British, Scottish and a Great Sportsman

Image by National Collective

The controversy surrounding the Scottish National Party (SNP) leader, Alex Salmond’s, adornment of the Saltire at today’s Wimbledon Men’s Single Final is completely unprovoked. Whether the flag was used as a demonstration of national pride or as a ploy to further the politician’s nationalist agenda should not cause such concentrated outrage.

In celebration of a truly great British (and, indeed, Scottish) sportsman winning the British tennis grand slam, an air of patriotism and national unity is unsurprisingly the expected outcome. Yet, the Scotsman’s win has caused tensions on the polemical discussion of Scottish independence, with the referendum set to take place late next year. It is, hence, understandable that Salmond waving the Scottish Saltire can be deemed a deliberate and politically motivated action. Instead of finding ourselves drowning in celebration and positive feelings, we dispute among ourselves over the very thing which inevitably became the focus of today.

The first side of the argument suggests that Salmond used the Saltire as a political instrument, sparking a reminder that Murray is a Scotsman. Using the Wimbledon Central Court as a stage to display his political beliefs, Salmond stirred great feelings of patriotism among Scots watching from the arena and home. Knowing it would gain further media attention, it would rouse the debate once more and promote Salmond as a good party leader. But this argument uses the belief that people will make their decision over independence on the back of a great sporting achievement. It also suggests that people would not feel this patriotism without the presence of the flag (yet there were many others within the crowd that were also waving the same flag).

The other side of the  argument is that it was an innocent display of national pride from the Scottish leader. Remember that this is a person who has a great deal of passion for their nation; they may achieved high status and profile, but this does not necessarily mean they will exploit this for their personal and political gain. You cannot blame the First Minister for feeling a great deal of passion in a moment where an extraordinary man went to achieve their greatest sporting victory. We were all guilty of it during the Olympics last year, where many across the country did raise St George’s Flags in honour of their English sportspersons, despite them actually representing the United Kingdom (under the strange guise of Great Britain) as a whole. This is not exploitation of this particular moment or media, but a show of individual beliefs and pride in a representative of their nation.

Furthermore, arguably, regardless of Salmond’s presence, we were likely to see this debate raise its ugly head. I think it is this final point that partly excuses the Scottish parliamentary leader of their actions, whether deliberate or not.

We must remember that the issue of Scottish independence is a matter to be decided by the Scots without external influence. The biggest problem in this picture is not the presence of the Saltire, but the lady in the background who is distracted by her, likely, mobile phone from the victory that has just taken place in front of her.

The Not-So-Grand National

Image by Paolo Camera

The Grand National starts today and its controversial history has already been repeated with two horses already having died in the preliminary stages; one from a jump, the other from a suspected heart attack. There have been numerous attempts to make the races safer but these do not seem to be making any difference, with horses continuing to die at each race.

It is a sad state of affairs that people would accept this practice as normal and only express remorse at the death of the horses rather than the initial cruelty. Furthermore, this remorse is short-lived and only shown during the Great National and later races. The races are treated as an experience and a great day out but who treats a death as a great day out? The fact that the horse is a lesser-being, an animal, changes the very treatment and perception that we grant it; this is wholly unfair.

Ludicrously, the RSPCA have argued that the Grand National, or horseracing in general, does not amount to animal cruelty, stating that animal cruelty was when people deliberately hurt animals for their own entertainment or pleasure. But surely this is exactly what the Grand National is? Jockeys beating their horses with sticks for their pursuit of money and fame, whilst others gather to watch, bet and enjoy. And year after year, horses die as a direct result of the broken bones caused by falling at fences they are required to jump. This is a very strange opinion to hear from the RSPCA.

The attempts to make the Grand National safer every year are unsuccessful. Changing the heights and types of fence are a step forward but they are not enough. The real problem in horseracing is the pressure that jockeys are put under to win the race and the difficulty to manoeuvre the horse when all horses are so close together, taking bends and dangerous jumps. It seems unlikely that any changes will be made to stop these horses having to die.

For some reason, cruelty to animals is a frowned upon practice yet the Grand National does not constitute as animal cruelty to many in society. The decrease of a threat of a death is enough to calm some fears but this is not enough to ensure the safety of our animals. Horseracing is a horrible sport that has been normalised into acceptance.

What's next for Syria?

The Syrian crisis continues to worsen and any improvement to the situation seems an all too distant possibility. The announcement of the UN's special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan's resignation from the role highlights the difficulty of the task; and aside from that, revelations from Obama's administration and talks between Russia's Putin and David Cameron  clearly demonstrate the absolute lack of international unity.

But what is the real heart of the problem? Is it a lack of unity between all members of the United Nations, with China and Russia vetoing any proposed action on Assad's regime, or is it the fact that neither the regime or the 'rebels' are adhering to the six-point plan that Annan attempted to implement? Every side blames the other, so no clarity is apparent. Regardless, the crisis is infuriating, and despite it's similarities to the Libyan uprising last year, it is also very different. Cynics might say it's to do with oil, others to say with key alliances; either way, there are civilians being killed left, right and centre here, and it's not something that should occur no matter the situation.

The situation is vastly different to Libya for a number of reasons; essentially, the sides of the oppositions and the length of time this conflict has spanned define the sensitivity of the situation. Comparatively, Libya appeared to have an almost everyone-against-Gaddafi situation, where the majority of citizens were in favour of his deposition, whereas within Syria, there is an obvious divide of opinion, and to favour one side over another would be to ignore the rights and opinions of a large sector of society, regardless of what the rest of the country and, indeed, the world thinks. Secondly, the conflict in Libya lasted only a couple of months before there was international intervention, whereas this conflict has lasted over a year now. The common opinion now is that Syria is militarised; citizens are used to conflict and there is danger for any person within the country. To arm the citizens would not simply result in the overthrow of the Government, but rather in the massacre of a vast number of citizens who disagree with the most armed side. These two points put us in a very difficult situation.

What's the correct way forward? I'm no expert on international relations, and I would hate to advocate war in any form, but it's obvious that some kind of action needs to be taken to depose Assad, or the country needs to be sorted and split, like with Sudan. But first, diplomacy needs to ensure that there is peaceful transition and implementation of whatever strategy is agreed upon. Unfortunately, diplomacy appears to be the first hurdle that cannot be overcome, forcing Annan's resignation today. And Obama appears to have decided that also, signing the document for approval in helping the rebels a few months ago, in a covert operation, just falling short of agreeing to arm them. We are yet to see the backlash on this, and a resolution that China and Russia agree appears too distant.

The strangest part of the situation; Syria have still been able to enter a team into the London 2012 Olympics, and they are competing alongside international athletes peacefully. How can a country that is killing its own citizens be able to peacefully enter an international sports competition is beyond me, but apparently it's possible.