Congratulations to Andy Murray on his victory at Wimbledon on Sunday. His second grand slam title is now secured, as is a place in sporting history. But what is the political significance of this sporting triumph?
Now that might seem a strange question to ask. It would appear though that many people want to drag the world’s number two male tennis player into a very different arena from the one he is used to.
Andy Murray, you see, is the first British man to win the singles title at Wimbledon for 77 years. Or the first Scottish man to take the title for over a century if you prefer. And that’s where the politics comes in. Rather than simply rejoicing in Murray’s victory, it seemingly has to have some sort of wider significance in the independence debate.
Now perhaps Andy Murray is simply the first man from Dunblane to win a grand slam title. Or the first Wimbledon men’s champion to be called Andy. (Andre Agassi doesn’t count, pedants.)
But Scotland’s First Minister was in the Royal Box for Sunday’s final, sitting just behind the UK’s Prime Minister. And when Murray celebrated, so did Alex Salmond. He did so by producing an outsized Scottish flag, which had apparently been carried in his wife’s handbag, and appeared to claim the win for Scotland. David Cameron also celebrated, apparently unaware of what was happening in the row behind.
Was Salmond simply being patriotic? Or was he attempting to make a nationalistic point?
Frankly, a whole lot of newspaper column inches have been wasted debating the issue. A man won an important tennis tournament, beating another man who happened to come from a different country. A sporting triumph for sure, but its political significance?
Absolutely none as far as I am concerned.
Wimbledon is an individual tournament. Andy Murray wasn’t playing as a representative of Scotland or of the UK, but simple as himself. His victory did not mean anything at all in the context of Scotland’s forthcoming independence referendum. And Murray himself would no doubt point out that his Czech coach Ivan Lendl was very important to his victory, and remind us that most of his early training was done is Spain.
So does Andy Murray’s Wimbledon victory mean anything at all in terms of Scotland’s politics? Of course not. And anyone trying to claim that it does is simply trying to play a populist card and attempting to ride on his coat tails.
Agree.
Gordon J……..
Great stuff.
Thank you for a reasoned and articulate summary of the ‘All England Men’s Final’……….. Jeez, the boy Andy did remarkably well to win in such fashion. Good luck to him; he has worked hard to get to the pinnacle……..
Ordinarily, not really a tennis fan, nor a rugby, athletics, buff etc., Still, (for me) it is a privilege to watch top class performers on the edge though…..
BTW, am I allowed to like Novak Djokovic given that he is not from Maryhill?
Would like that competition should mean less barriers and boundaries, not more eh! It’s sport innit!
Regards & Hail Hail
TBM
Really like your stuff usually Gordon, and I hope you don’t mind me saying so, but the nub of the controversy isn’t the political significance of Andy’s win (I think most sensible people rightly conclude it has none).
The controversy is over how to interpret Salmond’s flag waving. As First Minister, and a champion of Independence, his every move is inescapably political, and Political. Waving the Saltire at a sporting event of such profound historical and cultural interest, in the context of the hugely politicised Olympics of 2012 and the forthcoming Indepencence referendum, and in London, and behind the Prime Minister, and on a live broadcast of the national broadcaster, is certainly a political statement.
It looked to me like an attempt, and a fairly clumsy and desperate one, to “claim” Andy’s victory for a far narrower constituency than it might be claimed for, regardles what Andy’s feelings may be on the subject.