The Glasgow 2014 XX Commonwealth Games and Scottish Independence: “Political Truce” or Political Truth(s)?

This paper explores the political reaction to Lord McConnell’s appeal for a political ‘truce’ in the form of a temporary halt to campaigning by all political parties and organisations involved in the debate regarding the Scottish independence referendum during the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games (BBC, 2014; McConnell, 2014). Urging both sides of the debate to cease campaigning for the two-week period of the Glasgow 2014 games, the current Labour peer and past First Minister of the Scottish Parliament cited concerns that there are “genuine concerns that the Games, and the image of Scotland, could be damaged by attempts by either side – for and against – to use the Games to promote their cause, or to use the venues for campaigning” (McConnell, 2014). Drawing upon the principles of both a critical discourse and a narrative analysis methodological approach, this paper will scrutinise the nature of the political reactions to McConnell’s proposal from a variety of perspectives on both sides of the independence referendum debate. In particular, the emphasis in the responses from both sides of the debate regarding the apolitical nature of the 2014 Games will be critiqued, drawing upon the arguments of past analyses of sporting mega-events which highlight the potential for political exploitation of such events by the host nations (e.g. Horne, 2007; Grix, 2012; Houlihan and Giulianotti, 2012; Roche, 2006). Furthermore, the findings of academic research on the political implications of hosting the Commonwealth Games will be considered (e.g. Majumdar and Mehta, 2010; Van Der Westhuizen, 2004; Macintosh and Greenhorn, 1992; Majumdar, 2011; Lockstone and Baum, 2010; Macfarlane and Herd, 1986), highlighting a number of precedents which demonstrate the numerous challenges faced in any attempts to the keep the 2014 Games free from political influence.

Dis)located Olympic Patriots: Sporting Connections, Administrative Communications and Imperial Ether in Interwar New Zealand

During the interwar period (1919-1939) protagonists of the early New Zealand Olympic Committee [NZOC] worked to renegotiate and improve the country’s international sporting participation and involvement in the International Olympic Committee [IOC]. To this end, NZOC effectively used its locally based administrators and well-placed expatriates in Britain to variously assert the organisation’s nascent autonomy, independence and political power, progress Antipodean athlete’s causes, and, counter any potential doubt about the nation’s peripheral position in imperial sporting dialogues. Adding to the corpus of scholarship on New Zealand’s ties and tribulations with imperial Britain (in and beyond sport) (e.g. Beilharz and Cox 2007; Belich 2001, 2007; Coombes 2006; MacLean 2010; Phillips 1984, 1987; Ryan 2004, 2005, 2007), in this paper I examine how the political actions and strategic location of three key NZOC agents (specifically, administrator Harry Amos and expatriates Arthur Porritt and Jack Lovelock) worked in their own particular ways to assert the position of the organisation within the global Olympic fraternity. I argue that the efforts of Amos, Porritt and Lovelock also concomitantly served to remind Commonwealth sporting colleagues (namely Britain and Australia) that New Zealand could not be characterised as, or relegated to being, a distal, subdued, or subservient colonial sporting partner. Subsequently I contend that NZOC’s development during the interwar period, and particularly the utility of expatriate agents, can be contextualised against historiographical shifts that encourage us to rethink, reimagine, and rework narratives of empire, colonisation, national identity, commonwealth and belonging.

'Team GB', 'Team England' or 'Team Scotland'? Media Representations of 'Britishness', 'Englishness' and 'Scottishness' in London 2012 and Glasgow 2014

Given the timing of the Scottish independence referendum in September 2014, the hosting of both the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games coincided with a period of considerable political turmoil and reflection within the United Kingdom. The extensive levels of public, political and media scrutiny of both of these major sporting events can therefore be framed within a wider consideration of the contemporary dynamics of the political union between the constituent nations of the UK, as well as the multifarious forms of national identities expressed within the various regions of the ‘nation-state’. Despite the growing influence of social media forms within contemporary society, politics and sport within the UK, the ‘traditional’ print media retain a central (although arguably diminishing) role in the dissemination of information relating to major societal, political and sporting issues to the British public. This paper will therefore critically reflect upon the nature of print media representations of ‘Britishness’, ‘Englishness’ and ‘Scottishness’ at London 2012 and Glasgow 2014 from both London-based and Scotland-based publications, drawing upon empirical data from completed and ongoing doctoral theses from the respective authors. In particular, the implications of the contrasting competitive structures of each event will be considered, given the symbolic differences between the unitary ‘Team GB’ at the London 2012 Olympics and the separated representative teams for Scotland and England at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.

(Dis)located Olympic Patriots: Sporting Connections, Administrative Communications and Imperial Ether in Interwar New Zealand

During the interwar period (1919–1939), protagonists of the early New Zealand Olympic Committee (NZOC) worked to renegotiate and improve the country's international sporting participation and involvement in the International Olympic Committee. To this end, NZOC effectively used its locally based administrators and well-placed expatriates in Britain to variously assert the organization's nascent autonomy, independence and political power, progress Antipodean athlete's causes and counter any potential doubt about the nation's peripheral position in imperial sporting dialogues. Adding to the corpus of scholarship on New Zealand's ties and tribulations with imperial Britain, both in and beyond sport (e.g. Beilharz and Cox, 2007, “Settler Capitalism Revisited,” Thesis Eleven 88: 112–124; Belich, 2001, Paradise Reforged: A History of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the Year 2000, Auckland: Allen Lane; Belich, 2007, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, Auckland: The Penguin Group; Coombes, 2006, Rethinking Settler Colonialism: History and Memory in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and South Africa, Manchester: Manchester University Press; MacLean, 2010, “New Zealand (Aotearoa),” In Routledge Companion to Sports History, edited by Steve W. Pope and John Nauright, 510–525, London: Routledge; Phillips, 1984, “Rugby, War and the Mythology of the New Zealand Male,” The New Zealand Journal of History 18 (1): 83–103; Phillips, 1987, A Man's Country: The Image of the Pakeha Male, Auckland: Penguin Books; Ryan, 2004, The Making of New Zealand Cricket, 1832–1914, London: Frank Cass; Ryan, 2005, Tackling Rugby Myths: Rugby and New Zealand Society 1854–2004, Dunedin: University of Otago Press; Ryan, 2007, “Sport in 19th-Century Aotearoa/New Zealand: Opportunities and Constraints,” In Sport in Aotearoa/New Zealand Society, edited by Chris Collins and Steve Jackson, 96–111, Auckland: Thomson), I will examine how the political actions and strategic location of three key NZOC agents (specifically, administrator Harry Amos and expatriates Arthur Porritt and Jack Lovelock) worked in their own particular ways to assert the position of the organization within the global Olympic fraternity. I argue that the efforts of Amos, Porritt and Lovelock also concomitantly served to remind Commonwealth sporting colleagues (namely Britain and Australia) that New Zealand could not be characterized as, or relegated to being, a distal, subdued or subservient colonial sporting partner. Subsequently, I contend that NZOC's development during the interwar period, and particularly the utility of expatriate agents, can be contextualized against historiographical shifts that encourage us to rethink, reimagine and rework narratives of empire, colonization, national identity, commonwealth and belonging.