A Peculiarly British Riot?

We Brits love a good riot.  Or do we?  As it stands this dangerous new craze has not caught on in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.  I sincerely hope that remains the case for if it were to spread north of Hadrian’s Wall, even the mildest dose of civil disobedience would be viewed as a far graver crime than the horrendous scenes we have witnessed in London.

Imagine if similar riots were taking place in the geographically British cities of Glasgow and Dundee instead of London and Birmingham.  Sky News and Paxman would go out their way to find talking heads to pontificate on how these disturbances were the inevitable outcome of our sectarian, Old Firm loving, and generally backward ways whilst congratulating themselves for living in such a modern, inclusive, and quite riot-proof, metropolis. 

I cannot imagine the London media referring to this as anything other than ‘Scottish Riots’ – with those pesky benefit-hoarding Jocks conspiring to bring down what is left of this glorious Empire and ruin life for everyone in the Home Counties.  They would absolutely not be called ‘UK Riots’. 

Yet that is precisely how these peculiarly English riots have been referred to in every media outlet since this regrettable situation ignited across London a few nights ago.  No one could reasonably describe these occurrences as ‘European Riots’ until they had spread to at least one other country so why is it that our media see fit to consistently refer to them as ‘UK Riots’ when they are confined to only one constituent part?

You can forgive this kind of wilfully ignorant imprecision when it applies only to sporting matters.  It is more amusing than destructive when Andy Murray is ‘British’ in victory but decidedly ‘Scottish’ upon defeat.  However, it can be rather damaging to our economy – as the First Minister ‘controversially’ pointed out – when English riots are beamed globally, portraying the United Kingdom as a nation of looters and arsonists. 

Not since the blitz has there been such widespread criminal vandalism in the capital of the British state.  Interestingly, the media has been surprisingly muted in apportioning blame, lacking the scaremongering one might expect if, say, Al-Qaeda were responsible.  Perhaps it is a simple failure to accept the social circumstances and gross inequalities that have given rise to such a widespread rejection of our shared British values by so many of Her Majesty’s subjects. 

A Matter of Life and Death. Or is it More Important?

I sometimes wonder how different the 20^th century might have been had there been a British Football Association established in Victorian times, instead of four national bodies.  Would this have eroded our sense of nationhood and quelled any rise in nationalism?  Imagine if ‘we’ truly had won the World Cup in 1966.  Would we all gleefully wave our Union Jacks, even now, in tribute to the winning goals from Bobby Charlton and Denis Law?  Or would our national heritage and sense of independence have manifested itself in another, more mature, way?

It seems we are about to get a taste of what it would be like to have a British football team, whether we like it or not.  If such a team were successful there would, with some justification, be calls from around the world for a permanent British international team.  If somewhere like the USA wanted four teams we might think that were ridiculous.  What if they wanted Fifty?  You could reasonably say they are entitled to that many if we Brits are allowed four teams.  Otherwise, you might think one team per sovereign state is sufficient. 

This together with the regular lame speculation of the Old Firm joining the English League is something that, if it ever came to fruition, may gradually harm our national cultural fabric.

Of the four ‘British’ associations only one of them wants to proceed with this so,  democratically speaking, they are voted down 3-1 and there should be no Team GB.  That is the only fair outcome as there never has been a structure in place to represent the state of Britain in international football.  To artificially create a Great British team, under the auspices of the English FA, for a one off sporting event is irresponsible and unwarranted.  There could have been sensible and equitable discussion of alternative arrangements. 

A Home Nations tournament could have taken place, like the recent Carling Cup, where everyone except England enjoyed a friendly rivalry.  The winner could have gone on to represent all of Britain on merit.  Instead having an all-English team taking to the field as 'Britain' perpetuates the absurd notion – both home and abroad – that England and Britain are coterminous.  They are not and we should not allow it to appear so, even in sport. 

Football in itself is a matter of some triviality.  Cases like this, however, reflect perfectly the structural inadequacies that exist in this ‘United Kingdom’ we all live under.  The Supreme Court debacle has shown that at present, our courts can be overruled by London.  In the same way our football association can be overruled by its English counterpart. 

There is another parallel between our football and our law.  Both are entirely separate and independent entities with sovereignty in their own spheres – one trivial, the other essential.  To see both our legal and footballing systems being ridden over rough shod should be enough to anger even the sternest unionist.  Surely even if one were to believe wholeheartedly in the value of union, it would be prudent to want a fair deal for your own nation within that union.  The Act of Union enshrined the irrevocably independent status of our religion and law.  Had it taken place more recently, footballing independence would undoubtedly have been added to that list, maybe even supplanting the Kirk in importance.

Perhaps this attack on the sovereignty of our national game may illustrate the inequality of the UK at present, even to those who are indifferent to the emasculation of our legal system.

Trident and Me: A reflection on our strategic nuclear deterrent

As a young lad in the early 90s I was taken to the coast one brisk autumnal afternoon and had the privilege of catching a glimpse of the most technically advanced ship in the Royal Navy’s fleet.  HMS Vanguard made an impressive sight as she silently glided through the Firth of Clyde, orbited by a flotilla of smaller craft containing machine gun toting guards.  I confess a certain amount of pride went through my pre-adolescent mind that Britain still had the wealth and status to build such a thing; the ultimate expression of – my dad’s got a better car than yours.  I can forgive my youthful delight that my country still ruled the waves, driven by the James Bond fantasy of a Britain not completely devoid of power.  Although I was aware even as a child that the use of such a weapon would always be morally wrong, I felt then that it was necessary as a deterrent.  If we did not have it then those countries who did would invariably tell us what to do and ultimately invade or annihilate us.  Tragically, proponents of Trident still use that exact argument without any greater attempt at sophistication, despite the massive shift in the global political landscape.

As a Cold War deterrent these submarines may have had their place.  Perhaps it was a worthwhile investment of the nation’s wealth, showing those pesky Reds that good old Blighty would never surrender the waves to their morally inferior economic system by letting them nuke us unanswered.  The current Trident system, commissioned in those days but delivered after the wall came down, could be viewed, sympathetically, as an unfortunate anachronism.  Designed to last for a few decades, you could say we simply have to let them die a natural death and be consigned to history, a relic of 20^th century stupidity.  With no viable nuclear power being hostile to Britain you would expect our wise Westminster superiors to protect our borders with a well equipped conventional armed force, and dare I say it – sensible foreign policy.

However, last week (was there really no decision taken prior to May 5?), the coalition Minister of Defence announced the replacement of this crazy outdated system with a crazier still, even more outdated, and yet more expensive system.  At a time of unprecedented cuts to all segments of civil society we are going to create another Cold War system for use in the 21^st century.  Against who exactly?  Who is the enemy now?  Against which sovereign nation, and under what circumstances, is the ‘United Kingdom’ prepared to launch an attack of such criminal ferocity that the US atrocity over Hiroshima would seem like a bonfire in comparison?

I would hope that no government could come to power on this island that would ever be foolish enough to consider a nuclear attack on another nation but that cannot be guaranteed.  Sadly a new generation of Trident is to be built whether we like it or not.  Our leaders at Westminster say we need them – just in case.  In case of what exactly?  They offer no protection against terrorism, supposedly the greatest threat since the Cold War.  The most heavily armed nuclear power in the world was attacked ten years ago by an enemy who were apparently undaunted by the threat of nuclear retaliation. 

Supporters of such destructive power argue they must be built to ensure our safety.  The most sensible among them say we should not use them except in an emergency.  Forgive my bluntness but that exact same argument could be used to suggest we should build Auschwitz-style extermination camps – just in case certain segments of society get out of hand.  We may at some point have a government that wants to gas civilians so why not?  We have Trident in case a future government wants to immolate foreign civilians so why stop there?  In what way is it morally acceptable to build machines capable of destroying millions of lives in an instant but not to design smaller, more targeted, atrocity mechanisms? 

Genocide is genocide.  There is no such thing as genocide lite.  There is no point in commemorating history if we are not prepared to learn from the atrocities of the past.  Some may think it reeks of sensationalism or even poor taste to compare our nation’s choice of genocide machinery with that of the historical Third Reich.  They may argue that bullets have proven just as effective a tool of genocide as a gas chamber.  Well the efficient German engineers of the day felt otherwise.  The stark truth is to ruling Germans of that era; human life was less valuable than the preservation of bullets.  In purely financial terms it made sense for them to commit their genocide in the most cost-effective way.  Nuclear weapons are the ultimate extension of that disgusting logic.  Despite their enormous economic cost, there exists currently no cheaper way to annihilate millions of people in a short period of time than the deployment of nuclear weapons.  To that end they are simply a refinement of genocidal technology; descendents of the Vernichtungslager.

What is most appalling is how little the Great British people seem to care about this.  The media interest has been minimal and aside from a few principled souls, who maintain a constant vigil at Faslane, the majority of the populace seem to have bigger things on their mind.  Perhaps for the majority of them Trident is simply out of sight and, therefore, mind.  They have the ‘cuts’ to worry about and where do multi-billion pound nuclear submarines fit in to that?  My moral stance on this would not be altered if these genocide machines were based on the Thames though would it seem less immediate were I not within 20 miles of the most horrific instruments of death ever conceived by Mankind?


Originally published at Newsnet Scotland on Tuesday, 24 May 2011.