Graham
07-11-2012, 12:43 PM
A reaction to Scottish resentment: Why English support for Andy Murray was not all it might have been
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2170898/Wimbledon-2012-Why-English-support-Andy-Murray-been.html
By Nigel Jones
PUBLISHED:13:22, 9 July 2012 | UPDATED:14:01, 9 July 2012
Though no tennis fan, Andy Murray's gallant attempt to oust Wimbledon's king Roger Federer from his throne has prompted me to ponder weighty matters that go far beyond sport into history, patriotism, and the ancient ethnic loves and hatreds uniting - but more often dividing - England and Scotland.
In the wake of Murray's defeat, some Scots have voiced well-grounded dark suspicions that the loyalty of many English tennis enthusiasts to Andy, the first Briton to reach the Men's final since 'Bunny' Austin in 1938, was at best lukewarm. Indeed a good few English fans - judging by their Twitter and Facebook remarks - went so far as supporting his triumphant Swiss opponent. So why should this be so?
It is clearly not Murray's less bankable personal characteristics that are at the root of the problem. He is - or was until yesterday - the personification of the Scottish stereotype of dourness that caused PG Wodehouse to famously remark that 'It is never difficult to distinguish between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance'.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/09/article-2170898-13FB0E5B000005DC-282_468x303.jpg
Many - perhaps most - other male tennis stars of various nationalities display the same traits of moodiness, irascibility, dullness and general all-round ill humour without it adversely affecting their popularity. And Murray's tear-choked post-match speech on court showed that even this stony-faced maestro of misery is capable of raw human emotion when the occasion demands it.
No, Murray's problem with the public is not personal - it is political. Or to put it even more rawly, it is ethnic. He is a proud and patriotic Scot, and as such is, ipso facto, an enemy of England, the dominant nation within the increasingly fractious family that make up the British Isles. Leave aside Murray's reported support for the bitterly anti-English SNP (not the least enjoyable aspect of Sunday's final was to see the usual smug smile wiped off Alex Salmond's fat features) and you are still left with a man who, to many English, is simply not one of us. Despite the plethora of Union Flags at Wimbledon, when we think of Andy Murray it is not that symbol of Britishness that first springs to mind - but the separatist saltire of St Andrew.
Human beings are tribal by nature, and despite the artificial Union foisted on England and Scotland by their ruling elites under Scotland's Stuart dynasty in 1603 ( when James I and VI succeeded Queen Elizabeth I); and a century later in 1707 when the reluctant nations were forced up the aisle in the shotgun wedding that was the Act of Union, the English and Scots remain two divided tribes.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/09/article-2170898-13FB675B000005DC-458_468x359.jpg
Common - largely commercial - interests, kept the Union show on the road for three centuries as the British Empire rose, ruled, and finally fell. Scottish imperialists were among the most enthusiastic empire builders, provided several Prime Ministers to preside over the Imperial project, and Scottish soldiers and sailors fought alongside their English counterparts in two world wars and countless lesser conflicts.
For their part, the English evinced a sentimental adoration for all things Scottish, from whisky to Scottish shortbread biscuits, and from bagpipe music to Andy Murray's beloved porridge, culminating with our current ruling House and their enthusiasm for holidaying in the rainy, midge-infested Highlands.
This was always, however, a one way street. There was never a corresponding cult of Englishness in Scotland. The default position of most Scots towards their southern neighbours was one of sullen resentment, interspersed with increasingly frequent spasms of active loathing.
And after the Empire faded into the mists of history, there seemed less and less reason to keep a union, which had always been a marriage of convenience rather than one founded on love, out of the divorce courts.
Despite or because of the manifest advantages to the Scots of having their limping economy subsidised by the hated Sassenachs; despite or because of the one-sided gift of devolution - allowing Scots at Westminster to determine the destiny of England while denying the same say in Scotland's affairs to the English - Scottish demands for separation under the skilled direction of Alex Salmond have grown and grown.
Now, unsurprisingly, they have at last encountered an English backlash. This can be seen, not only in the scarcely veiled glee with which many English people greeted the victory of Roger Federer; but also in the fact that support for outright Scottish independence in the run-up to the referendum on the subject, is currently stronger south of the border, than it is in Salmond's native heather, where the pro-Union cause has a 20% lead in the polls as more canny Scots calculate the real cost of abandoning a union that, when all is said and done, has profited them rather well.
As the Scots are belatedly discovering, sullen resentment works both ways, and as they contemplate the increasingly dubious benefits of such a loveless union, it is the English who are discovering the joys of nurturing a sense of righteous grievance
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2170898/Wimbledon-2012-Why-English-support-Andy-Murray-been.html
By Nigel Jones
PUBLISHED:13:22, 9 July 2012 | UPDATED:14:01, 9 July 2012
Though no tennis fan, Andy Murray's gallant attempt to oust Wimbledon's king Roger Federer from his throne has prompted me to ponder weighty matters that go far beyond sport into history, patriotism, and the ancient ethnic loves and hatreds uniting - but more often dividing - England and Scotland.
In the wake of Murray's defeat, some Scots have voiced well-grounded dark suspicions that the loyalty of many English tennis enthusiasts to Andy, the first Briton to reach the Men's final since 'Bunny' Austin in 1938, was at best lukewarm. Indeed a good few English fans - judging by their Twitter and Facebook remarks - went so far as supporting his triumphant Swiss opponent. So why should this be so?
It is clearly not Murray's less bankable personal characteristics that are at the root of the problem. He is - or was until yesterday - the personification of the Scottish stereotype of dourness that caused PG Wodehouse to famously remark that 'It is never difficult to distinguish between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance'.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/09/article-2170898-13FB0E5B000005DC-282_468x303.jpg
Many - perhaps most - other male tennis stars of various nationalities display the same traits of moodiness, irascibility, dullness and general all-round ill humour without it adversely affecting their popularity. And Murray's tear-choked post-match speech on court showed that even this stony-faced maestro of misery is capable of raw human emotion when the occasion demands it.
No, Murray's problem with the public is not personal - it is political. Or to put it even more rawly, it is ethnic. He is a proud and patriotic Scot, and as such is, ipso facto, an enemy of England, the dominant nation within the increasingly fractious family that make up the British Isles. Leave aside Murray's reported support for the bitterly anti-English SNP (not the least enjoyable aspect of Sunday's final was to see the usual smug smile wiped off Alex Salmond's fat features) and you are still left with a man who, to many English, is simply not one of us. Despite the plethora of Union Flags at Wimbledon, when we think of Andy Murray it is not that symbol of Britishness that first springs to mind - but the separatist saltire of St Andrew.
Human beings are tribal by nature, and despite the artificial Union foisted on England and Scotland by their ruling elites under Scotland's Stuart dynasty in 1603 ( when James I and VI succeeded Queen Elizabeth I); and a century later in 1707 when the reluctant nations were forced up the aisle in the shotgun wedding that was the Act of Union, the English and Scots remain two divided tribes.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/09/article-2170898-13FB675B000005DC-458_468x359.jpg
Common - largely commercial - interests, kept the Union show on the road for three centuries as the British Empire rose, ruled, and finally fell. Scottish imperialists were among the most enthusiastic empire builders, provided several Prime Ministers to preside over the Imperial project, and Scottish soldiers and sailors fought alongside their English counterparts in two world wars and countless lesser conflicts.
For their part, the English evinced a sentimental adoration for all things Scottish, from whisky to Scottish shortbread biscuits, and from bagpipe music to Andy Murray's beloved porridge, culminating with our current ruling House and their enthusiasm for holidaying in the rainy, midge-infested Highlands.
This was always, however, a one way street. There was never a corresponding cult of Englishness in Scotland. The default position of most Scots towards their southern neighbours was one of sullen resentment, interspersed with increasingly frequent spasms of active loathing.
And after the Empire faded into the mists of history, there seemed less and less reason to keep a union, which had always been a marriage of convenience rather than one founded on love, out of the divorce courts.
Despite or because of the manifest advantages to the Scots of having their limping economy subsidised by the hated Sassenachs; despite or because of the one-sided gift of devolution - allowing Scots at Westminster to determine the destiny of England while denying the same say in Scotland's affairs to the English - Scottish demands for separation under the skilled direction of Alex Salmond have grown and grown.
Now, unsurprisingly, they have at last encountered an English backlash. This can be seen, not only in the scarcely veiled glee with which many English people greeted the victory of Roger Federer; but also in the fact that support for outright Scottish independence in the run-up to the referendum on the subject, is currently stronger south of the border, than it is in Salmond's native heather, where the pro-Union cause has a 20% lead in the polls as more canny Scots calculate the real cost of abandoning a union that, when all is said and done, has profited them rather well.
As the Scots are belatedly discovering, sullen resentment works both ways, and as they contemplate the increasingly dubious benefits of such a loveless union, it is the English who are discovering the joys of nurturing a sense of righteous grievance