in the same national colours has taken on added momentum since London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games.

Yet for all the meetings behind closed doors and reassurances from football's governing bodies, there remains an apparently insurmountable resistance to the idea – the bookmaker William Hill is offering odds of 8/11 that there will not be a Team GB in 2012, and just even money that there will be.

With the Prime Minister expressing his desire to see a team coached by Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, the fall-out continued yesterday. Scotland manager George Burley reiterated the steadfast opposition of the Scottish Football Association (SFA) to any notion of a unified outfit. "It's been black and white from day one," said Burley, speaking at the opening of Falkirk's new football centre, which is based at Stirling University.

"The national team comes first and, at the moment, we are keen to keep our nationality intact. We have to have a national Scottish team and we can't put that in jeopardy, so there has been no change."

Asked for his take on the notion of a knockout competition among the home nations to determine a representative at the Games, he added: "That's all hypothetical. The problem with international games is getting dates for them, so it doesn't even come into the equation."

Eamonn Bannon, the former Hearts, Hibs and Dundee United player, told The Scotsman last night: "I don't think a British team is something that will happen. The football event in the Olympics has a much higher profile in other countries compared with Britain, and the football authorities in Scotland see the idea as the thin end of the wedge. If it were to go ahead, it would intimate the end of a separate Scottish team. What's more, if you had to pick a team tomorrow, you would be lucky to find any Scots in it."

Julie Fleeting, MBE, captain of Scotland's national women's team and a striker for the Women's English Premier League team, Arsenal, said: "First and foremost I'm Scottish and very proud to be Scottish".

"If having a British team means young girls will lose out on the opportunity of pulling on a Scottish jersey, then I'm not for it. It was a very, very proud moment for me and it would be devastating for girls not to get that chance. Looking at the numbers – a British team would have far more players to choose from and would cut out a lot of Scottish girls."

David Beckham, a leading player in the handover ceremony in Beijing, revealed his desire to see a British team and put forward his own name as that of coach. "We deserve to have a football Team GB at the Olympics, and I hope it gets sorted," he said.

But Sir Sean Connery, speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, called for Scotland to become an independent nation at every event in future olympiads.

The main reason for opposition to the idea of Team GB on the part of Scotland, Wales and, to a lesser extent, Northern Ireland, is simple: self-preservation.

Though they may be members of the UK, the constituent nations enjoy special treatment in the wider international football community.

In 1946, Sir Stanley Rous, then the (English) Football Association secretary, knew that the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (Fifa), the game's governing body, was virtually bankrupt. Cunningly, he bartered proceeds of a 1947 Britain v Fifa game in exchange for a fixed British vice-presidency and maintenance of the four home nations.

That anomaly has continued to this day, and the home nations enjoy a power in the game that other nations have come to regard as disproportionate, considering their relative failure in major tournaments over the years.

Their position has already come under fire from some in Fifa, with Jack Warner, the controversial Trinidad and Tobago representative, branding the set-up an "anachronism". An Olympic team, it seems, would only fan the flames.

The SFA, in particular, has been vocally opposed to the concept ever since Tony Banks, the then sports minister, said there should be a British in team in 1999.

Sepp Blatter, the president of Fifa, has been inconsistent in his views on how a Team GB would impact on the autonomy of the home nations. Five years ago, he said a united team could be formed, with no harm to the separate associations. However, this spring, he appeared to perform a U-turn, suggesting that such a team "will put into question all the privileges that the British associations were given".

Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the SFA, has said his organisation's opposition is not based purely on the possible dissolution of the Scottish national side. Football at the Olympics, he argues, is not considered a major event compared with key European and international competitions.

That stance has been evident in the run-up to London 2012. Two years ago, when the British Olympic Association arranged an inaugural round-table discussion on the topic of a Great Britain team, Scotland and Wales's representatives did not even attend.

Should minds meet, 2012 would mark the first appearance of a British football team at the Olympics in more than five decades, its last foray coming in 1960 in Italy, when it was eliminated at the group stages.

The last time Britain competed as the one entity was in 1971, during the qualification round for the following year's Munich Games. The side faltered against a well-drilled collection of Bulgarians.

In 1974, the Football Association Council abolished the official distinction between professionals and amateurs. As the Olympics were then open to amateur sportsmen and women only, British Olympic football became a footnote of history. Whether it will be a part of the future remains to be seen.

Celtic Indian

Its only a game of fitba ! Thats all.A form of entertainment.Exercise.Not to be taken seriously.More of a national distraction than anything else !

If there is a GB fitba team,disnay mean the end of Scottish fitba ! There is a GB Rugby team and the SRU still exists.

Stop being paranoid ! Its extremely insular

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Julie Fleeting, MBE, captain of Scotland's national women's team, and a striker for the Women's English Premier League team, Arsenal, stated her opposition to a GB team, or rather, teams, for the 2012 Olympics. Craig Burley, Scotland captain, states his opposition. Former Scotland manager Craig Brown states his own personal opposition. Former Scotland star Frank McAvennie urges the Prime Minister to keep his nose out and stop trying to bring his politics into football. Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association, re-states the implacable opposition of that organisation to the idea. Tartan Army Spokesman Alan Duncan speaks on behalf of the Scottish football fans in completely rejecting the idea. The Tartan Army even has an official No Team GB campaign, whose official spokesman, Tam Ferry, says "I think Gordon Brown should be running the country, not sticking his nose in places where it's not wanted.". Cathy Jamieson, acting leader of the Labour MSPs, and a candidate for that post on a more long term basis, feels she has to state her opposition to Gordon Brown's plans for a GB team.

But never fear, Gordon Brown does have one friend. Gordon may be so desperate he'll be grateful for small mercies. "Celtic Indian" tells Jule Fleeting, Craig Burley, Craig Brown, Frank McAvennie, Gordon Smith, the Scottish Football Association, the Tartan Army, Alan Duncan, Tam Ferry, and even Cathy Jamieson, "Its only a game of fitba !"

"Only"?

I don't think they're listening to you, CI. Some of these folk might even have some sympathy with the late Bill Shankly's view of fitba.

"Celtic Indian" also tells Jule Fleeting, Craig Burley, Craig Brown, Frank McAvennie, Gordon Smith, the Scottish Football Association, the Tartan Army, Alan Duncan, Tam Ferry, and even Cathy Jamieson, " If there is a GB fitba team, disnay mean the end of Scottish fitba !"

I don't think you have much chance of convincing them, CI. Or most Scottish football fans. Or the Welsh fans, come to that. I don't even think you have much chance of convincing the bookies, whose assessment is that team GB is unlikely to happen.

Aventinian

Aventinian

This Julie Fleming, despite her honorific title, seems a bit of a Scots Nat really. If anything, I think women's football in Britain would stand to gain most out of this by raising its profile.

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "I've yet to have one person demonstrate to me how they believe FIFA can deprive the UK of its Home Nations teams".

I don't think anybody would seriously expect to be able to convince you, Aventinian, and I don't think anybody would really even try. Fortunately, it isn't necessary to convince you, and, most of the folk who it is necessary to convince, that Team GB is a bad idea, are already convinced. True, FIFA couldn't actually prevent an SFA team from calling itself the Scotland team, but what they could do is raise difficulties to that team taking part in international football competitions organised by FIFA. There are some FIFA officials, and some politicians, who would quite like that to happen. A team GB, or rather, teams GB (remembering the women's team) would strengthen the hand of those who would like to end the "anomaly" of a Scotland international team. So it's a good thing team GB is unlikely to happen.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "idiots"

(People who don't agree with Aventinian that there should be a united British football team for the next Olympics, such as Julie Fleeting, MBE, captain of Scotland's national women's team, and a striker for the Women's English Premier League team, Arsenal; Craig Burley, Scotland captain; former Scotland manager Craig Brown; former Scotland star Frank McAvennie; Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association; Alan Duncan, of the Tartan Army; Tam Ferry, official spokesman of the No Team GB campaign; and Cathy Jamieson MSP, acting leader of the Labour MSPs)

"and dogmatic bigots like yourself"

(People who share some , but most CERTAINLY not all, opinions with myself, such as Julie Fleeting, MBE, captain of Scotland's national women's team, and a striker for the Women's English Premier League team, Arsenal; Craig Burley, Scotland captain; former Scotland manager Craig Brown; former Scotland star Frank McAvennie; Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association; Alan Duncan, of the Tartan Army; Tam Ferry, official spokesman of the No Team GB campaign; and Cathy Jamieson MSP, acting leader of the Labour MSPs)

"is hardly going to result in success"

So, you reccomend, as the secret of success in influencing people, calling those who disagree with you idiots and bigots?

Those sharp observers of probability, the professional bookmakers, appear to be sceptical of your analysis, Av. If anything, they seem to think it is the prospect of a British football team for the next Olympics which is less likely to succeed.

Rinty

"Well, it's not really a matter for the FAs, it's a matter for the British Olympic Association. Quite rightly so, the FAs are inherently self-interested."

Actually no, the olympic associations cannot overrule the ruling bodies for those sports. If the Olympics promoted a tournament when it wasnt approved by the appropriate football asssociations, national and international, the players involved could face a lifetime ban.

Football is run by FA's and associations of those FAs (UEFA, FIFA). The Olympics is not an important tournament in football, no other games are cancelled to make way for it and limitations are placed on those who take part. Currently only u-23s with a couple of guest players who are older can take part. Previously it was only for players who hadnt played in the previous world cup at all and before that, for amatuers.

A GB amateur team wouldnt a problem. But if the olympics want bigger names involved they will have to deal with the FAs.

Gordon Brown interfering with the decisions of FAs for political reasons would not be a good idea.

Aventinian

Cymro

Aventinian

Rinty

Yes, there is no GB football association and only associations who are members of FIFA can take part in the Olympics, and only with FIFA's approval. The English FA cannot put themselves forward as a "GB' FA and Brown cant make this decision.

Celtic Indian

Aventinian

Celtic Indian

Rinty

"Are you sure of that? That doesn't seem to be what they think..."

Can you explain?

The only issue re footballers and players etc that came up in this olympics was when the Argentinian FA wanted Lionel Messi to appear for them and Barcelona wanted the right to say no. It was a matter for the Agentinian FA, barcelona as a member of the Spanish FA and it was decided by FIFA. The tournament was mde of players selected by FIFA nationality guidelines, not olymic ones, players and refs from FIFA.

Who is it you think dont know this?

BTW, FIFA decided that this wasnt a full recognised tournament so Barca didnt need to let him go, then they let him go anyway.

Professional footballers cannot even play in friendlies, testimonials etc without the permission of the FA, you cant even stage a kids tournament without approval. This works all the way up from public parks to the World Cup.

If the BOA were to adopt the Engl;ish FA as their representative in the olympics then FIFA would have to approve it. But it wopuld overly arrogant of Brown and the FA to think that the UK govt, the english FA or the BOA can overrule a decision of a member of FIFA. Especially as Scotlands grounds are hosting some of the football.

As there are matches at Hampden, and Queens Park are the onlt true amateur side still playing senior football in the UK, the maybe the BOA should ask them to be representatives.

I dont see what the big deal is for BRown to be pishing it. At u-23 level we will be hammered by the other countries anyway, wont have the big names involved and would have to weaken the team to include a fair share fropm each nation. It would be a waste of time in my opinion.

I prefer Cathy Jamiesons idea.

But overall, it's a dead duck as three of the four UK FAs have ruled it out.

Celtic Indian

Dave Coull

Celtic Indian wrote "If the football dudes regulate who can and can't play in the Olympics".

Strictly, speaking, what we are talking about is "association football". As distinct from Rugby football, or American football, or Australian rules football, etc. The reason it gets referred to simply as "football" is because association football is the kind that nearly all of the world recognises as football. But what it is, is association football. It's rules are laid down by the International Football Asociation Board, which was established in 1886 by the (English) Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, the Football Association of Wales, and the Irish Football Association. FIFA (the international footballing federation) was founded in 1904, Scotland joined it in 1910, and, in 1913, FIFA became one of the members of the International Football Association Board, along with the FA, the SFA, etc. The IFAB is still today the body which specifies the rules of the game, and FIFA controls international competitions. Basically, these bodies control association football. If a game takes place without their approval, it isn't football. Any player who takes part in such a game runs a risk of being banned from taking part in future games of football.

FIFA is a federation of national football associations. Each of these national football associations controls football in its own country. The British Olympic Association is talking about some of the 2012 Olympics football games taking place in Glasgow. That means they would come under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Football Association, a national association member of FIFA. The Scottish, English, Welsh, and Northern Irish football associations are members of FIFA. Great Britain is not a member. Some FIFA officials and some FIFA national associations may regard the separate Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish teams as an anomaly, which they would prefer to see abolished, but it would be even more of an anomaly for a team such as "Great Britain", which is NOT a member of FIFA, to take part in an international competition. How could other teams, which do represent national football associations, take part?

Aventinian

Dave, Olympic Associations and thus Olympic soccer teams are not members of FIFA. Great Britain will be no different.

Rinty

FIFA run the olympic football tournament. Teams qualify through the continental chamionships at U-21 level the year before the olympics.

We can never qualify as GB because we dont enter the qualifying tournament as GB, we enter it as the four home nations separately. The only reason it comes up this time is that the host nation automatically qualify.

There is a very recent precedent for this.

The English womens team won the european championship in 2007 allowing them entry to the 2008 olympics, in theory. The English FA and the Govt, through sports minister Richard Caborn, wanted it to happen so did the BOA.

FIFA ruled that the english women's team could only take part with the full agreement of FIFAs member associations in the UK, all 4 of them.

Thats what will happen this time. As Wales, Scotland and NI FAs have already ruled it out, Brown and Beckham are wasting their time.

Pip

Celtic Indian

Dave Coull

I wrote "Some FIFA officials and some FIFA national associations may regard the separate Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish teams as an anomaly, which they would prefer to see abolished".

Celtic Indian asks "Whats their reason for wanting it abolished ?"

I can think of at least three reasons why SOME FIFA officials, and SOME FIFA national associations, undoubtedly regard the seperate Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish teams as an anomaly which they would prefer to see abolished.

Firstly, since each national association has one vote in FIFA decisions, SOME of them might see this as giving "Britain" four votes instead of just the one it "ought" to have, and therefore entrenching the British influence which has lingered on since the very origins of association football.

Secondly, a lot of countries have would-be breakaway regions. They might regard the existence of separate national teams for what they would regard as regions as being a very worrying precedent.

And of course some bureaucrats might simply regard it as untidy. Bureaucrats like tidiness.

Rinty

"Did they compete as GB or as England?"

In the qualifiers there is no GB. The only way to qualify for the olympics is through FIFA tournaments. FIFA is an association of national football associations and there is no GB football association.

2012 is different because we are the host nation and therefore qualify automatically.

So we cannot compete in olympic football apart from this one-off situation. In the rush for potential glory the PM and others are pushing for this and have no regard for the independence of football associations and their rights to organise football themselves.

Re other potential regions, small nations, breakaways etc: FIFA are just an association of associations, what matters is not an association's international status as a nation, but whether their football association is a member, some recognised countries like Monaco are not members while other members like Macao are considered internationally to be regions and not nations are. Chinas other 'special administrative region', Hong Kong, are not members.

Macao do not feild a team in the olympics however and are not members of the IOC so could, in theory, qualify for the olympic football through FIFA's asian football tournaments but couldnt take part if they qualified.

Anyway, GB cannot take part in 2012 unless they field a team of amatuers. When this is realised we will see no 'olympic spirit' to get behind our plucky amateur players, the plan will be dropped if we cannot play superstars.

UEFA yesterday warned against a GB team http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news...&sec=england&&cc=5739

Dave Coull

The General Secretary of the body which organises European level international footballing competitions, UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations, has warned that a Great Britain team for the 2012 Olympics would jeapordise the existence of a Scotland team in international competitions. Speaking in a personal capacity, rather than on behalf of UEFA as such, Mr David Taylor told the BBC "It's the quickest way for Scotland to disappear off the international stage".

Mr Taylor added that, although there had been talk of seeking possible gaurantees from FIFA that a Great Britain team would not jeapordise the existence of the separate "home nations" teams in international competitions, it was necessary to "be very careful about that, as it's difficult to see what gaurantees can be given".

Celtic Indian

OK.Let me get this clear in my head.

There cannot be a Team GB fitba team in the Olympics because FIFA is the ruling body for association football in the Olympics and there is no GB football association,therefore its not recognise by FIFA.Only association recognise by FIFA can play.E.G Scotland,England,NI,Wales.Scotland would need to be an independent nation for it to have a Scottish Olympic team with an Olympic football team.Or the 4 football association in the UK would need to merger in one UK association.Right ?

However,because London is hosting 2012,it is stated that the host nation don't need togo through FIFAs qualfication proccess,thus creating a backdoor for a team GB football team on this one occassion.But only amateurs.Right ?

Now.Team GB is governed by th British Olympic Association.Right ? And Alex Salmond want a Scotland Olympic team.By applying the same logic that goes with football,the BOA would need to fragment into associations of the seperate UK nations.E.G Scottish Olympic Association,EOA,NIOA,WOA.Right ? If it does,how would the funding of these seperate associations be allocated.Pro-rata through the lottery and tax-payers ?

That bring me to the Commenwealth Games.As the home nations compete seperately for this event,who is the governing body for them ,and were does the funding come from.Is this seperate from Olympic funding ?

Sorry for all the questions.

Dave Coull

Celtic Indian wrote "the Commonwealth Games. As the home nations compete seperately for this event, who is the governing body for them"

The Commonwealth Games Federation.
http://www.thecgf.com/about/role.asp

"where does the funding come from"

It's the same procedure as for the Olympic Games, but totally separate from the Olympics. There is a "bid" process, and the organising body makes a decision about which city's bid is successfull. As with the Olympics, it is then up to the successfull city to come up with the cost of staging the games. Peking spent more than any previous Olympic city on the 2008 Olympics, but I don't think anybody seriously expects that the London 2012 Olympics will be on anything like the same scale of spending as Peking 2008. Glasgow 2014 CERTAINLY won't be.

"Is this seperate from Olympic funding ?"

Yes.

"Alex Salmond want a Scotland Olympic team".

Alex Salmond's first reaction to the Olympic successes of Scottish athletes was purely and simply to offer his congratulations, that's all. It was the press and the media who came up with all that stuff about a Scotland Olympic team. When Alex was asked questions about this - surprise, surprise!!!! - it turns out that the leader of the SNP is in favour of independence for Scotland. An independent Scotland would have its own Olympic representation. I don't think Alex Salmond expects there to be separate Olympic representation for Scotland this side of independence.

The football issue is a special case, different from all other sports.

"By applying the same logic that goes with football, the BOA would need to fragment into associations of the seperate UK nations."

NOBODY, nobody at all, has suggested that. It came from your own imagination, nowhere else.

Celtic Indian

Dave Coull

Celtic Indian asked "is my speculation accurate"

Well, that depends on exactly what it is that you are trying to say, which is far from clear.

Are you trying to suggest that the British Olympic Association might follow the example of the Football Associations and break up into four separate national bodies? If that IS what you're suggesting, then no, I don't think there is the slightest chance of that happening. The football associations are a special case. There was never any "break up" in the case of football, because there was never a UK body to break up in the first place. Right from the very start of association football, what you had were independent associations for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.

Yes, I think there will probably be a Scottish Olympic Association sooner or later, but that will probably be AFTER Scotland becomes politically independent. The 2012 Olympics are likely to be a bit confused, because they are liable to happen at a time when the process of independence is well advanced, but, as yet, not complete. That being so, it is obvious that there will have to be "concessions", acknowledgments of Scottish identity, at that Olympics.

The question of a "Great Britain" football team appears to be settled - it's just not going to happen. So what we are talking about is all the OTHER Olympic sports.

Olympic rules forbid the display of any flags or symbols other than those which have been officially sanctioned as pertaining to the member countries. In February 2002, the British Olympic Association took disciplinary action against the skier Alain Baxter and the snowboarder Lesley McKenna for making a "political statement", because they had displayed symbols of Scottishness at the Winter Olympics. I wrote to the BOA protesting against their disciplinary action. In my letter, I said "My wife is American, though resident in Scotland. She is keenly interested in Winter sports. Our thirteen year old daughter is a speed skater, though perhaps being honest about it not (yet?) of Olympic standard. My wife has been avidly watching the Winter Olympics on television. Of course there have been plenty of American flags to be seen. Is the waving of the American flag a 'political statement'? You bet your sweet life it is. And so is waving the Union Jack. All flags are, by their very nature, political statements. There is probably a case for banning ALL national flags from Olympic competitions. But there is NO CASE AT ALL for the SELECTIVE banning of flags. That is in itself a highly POLITICAL action by you."

The Chinese authorities rigidly enforced the ban on "unofficial" flags in 2008, because they were concerned that, if they did not, there would be a lot of Tibet flags on display. The British Olympic Association and the British government would probably LIKE to rigidly enforce the ban at the 2012 Olympics, but, of course, they will be unable to do so. Anybody who thinks there won't be widespread displays of Scottish identity, by Scottish athletes, and in support of Scottish athletes, at those Games, is kidding themselves. If the British government understands and accepts this, then the displays of Scottishness will be good-humoured. If they DON'T accept this, then there is likely to be a bit more conflict involved. But either way, a coach and horses will be driven through the "ban".

Aventinian

Dave Coull

On the 19th of February 2002, I wrote to the British Olympic Asociation "There is probably a case for banning ALL national flags from Olympic competitions. But there is NO CASE AT ALL for the SELECTIVE banning of flags. That is in itself a highly POLITICAL action by you." .

Aventinian asks "So you wouldn't complain if someone started flying a Nazi swastika flag after winning an event?"

I personally would object to that, yes. But I stress the "personally". I think the blanket ban on all "unofficial" symbols is an attempt to give the present states the false appearance of being ordained in letters of fire on tablets of stone. I would be willing to take my chances on what would happen if the ban was lifted. In the case of somebody displaying a Nazi swastika flag, I think the spectators would make it quite clear what they thought of this. Like I said, there is a strong case for banning ALL national flags from Olympic competitions, which are, after all, supposed to be about the courage, strength, skill, endurance, etc, of INDIVIDUAL athletes. In the cases of the skier Alain Baxter and the snowboarder Lesley McKenna, the British Olympic Association claimed that their display of symbols of Scottishness was a "political statement"; but the blanket ban on "unofficial" symbols is itself a highly political act.

I wrote "The Chinese authorities rigidly enforced the ban on 'unofficial' flags in 2008, because they were concerned that, if they did not, there would be a lot of Tibet flags on display. The British Olympic Association and the British government would probably LIKE to rigidly enforce the ban at the 2012 Olympics, but, of course, they will be unable to do so. Anybody who thinks there won't be widespread displays of Scottish identity, by Scottish athletes, and in support of Scottish athletes, at those Games, is kidding themselves."

Aventinian writes "I don't necessarily see that".

You will, Av.

You will.

Celtic Indian

Dave.Thanks for the replies.Most informative.

Rinty as well ! Very Happy

Pip

Yes, thanks for the info there gents.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

I wrote "The Chinese authorities rigidly enforced the ban on 'unofficial' flags in 2008, because they were concerned that, if they did not, there would be a lot of Tibet flags on display. The British Olympic Association and the British government would probably LIKE to rigidly enforce the ban at the 2012 Olympics, but, of course, they will be unable to do so. Anybody who thinks there won't be widespread displays of Scottish identity, by Scottish athletes, and in support of Scottish athletes, at those Games, is kidding themselves."

Aventinian comments "you seem to have this bizarre fantasy where lots of people share your views, your methods and indeed think of themselves as little revolutionaries".

On the contrary, it is your belief that I think like that which is the "bizarre fantasy".

There is no need for lots of people to share my views in order for it to be true that "The British Olympic Association and the British government would probably LIKE to rigidly enforce the ban at the 2012 Olympics, but, of course, they will be unable to do so". There is no need for lots of people to share my views in order for it to be true that there will be widespread displays of Scottish identity during the 2012 Olympic games.

Aventinian, it would be ridiculous for you to try to argue that there will not be displays of Scottish flags during the 2012 Olympics. I am not even going to bother arguing that one with you, instead, I will just suggest that you take yourself along to your local friendly bookmaker's shop and see what odds they are prepared to offer you on that one. My bet is, they will offer you quite good odds against the possibility of a Scottish-flag-free-Olympics, so, if you are REALLY confident about this, why not place some money on it?

The question is, what effect will this display of Scottish support have on Scottish athletes who are competing in the Olympics? Now, of course the athletes will be well aware of the ban on the Scottish flag, and will be hesitant about doing anything that might jeapordise their athletic careers. In the past, the British Olympic Association has disciplined athletes such as Alain Baxter and Lesley McKenna for displaying Scottish flags. But that was at an Olympics in the USA. More recently, at the 2008 Olympics, according to athletes who took part, they felt "totally isolated" in their Olympic Village in Peking. But 2012 will be an Olympics taking place much nearer home as far as Scots are concerned, and total isolation of the athletes from Scottish fans and from the media will simply not be possible. They will be aware of significant displays of Scottishness going on, and the chances are that at least a few athletes may decide that they, also, want to fly the Scottish flag, or in other ways assert their Scottishness. And a "few" is all it will take. Even one is all it will take. A display of Scottishness by athletes, together with significant displays of Scottishness from fans, will make this a front page story of the 2012 Olympics, so far as the Scottish media is concerned, and, indeed, so far as the UK media is concerned. And yes, the fact that in the so-called "host nation", there are significant displays of dissent from the official form of patriotism, during the Olympics, will have much of the rest of the world's media paying attention to this story also. And all without anybody having had to agree with, or even discuss the matter with, Dave Coull.

Dave Coull

From the Herald letters page, today, Tuesday 2nd September 2008

GB or not GB?

There is much confusion as to the basis for national Olympic committees and thus to the basis for national representation at Olympic Games.

It is not membership of the United Nations, as there are more national Olympic committees than member states of the United Nations and, although having been founder members of the United Nations in 1945, Ukraine and Belarus competed thereafter at Olympics as part of the Soviet Union until achieving independence in 1991.

It is not full diplomatic recognition as both Taiwan (Taipei) and Palestine have national Olympic committees.

It is not political independence, as such dependences as the Netherlands Antilles, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Guam, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, US Samoa and the UK and US Virgin Islands have national Olympic committees.

Furthermore, how is Northern Ireland represented?

If it is represented alongside England, Scotland and Wales (and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) there should be a national Olympic committee for the UK (not for Great Britain) and there should be a Team UK (not a Team GB).

Or does the national Olympic committee for Ireland (now) represent all-Ireland on the same basis as there is all-Ireland representation at rugby and cricket ?

As for a GB (or UK) association football team at the 2012 London Olympics, at the 1908 London Olympics the UK was represented by an English team (which won the gold medal) but at the 1948 London Olympics there was a sizeable Scottish (Queen's Park) representation in the GB (or UK) team. Indeed, I remember being at an Olympic trial match at Hampden earlier in the summer of 1948, but that was in the good old days when the Olympics were all-amateur and there still were amateur association football internationals within the UK. As has been suggested, a sensible solution for 2012 would be to have a qualifying tournament to determine which GB (or UK) nation should represent Great Britain (or the UK) in London in 2012.

Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory

Cymro

Dave, I must be honest I do think you are taking things far when you suggest that the British Olympics may well like to ban the flags like the Chinese did. China had its own issues with flags and the type of government means it could do this quite easily. But the UK government, while having huge problems isn't even close to being in a situation where flying the flags of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, Cornwall, or even the tricolour (given the situation in NI) would even be considered as a possibility.

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "Dave, I must be honest I do think you are taking things far when you suggest that the British Olympics may well like to ban the flags like the Chinese did".

Statement of fact, the British Olympic Association has, in this, the Twenty First Century, taken disciplinary action against athletes who displayed the Scottish flag at Olympic competitions, for instance, Alain Baxter and Lesley McKenna. Now, OF COURSE the BOA is less likely to do so in the future; but the REASON they are less likely to do so in the future is not because of any lack of desire to enforce the existing Olympic rules on the part of the BOA, but because the circumstances with which they have to deal have changed, and are continuing to change, and, by 2012, are likely to be even less favourable to any ban on the Scottish flag than they are even today.

"China had its own issues with flags"

Yes, it did, but, nevertheless, all that the Chinese did was to rigidly enforce the existing Olympic rules, citing precedents like that mentioned above.

"and the type of government means it could do this quite easily"

Yes, and it will, OF COURSE, be much harder to rigidly enforce the existing Olympic rules where the 2012 Olympics are concerned. But this is nothing to do with any lack of desire to do so on behalf of the BOA. Just different circumstances.

Cymro

Dave please can you learn to use the quote button on here!

Pip

To be honest I don't think anyone will be able to suppress the Saltaire, or indeed any other national flag, very easily. In all likelihood there'll be a great number of St George's Crosses on show from English spectators; at some technically British events (Royal appearances, Tim Henman playing tennis etc) they're rivaling or sometimes outnumbering the Union Jacks. Obviously it's a different case with the athletes, but it would be a bit hypocritical when they're in line with many of the spectators.

This whole Olympic issue is a pretty thorny one.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "Dave please can you learn to use the quote button on here!"

I know how to use the quote button. For the most part, I choose not to use it.

Cymro wrote "I honestly think Dave that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here".

Well, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill regarding me choosing not to use the quote button.

Cymro wrote "There was an interview from one of the Olympic Big Wigs when it became clear that non member flags would be banned on Radio 4 I think it was. His words where that it was unfortunate that such a ban was in place but the Olympics is not able to act beyond the laws of the land (Chinese laws)."

Why would anyone rely on the memory of some unknown person, using a pseudonym, regarding what somebody described only as an "Olympic Big Wig", is supposed to have said in a radio interview? An anonymous allegation of hearsay? Zero reliability as evidence of anything. Fact: under Olympic rules, only the flags of member countries are supposed to be displayed at Olympic events. Even if this official attempted to shift the blame onto the Chinese government, the Chinese government were just rigidly enforcing Olympic rules.

Cymro wrote "I honestly think Dave that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here".

Look, I'm the one who is saying that the official ban on flying "unofficial" flags will evaporate at the 2012 Olympics. The one who is insisting that, no, it definitely won't, is Aventinian. If anybody is making a mountain out of a molehill, then it's him, not me.

Dave Coull

[quote="Aventinian"]

Cymro

Cymro

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "that comment you posted is made to look like you wrote it".

Nonsense.

It was clear I was forwarding a letter by somebody else.

The post in question begins with "From the Herald letters page, today, Tuesday 2nd September 2008", and ends with the signature of the person who wrote that letter to the Herald, "Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory"

Dave Coull

Like I said, "the automatic computerised quote facility does not allow for such subtleties as quoting somebody quoting somebody else".

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "you (who by the look of things wheren't sure that Northern Ireland competed under GB)"

This shows why your faulty memory and understanding shouldn't be relied on. I made no comment whatsoever on that subject.

"I can only go by what I recall listening too while driving to work one morning"

As for me, having already established one case where your memory and understanding is clearly faulty, I will NOT "go by" what you recall while driving to work one morning.

"EVEN IF the Olympics had in their rules 'non member flags shall not be flowen at the Games' it's clear that this rule has not been followed in most games that I can remember anyway".

I think, in general, it probably has. Yes, there has been the odd exception, but they were the odd exception. However, I'm not going to bother with seeking to "prove" this, that would be making a mountain out of a molehill, and I have no intention of doing that, you can rely on your own memory and understanding, and I will rely on mine.

"stating that you can't see them carrying out this ban in 2012 would suggest that it has been a real issue pre 2012"

It has certainly been a real issue as far as Aventinian is concerned. He insists that non-official flags (including Scottish flags) will not be flown at the 2012 Olympics. That is what might be described as either the diehard "officialist" position or as the diehard "unionist" position, or both, and I say it will be proved wrong.

There is no way we can conclusively prove, now, which of us, Aventinian or myself, is right about this. But I remain very confident of being proved right in 2012.

Cymro

I love it Dave how when people start questioning you over and over you get ever so slightly personal don't you. Is that how you behave in the real world too?

Now as I said, if you posted properly and not in a wave of "I wrote...", "Cymro wrote....." your posts would make a lot (well a bit) more sense. However it seems only you most of the time that understands what you are (trying) to say. Only you Dave.

Now there is nothing faults about my memory at all, plenty of other things faulty in me, but thankfully my memory is fine.

I'm not asking you to prove which of you or Avetinan will be right in 2012. However it speaks volumes about you that you are unwilling to offer direct evidence that it is the Olympics that ban non state flags. I'm happy for you to prove this but you are unwilling. What do you think most people will make of this?

Rinty

On the point of Northern Ireland. I was under the impression that residents of NI can represent either GB or RoI, in fact Barry McGuigan did the opposite, coming from RoI and yet representing GB at the olympics so perhaps that works both ways re Ireland.

Dave Coull

From the Daily Telegraph, 6th August 2008:

"A spokesman for the British Olympic Association said the flag ban appeared to have been brought in under Rule 51 of the Olympic Charter, which states: 'No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.'

The Chinese would regard the waving of flags of non-competing nations as a 'political demonstration' and the Olympic Charter gives them the power to disqualify rule-breakers, saying: 'Any violation of (Rule 51) may result in the disqualification or withdrawal of the accreditation of the person concerned.'. "

Right, that's the bit from the Telegraph. What follows is my comments.

This rule involves blatant hypocrisy by Olympic officialdom. The Olympics, by their very nature, involve "political, religious or racial propoganda". If Russia beats the USA into second place in an event, or the other way round, of course the waving of their flags will hae an element of "political propoganda". In several cases, the waving of flags involves religious propoganda. For instance, the Saudi Arabian flag has, written on it, "There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is His prophet". As for "racial propoganda", the Olympics Association apparently had no problem with holding the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, with Adolf Hitler present, and loads of blatant propoganda at the Olympics about the superiority of the Aryan race. It was only when a couple of black American athletes gave "Black Power" salutes on the winners platform that this was seen as being a problem.

The Chinese interpretation, while rigid and self-serving, and mainly about Tibet, was, nevertheless, right about the PURPOSE of this rule: to discourage UNOFFICIAL propoganda, such as the display of non-recognised national flags, for instance.

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "you (who by the look of things wheren't sure that Northern Ireland competed under GB)"

This shows why your faulty memory and understanding shouldn't be relied on. I made no comment whatsoever on that subject.

"there is nothing faults about my memory at all"

It is clearly not true to say that there is nothing wrong with your memory AT ALL. We have already established one instance where your memory and understanding was faulty. (See above.)

"if you posted properly and not in a wave of 'I wrote...', 'Cymro wrote.....' your posts would make a lot (well a bit) more sense"

When people mis-quote, the only way to establish that they have mis-quoted is to go back and quote what was actually said. Yes, it's a real nuisance to have to do this, and yes, it can be boring to read. It would be so much better if people didn't misquote.

"when people start questioning you over and over you get ever so slightly personal"

Only when it seems relevant. I remember, in the Seventies, the women's liberation movement came up with the slogan "the personal is political", and this slogan, originating in women's lib, gradually spread to many other movements. Now, of course, this can be taken too far. Nevertheless, it's a fair point. The idea that we should all maintain a fiction that we are totally dispassionate observers from another planet is one which has never appealed to me, and I am suspicious of those who seek to create this impression.

Dave Coull

I'm going to try to sum up, from my own point of view, where this discussion is at, so far.

There appears to be general agreement that the idea of a Great Britain football team for the 2012 Olympics is a non-starter. Aventinian probably wishes this wasn't so, but nobody appears to be realistically arguing that there will be a Great Britain football team.

So far as other sports are concerned, there will probably be a Scottish Olympic team AFTER independence, not before. The 2012 Olympics fall at an awkward time, because, although the independence process will probably be far advanced by then, it may not be complete. Therefore, there is likely to be a GB athletics team for 2012. The question is, to what extent will there be significant expressions of Scottish identity at the 2012 Olympics?

I think there will be very significant expressions of Scottish identity. Aventinian seems to think it will be business as usual, with Scots waving union jacks in support of the GB team. I think he is kidding himself, but there isn't any point continuing to argue endlessly about this, the sensible thing to do is to wait and see who is right.

So far as Cymro is concerned, I confess to not being sure exactly what he has been trying to say. As far as I can make out, he thinks there has been very considerable flouting of the "no unofficial flags" convention in the past, and that 2012 will merely be a continuation of what has happened before, and therefore no big deal.

I acknowledge that there has been some flouting of this convention in the past, but think it has, nevertheless, generally been maintained. I think 2012 will provide a very real contrast with what has gone before, that the extent of the display of "non-official" flags will represent a real break with the past. But again, as with Aventinian, I see no point in continuing to argue about this indefinitely, the sensible thing to do is to wait and see who is right.

So, does anybody actually have anything new to say?

Aventinian

Dave Coull

In trying to sum up, from my own point of view, where this discussion on the Our Scotland forum is at, so far, I wrote that, in this discussion, "There appears to be general agreement that the idea of a Great Britain football team for the 2012 Olympics is a non-starter. Aventinian probably wishes this wasn't so, but nobody appears to be realistically arguing that there will be a Great Britain football team."

Aventinian responds "Just the British Olympic Authority, the London 2012 organising committee, the Prime Minister."

My statement clearly referred to the discussion here on this forum. However, if you want to widen it, yes, there were some initial statements of support for a Great Britain football team from Gordon Brown etc. The reaction to these statements from several of the "home" football associations was to flatly oppose the suggestion. From my reading of the press and the media since that rejection, I am not aware that anybody (no, not even Gordon Brown) has, since then, been "realistically arguing that there WILL be a Great Britain football team". Now, of course it's possible I could have missed somebody arguing this. Which is why I was careful to apply the statement I made only to the discussion on this forum. But just as a matter of interest, Av, can YOU cite any reports of "the British Olympic Authority, the London 2012 organising committee, the Prime Minister" arguing, SINCE that rejection by several of the home FAs, that there WILL be a GB football team?

"Dave's motley crew of nationalist ne'erdowells"

The opposition to a Great Britain football team is very widespread. It includes thousands of football fans in Wales, Northern Ireland, yes, and England, as well as in Scotland. To my certain knowledge, it includes several oil workers, fishermen, teachers, artists, musicians, accountants, building workers, etc etc etc.But most of that opposition has not been reported in the press. So, by "ne'erdowells", I presume you mean people whose views on this have been reported, and who don't agree with you that there should be a united British football team for the next Olympics. People such as Julie Fleeting, MBE, captain of Scotland's national women's team, and a striker for the Women's English Premier League team, Arsenal; Craig Burley, Scotland captain; former Scotland manager Craig Brown; former Scotland star Frank McAvennie; Gordon Smith, the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association; Alan Duncan, of the Tartan Army; Tam Ferry, official spokesman of the No Team GB campaign; and Cathy Jamieson MSP, acting Leader of the Labour Party group of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.

Since I don't even know any of these people, and since there's quite a high probability that I would have some disagreements with many of them about some subjects other than the subject of this present discussion, it makes no sense for you to say that they are, in any sense, "Dave's".

And since quite a lot of the opposition to a GB football team comes from people who favour continued independence in football, but take a different view on political independence, it makes no sense to describe them all as "nationalist".

And since I would be willing to bet YOU don't know any of them either, describing them as "ne'erdowells" has about as much meaning as saying that all of them have extremely smelly socks. They may, or they may not, but to say so without actually knowing them would just be ignorant abuse of those who hold different views from yourself, that's all.

Cymro

Dave, again you are all over the place. Sorry but you seem to be going after the "I'll put everything possible I know about the Olympics down and hope some are relevent" approach. I'm suprise dyou haven't listed the winners of the 110m Hurdles since records began yet! Rolling Eyes

And as for your ridicilous defence of making things personal when you are being questioned. I really don't care what some feminists said before I was born Dave! However I tend to find that making things personal looses the argument. I'm trying to read your points but because of the way you choose to try and make them I get bored about 3 lines in, some of what you say is of relevence and interest but it gets lost in the rest you feel you have to write down....

Now why are you unwilling to let me see for myself the evidence that it is the Olympic people who are responsible for banning the non member flags? I'm interested to read it, I'm happy to be proven wrong on this yet you are still unwilling, or possibly unable to back up your claims.

I heard a guy from the Olympics themselves state on Radio 4 that this was up to the Chinese Organisers. Now I tend to find that this guy probably knows just a little bit more about the Olym;ics than you don't you?

And just to clarify to you dear Dave, my point on this subject is that come 2012 the issue of Scottish, Welsh, English and Northern Irish flags flown at the games will not exist. It hasn't been an issue in the past 20odd years, even if as you claim that the Olympic bosses have stated they are banned. China was a fairly unique case because of the nature of the government and society there.

There, clear I think it's safe to say.

And No Dave, my memory is fine thanks. If it wasn't my friend I'd forget things, but alas I haven't I may not have understood have the random points you make but that has more to do with how you make them than my ability to remember them.

And if you have problems with your attempts to quote people and letters like you have, just use the quote function for them it makes it a lot easier for people to see that it wasn't Dave Coull that said this. Easy

Rinty

"Opposed we have the SFA, who by their own admission can't stop it... "

And FIFA through their ruling on the women's team for the 2008 olympics, UEFA and the governing rules of football associations. Those are the organisations that organise olympic football and therefore will decide. The SFAs opinion is that it cannot happen without their apprioval and that, if they cant stop it, they can react to it. Two sugestions at the moment would be to call for a worldwide ban of players taking part and/or banning English FA from tournaments. Still a long way to go but if it goes ahead I know that the SFA are ready to go to war on this if necessary.

If the Engliah FA are appinted as GB representatives for olympic football by politicians it will have massive repercussions thtroghout the game in the UK and, in effect, football's independence from interference by politicians will be ended.

I believe that only compromise possible is a tournament to play-off between the home nations for the right to prepresent GB as aone-off.

But if, from 2012 onwards, English national teams can enter the U-21 mens and full international women's UEFA tournaments (the qulifying tournaments for football) as representatives of the UK then it is the end for the independent associations of football.

What could happen is that Scotland could win one of these tournaments and GB wouldnt have a representative.

Within SFA rules they could also implement a ban on any player taking part. These bans would normally be adopted by FIFA and UEFA.

But, as there is a precedent and FIFA uled that GB copuld only enter a team with the approval of all 4 national associations then it won't happen unless Gordon Brown is willing to over-rule the independence of football, a very dangerous road to go down for him I think.

That request for the 2008 olympics shows that this isnt a one-off and it is an on-going campaign for english representation at the olympic football.

Rinty

"Opposed we have the SFA, who by their own admission can't stop it... "

And FIFA through their ruling on the women's team for the 2008 olympics, UEFA and the governing rules of football associations. Those are the organisations that organise olympic football and therefore will decide. The SFAs opinion is that it cannot happen without their apprioval and that, if they cant stop it, they can react to it. Two sugestions at the moment would be to call for a worldwide ban of players taking part and/or banning English FA from tournaments. Still a long way to go but if it goes ahead I know that the SFA are ready to go to war on this if necessary.

If the Engliah FA are appinted as GB representatives for olympic football by politicians it will have massive repercussions thtroghout the game in the UK and, in effect, football's independence from interference by politicians will be ended.

I believe that only compromise possible is a tournament to play-off between the home nations for the right to prepresent GB as aone-off.

But if, from 2012 onwards, English national teams can enter the U-21 mens and full international women's UEFA tournaments (the qulifying tournaments for football) as representatives of the UK then it is the end for the independent associations of football.

What could happen is that Scotland could win one of these tournaments and GB wouldnt have a representative.

Within SFA rules they could also implement a ban on any player taking part. These bans would normally be adopted by FIFA and UEFA.

But, as there is a precedent and FIFA uled that GB copuld only enter a team with the approval of all 4 national associations then it won't happen unless Gordon Brown is willing to over-rule the independence of football, a very dangerous road to go down for him I think.

That request for the 2008 olympics shows that this isnt a one-off and it is an on-going campaign for english representation at the olympic football.

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "your ridicilous defence of making things personal"

It's not a "defence". Calling it a "defence" implies that I am defensive about my views. I'm certainly not. I honestly believe that a person's background, their track record, etc, can be relevant matters in political discussion. I don't complain if folk bring up such matters in relation to myself. (Although I will, of course, swiftly correct anything I think they've got wrong.)

I say "can be", because of course I don't think that mere personal abuse for its own sake can be justified. For instance, in the "Independence First" group, some of the discussions on the IF members' forum used to get very heated. Several folk resorted to swearing and using foul language. I never did that. Yes, I argued very vigorously for my point of view, but without sinking to that level.

"I really don't care what some feminists said before I was born Dave!"

And I don't care that you don't care.........it's still a valid point, as far as I'm concerned, and, while you can't see this, others will.

"why are you unwilling to let me see for myself the evidence"

Although you have previously accused me of making a mountain out of a molehill, from my point of view, it's you that's doing that. There is no unwillingness on my part. See my previous post quoting from the Daily Telegraph, with my comments on that. You could accuse me of laziness in not bothering to dig out more on this matter, perhaps, but that's not quite the same thing as "unwillingness". As far as I'm concerned, that Daily Telegraph article, and my comments on it, will do.

"I heard a guy from the Olympics themselves state on Radio 4"

Yes, you said this before, while you were driving along in your car, and you can't remember his name, and it sounds like you didn't really take in properly who he was or exactly what he was saying. Which is just as well, because, if you were paying more attention to what this guy was saying than you were to your driving, then in my view that would make you guilty of dangerous driving. My own personal decision has always been NEVER to listen to the radio while driving.

But even if he really was representing the Olympics Association, and even if he really did say what you think he said, so what? A self-serving bureaucrat washing his hands and saying "nothing to do with me" proves very little. Like I said, read what I sent from the "Daily Telegraph", and read my comments on it. There's your answer.

Cymro

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "you where trying to defend your tendency to make it personal".

Using the word "defend" implies that I am on the defensive about my views. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my opinion, it is true that the personal can be political, and it is true that a person's background, track record, etc, may be relevant to a discussion.. Like I said, I won't complain if folk bring up, where relevant, such matters in relation to myself. (although I will, of course, very swiftly correct anything I think they've got wrong). And like I also said, this shouldn't be used as a DISTRACTION from the discussion, but only where relevant. My guess is that, even if you were to search through the archives of Our Scotland, you would be unable to find an instance of me using something which was not relevant to the discussion. Mind you, if you CAN find such an instance, then yes, I will admit that, in that particular case, I was wrong.

"A trip in the car with you must me a barrel of laughs!"

Laughter might distract the driver's attention from concentrating on his driving, and thus cause an accident........... Wink

Being in a car that I'm driving is adventure enough as it is, without risking distracting my attention from the road ahead. So far as I'm concerned, a trip in the car is a means of getting as safely as possible (under the circumstances) from A to B. It's not meant to be fun.

"I really couldn't care less that I'm wrong"

Neither could I. As far as I'm concerned, whether there is actually a specific rule against unofficial flags as such, or whether, as the Daily Telegraph article said, this is based on Rule 51, relating to political demonstrations, in practice it comes to much the same thing.

"it's not actually relevent"

Since we appear to be in agreement about that, what on earth are you actually arguing with me about?

"it never really has been an issue for any Olympic games"

I think the general tendency has been for the Olympic authorities to seek to discourage the flying of "unofficial" flags. Peking 2008 was an extreme example of this, but I think that has been the general tendency. But I can't be bothered researching the full history of the Olympic Games in order to prove this. Like I said, YOU are the one making a mountain out of this particular molehill.

"you REFUSE to back this up"

Let me see if I have got this right. First you say this is not relevant, now you want to make a big thing of it? As I see it, the general tendency of previous Olympics has been to discourage the flying of unofficial flags. Whether there is an actual rule about this, or whether, as the Daily Telegraph says, it's based on Rule 51 about political demonstrations, in practice, it comes to much the same thing.

"What I'm saying is that regardless of who's decision it was at the end of the day, in the London Olympics it will not be an issue."

I'm not sure it will be much of an issue for 2012 either. So what are we actually arguing about?

"Not because of Scotland moving towards independence"

Ah, so THAT is what we are arguing about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are saying 2012 will not be significantly different from previous Olympics. I say that the 2012 Olympics will, FOR US SCOTS AT LEAST, if not for anybody else, be significantly different from all previous Olympics. The reasons why it will be significantly different for us Scots are (1) there is an outside chance that Scotland could actually be independent by then; (2) if not actually independent, then there is a high probability that Scotland will have taken significant steps towards independence; (3) because this independence process will be well under way, regardless of what stage it is actually at by August 2012, there is certain to be a far more significant expression of Scottish identity at that Olympics than has ever been the case before. And like I said in a previous post, "If the British government understands and accepts this, then the displays of Scottishness will be good-humoured. If they DON'T accept this, then there is likely to be a bit more conflict involved. But either way, a coach and horses will be driven through the 'ban' ".

Cymro

Dave, absolutley love your selective quoting. is that really the best you can do matey?

My point about me being wrong is that I want you to show me evidence (more than reading the Torygraph) that:

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "Dave, absolutely love your selective quoting. is that really the best you can do matey?"

Is that the best I can do? Well, let's see..........I could remove "your selective quoting. is that really the best" and "can do matey?", which gives us

Cymro wrote "Dave, absolutely love....you" Smile

"your claims that it was FACT about the Olympic rules have now slightly backtracked"

Yes, now that you come to mention it, there HAS been a slight shift, hasn't there? Not a particularly significant one, from my point of view, since the effect is much the same either way, so, really not worth you making a mountain out of a molehill about. For me, the important thing is, you are saying 2012 will not be significantly different from previous Olympics. I say that the 2012 Olympics will, FOR US SCOTS AT LEAST, if not for anybody else, be significantly different from all previous Olympics. The reasons why it will be significantly different for us Scots are (1) there is an outside chance that Scotland could actually be independent by then; (2) if not actually independent, then there is a high probability that Scotland will have taken significant steps towards independence; (3) because this independence process will be well under way, regardless of what stage it is actually at by August 2012, there is certain to be a far more significant expression of Scottish identity at that Olympics than has ever been the case before.

"flying the flag of Scotland, Wales, England isn't really political"

Of course it is. ALL flags are political. There are no exceptions to that rule.

"we no longer have Rhodesia"

Now see here, you young whippersnapper, I was taking part in anti-imperialist and anti-apartheid demonstrations before you were even born!!!!!

"the Chinese (shall we call them Oriental?)"

YOU might. In fact, you just have. Me, I find that rather offensive.

"sighting some letter or article in the Torygraph, which apparently isn't able to be wrong"

"what sort of a Pro Independence for Scotland person not only reads that rag but beleives it all too!?"

I have no idea what pro-independence for Scotland person reads the Telegraph. Not me, I found that story using google. As for "believing it all", of course I don't place too much reliance on what the Telegraph says. But that article was actually SIGNED with the reporter's NAME, and he specified the NAME of the Olympic official he was quoting, so right away that is two reasons for finding HIM more reliable than YOU, an anonymous person I know nothing about, quoting something he half-heard somebody-or-other say while driving the car. Besides, it's probably right about Rule 51 of the Olympics rule-book, becuse, if it wasn't, somebody would probably have said something by now. And anyway, I am getting bored with this, and can't be bothered checking.

Cymro

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "who else calls the Olympic City, Peking"

A very large percentage of the population of the UK, probably. Yes, the proportion of younger people who do so is less, but the young are actually a minority.

"Seems you've been reading that Torygraph a BIT too much"

Rubbish. During the 20 years I lived in England, I bought the "Guardian" nearly every day. Since returning to Scotland, I am more likely to read the Herald or the Scotsman. But this has absolutely nothing at all to do with which newspaper people read. It's a simple matter of age. When I was at school, the atlases said "Peking". Nowadays, kids at school see atlases with "Beijing" on them, so it's easy for them to remember to use that name. What you are displaying is, quite simply, an age-ist prejudice against older people. You are displaying a prejudice against the majority of the population of Scotland, Wales, England, Ireland, etc. Well, guess what? There are sure to be loads of "new" names in the future. Sooner or later, perhaps forty years from now, there will come a time when YOU will make the mistake of using one of the "old" names you learned when you were young. And there will come a time when some snotty young brat will make fun of you for doing so. And guess what? It will serve you right. And when it finally does happen, try to remember that I told you it would.

Cymro

Maybe they will Dave, but it won't be after me suggesting pathetically that they where loosing their memories. Which is of course what you did! When you reach perfection Dave come back and criticise me for failing to remember one guys name on the radio. Until then learn to accept that you like the rest of us can from time to time be wrong. It's about time

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote "When you reach perfection Dave come back and criticise me for failing to remember one guys name on the radio"

Your age-ist personal attack on me for making the same kind of mistakes as millions of other older people make every day can not be justified by trying to suggest that I criticised YOU for having a poor memory. I made no such criticism. Quite the opposite, in fact. I stated that, if you HAD been paying more attention to what was being said on your car radio than to your driving, then you would have been guilty of dangerous driving, so it was a good job you were NOT paying more attention to what was being said on the radio.

However, statement of fact, the reporter for the Daily Telegraph provided BOTH his own name, AND the name of the person he was quoting. These are two reasons why I am likely to pay more attention to what HE reported than to what YOU reported. That isn't a "criticism". It's just a fact.

Dave Coull

Okay. What follows is NOT from Dave Coull, it's from some guy called Kevin Cordell, so, if anybody quotes it, please try to get that right.

From "The Courier" Letters section, Wednesday 3rd September 2008.

Sir,

Dr Barnes suggests only sovereign nations can enter a team in the Olympics (Sept 1st). This is incorrect, 204 nations competed in China, but the United Nations recognises only 192 nations.

Like FIFA and UEFA, the Olympic Committee recognises nations that are not "sovereign states". So Andorrans, Palestinians, and HongKongese, for example, were able to stand behind their own flags. Scots competitiors and fans were unable to enjoy the same freedom.

But with the forthcoming independence referendum, I am sure that position will change, and we won't have to suffer the additional threat to our national football team currently being touted by Gordon Brown and his ilk.

KEVIN CORDELL
30 Fort Street
Broughty Ferry
Dundee

Cymro

Oh riiiiight, so I'm ageist now? Dave you trully are a pathetic creature. Suprised you've not tried to make out I'm racist....oh wait, maybe you did....in your little quip about me using "Oriental" being offensive. Any other levels you're prepared to stoop too? Nothing to do with your age I'm afraid. I'd hazzard a guess that you where equally pathetic when you where yourself a young man. I made the daft mistake a while ago of defending you in an argument you had with another writer. I was wrong to do that. I've wasted enough time on you Dave. You are clearly incapable of accepting that dear old (no pun intended) Dave can be wrong.

Dave Coull

Cymro wrote

"so I'm ageist now?"

The answer to your question "who else calls the Olympic City, Peking" is, probably several million people who grew up at a time when that was what it was called in the Atlases they saw at school. The fact that you even had to ask that question shows an unfortunate lack of awareness of the realities of getting older.

"Suprised you've not tried to make out I'm racist....oh wait, maybe you did....in your little quip about me using 'Oriental' being offensive"

As a matter of fact, it was YOU who tried to make ME out to be racist, by (falsely) seeking to attribute to me nostalgia for a time when "we" had "Rhodesia", as well as by implying that I would be likely to use the term "Oriental".

"You are clearly incapable of accepting that dear old (no pun intended) Dave can be wrong".

Oh, I accept that I can be wrong. Of course I won't say I'm wrong if I don't think I am, but when it has been clearly shown to me that I AM wrong, I'm prepared to admit it. For example, it looks like I was wrong about there being a specific Olympics rule banning "unofficial" flags. It looks like in actual fact the Chinese authorities based their ban on rule 51 of the Olympics rule book, about "political demonstrations".

But although I was wrong about there being a specific rule about "unofficial" flags, what I was NOT wrong about is that, nevertheless, a "ban" has existed. In February 2002, the BRITISH Olympic Association took disciplinary action against the skier Alain Baxter and the snowboarder Lesley McKenna, for displaying Scottish flags at the Winter Olympics. This British action was presumably taken under the same rule 51, and gave the Chinese authorities the precedent which they rigidly followed.

So I was wrong in one way, but not in another.And anyway, I don't think that was the main disagreement between us. The main disagreement between us, so far as I can make out, was that you appeared to be saying 2012 will not be significantly different from previous Olympics. I say that the 2012 Olympics will, FOR US SCOTS AT LEAST, if not for anybody else, be significantly different from all previous Olympics. The reasons why it will be significantly different for us Scots are (1) there is an outside chance that Scotland could actually be independent by then; (2) if not actually independent, then there is a high probability that Scotland will have taken significant steps towards independence; (3) because this independence process will be well under way, regardless of what stage it is actually at by August 2012, there is certain to be a far more significant expression of Scottish identity at that Olympics than has ever been the case before. And like I said in a previous post, "If the British government understands and accepts this, then the displays of Scottishness will be good-humoured. If they DON'T accept this, then there is likely to be a bit more conflict involved. But either way, a coach and horses will be driven through the 'ban' ."

Cymro

Dave Coull

There are several people on this forum who use pseudonyms but whose identities are no mystery. Some I know quite well.

If somebody I know quite well, and whose judgement I think reliable, gives me a report of something, then I will pay attention. If somebody I don't know at all gives a report, I might place a bit less reliance on that. And if some complete stranger who I don't know at all tells me that they heard something or other from somebody whose name they didn't catch, then I will probably place very little reliance on that.

Cymro wrote "You made a comment about me having a faulty memory"

As a matter of fact, I said it was probably just as well that you COULDN'T remember the name of somebody you heard on the radio while you were driving, because, if you HAD been paying more attention to the radio, that would probably make you a danger to other road users. There was no "criticism" of your memory. There was simply the fact that there was no reason for me to place any reliance on anonymous, hearsay "evidence".

"that was why I told you to look closer to home Dave bach"

You went on the attack. You suggested I was nostalgic for Rhodesia, you implied I would use racist terminology, none of which was justified or had the slightest basis in anything I had actually said.

Cymro

Oh dear God Rolling Eyes

!

Dave, I said Rhodesia as it was, like Peking as example of an imperialist term which has died out some time ago. It could have just easily been British Honduras, British Guyana, Mesopotania. It had about as much to do with racism as you have with sense. Sweet FA. I was taking the urine out of a man who claims to know everything about everything but got such a basic thing wrong.

And I really couldn't care less who you know and who you don't on here. The fact is some who know you in real life on here, still don't like you. I'm learning quickly that they have some basis for this.

Now runalong and find another idiot to argue with.

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Once again I'm passing on somebody else's contribution to this discussion, which appeared in a daily paper. So what follows is NOT by Dave Coull, it's by some guy called Brad Imrie, so, if anybody quotes it, please try to get that right.

***************************************************

From "The Herald" Letters section, Friday 5th September 2008.

Playoffs for the right to represent Great Britain at the Olympics

I agree with some of the points made by Dr Alexander S Waugh (Letters, September 2), in particular his support of the suggestion that there should be a qualifying tournament for the right to represent Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GBNI) at the London Olympics.

Dr Waugh asks about Northern Ireland and, yes, Northern Ireland is represented alongside England, Scotland and Wales, but NI is always left off the GB abbreviation, although GBN would still comply with the three(?)-letter restriction for the Olympics. Wales is also omitted from the Union flag, even though there have been three Unions of crown to make up GBNI.

When the playoff suggestion was mooted, an "authority" immediately dismissed the idea on the basis that the playing season was too crowded - a knee-jerk reaction. There is ample time to plan a playoff and it could be held during a week (Sunday/Wednesday/Sunday) after the end of the 2012 season and as preparation for the Olympics. An appropriate city would be Liverpool, using the Liverpool and Everton venues and conveniently located for players and spectators from England, Scotland and Wales and, of course, Northern Ireland.

So that we can all be British for the London Olympics, perhaps there could be a Union flag modification to incorporate the Welsh flag.

Brad Imrie, Glasgow.

*******************************************************

Right, now this next bit IS from Dave Coull.

IF there is to be competition amongst the "home nations" as to which should represent GBNI at the 2012 Olympics, then Brad Imrie's suggestion of playing a series of qualifying matches in Liverpool (reasonably convenient for Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland as well as England) is an interesting one.

However, Brad Imrie's suggestion of modifying the Union Jack so that Wales is represented may have come a bit late, due to the rate at which things are changing in Scotland. The way things are going, the next modification of the Union Jack could be to represent Wales on the flag instead of Scotland.

I say that the 2012 Olympics will, FOR US SCOTS AT LEAST, if not for anybody else, be significantly different from all previous Olympics. The reasons why it will be significantly different for us Scots are (1) there is an outside chance that Scotland could actually be independent by then; (2) if not actually independent, then there is a high probability that Scotland will have taken significant steps towards independence; (3) because this independence process will be well under way, regardless of what stage it is actually at by August 2012, there is certain to be a far more significant expression of Scottish identity at that Olympics than has ever been the case before.

So, for all of these reasons, it is possible that the "home internationals competition" idea could be overtaken by events. But if it isn't, then a competition amongst the "home nations" could at least allow us the possibility of a Scottish football team taking part in the 2012 Olympics. However, if it should turn out instead to be one of the other three teams, then at least they would have won that right. It wouldn't just be an England team masquerading under a "GB" label.

Aventinian

I thought Dave might enjoy this. It seems 'the London Paper' (one of those free ones, a Murdoch subsidiary) published this on its website:

'The creation of the team has been opposed by the Football Associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are concerned it may compromise their individual status within Fifa.

But he said the BOA, which selects teams for the Games, has decided to press ahead with a football squad despite the opposition.
When asked last night about the opposition from the Welsh and Scots, Coe replied bluntly: “F*** em!”'

It has either been removed from the paper's website, or there is some sort of technical failure, but I really rather hope it's true.

Jimbo

Hi Av,

yes it's true.

It's on page 5 of "thelondonpaper" printed on 30 September, 2008, in an article written by Dominic Midgely.

The headline reads:

Coe: yes to 2012 GB footy team the Scots and Welsh F*** em

mairead

I don't know a thing about football but surely they can't put in an all England team and call it team GB. On the other hand if they do that, would it not lave the door open for Scotland. Wales etc to do the same?.

Holebender

The article is also supposed to have reported that Sir Alex Ferguson has agreed to manage the team. As a Scot with his roots in Scottish football, I am very surprised that he would do that when the SFA and everyone else involved in football in Scotland is so strongly opposed.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Cruachan

Lawyers! The last refuge of the desperate?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news...lsh-insult-claims-91466-21946184/

When we contacted Lord Coe last night, he told us he was at his optician’s. He asked a spokeswoman for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, which he heads, to contact us. She told us: “Our lawyers have communicated our very serious concerns to the London Paper. They have taken the story off their website. We are discussing with them the wording of a retraction we want them to publish, but that has not been concluded. We do not recognise the language [attributed to Lord Coe]. We certainly deny the gist of the story, that he [Lord Coe] is not interested in the views of Wales and Scotland.”

Blackleaf

As I've already mentioned in the SPORTS section of this website - FIFA have said that there will be no threat to the independence of the Scottish, Welsh, English and Northern Irish FAs if a Great Britain Olympics team was to be created. So you can all stop worrying about that....and using it as an excuse to not have a GB team.

Blackleaf

Jimbo

Blackleaf

No. We just don't play with pygmies.

It's the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish who are the ones who are afraid of being humiliated.

And don't poke fun at the England team until you actually win a World Cup.

Jimbo

Aventinian