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.