Jump to content

Glasgow 2014


Recommended Posts

Australia isnt the cause for Canada, NZ et al from committing...its cost to benefit ratio and for a smaller country like NZ, thats big.

As for the Commonwealth during the "Thatcher" era, yeah it seemed more relevant but it was revealed after Nelson Mandela became president that secret back channel talks started with Botha, thru to de Klerk brought on a safer transitional phase that could only happen without the heavier sanctions the Commonwealth wanted. Would've cruely plunged SA into a nasty famine and an even bloodier civil war and blown it out into a regional conflict with Superpower involvement.

Edinburgh 86 copped it, the games no one else wanted anyway, and Thatcher wore it, even from the Queen.

My impressions of the Commonwealth back then was a unit to keep the former Empire nations firmly in the West sphere through family ties without the heavy hand of America but its proxy, the UK, centrepoint. Australia, NZ and Canada were seen as the other White hands in the mix...And South Africa as ALWAYS the focal point of every CHOGM session. Trade and general good will barely got a mention until it was time to talk CWGs...oh and a group photo with QEII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emirates , everyones most favourite sponsor!

We're on our way at long last!!!

Interesting Scotguy, the news last night told of a place set aside for Fiji if the military government can confirm full free elections in Nov 2014, a few months after the games.

Irony is that Fiji is welcome at all other events, ( along with Zimbabwe) including Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly - how does Australia throw its weight around at Commonwealth meetings? Can you provide specific examples? And how to other Commonwealth nations not let it get away with it? I'm perplexed. With the increasing fixation on Australian republicanism and a diversion of attention toward the Asian community (Commonwealth or not) I find this a very specific interpretation of our foreign relations.

Further, I feel you are missing my point in regards to how former conquerers became the new soft and paternalistic guardians - namely the UK itself. To put it lightly your country (and mine, by my British descent) embarked on a global expansion campaign that has left horrifying and disturbing legacies in parts of the world. Back to my original point - can you really blame many nations from coming to the consensus that the Commonwealth of Nations/CHOGM is really a worthwhile venture for them? You mention it attempts to mirror UN conduct - why not just use the UN itself. Is the C'wealth itself even necessary, if not just the last dying gasp of air of British colonial influence?

I'll confess I was trolling a bit about Australia. However it is absolutely the case that within the Commonwealth, all nations are technically equal. Also, "the increasing fixation on Australian republicanism" is almost unseen outside Australia (my guess is that even Prince Harry would only be mildly saddened if Australia repudiated all ties with the UK).

As for "why not just use the UN itself. Is the C'wealth itself even necessary, if not just the last dying gasp of air of British colonial influence?"- the Commonweatlth is, as its name suggests, more interested in business issues than the UN; it may not actually be necessary, but it is useful.

PS on "horrifying and disturbing legacies"- are they more "horrifying and disturbing" than what would probably have emerged under their pre-British governance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll confess I was trolling a bit about Australia. However it is absolutely the case that within the Commonwealth, all nations are technically equal. Also, "the increasing fixation on Australian republicanism" is almost unseen outside Australia (my guess is that even Prince Harry would only be mildly saddened if Australia repudiated all ties with the UK).

I was referring to the growing fixation within Australia - we would the Australian republican movement care about the opinion of any non-Australian? Let alone someone as irrelevant as Prince Harry. Australia's move to a republic model has nothing to do with the UK - it is the simple matter that our head of state should not be based on unearned, inherited privilege. Even if it is only symbolic, the idea makes me uncomfortable, which is why I support A.R.M.

Further, I think it would be a good opportunity for Australia to have a structural 'spring cleaning' - the 2010 election revealed some weaknesses in the way the current Westminster system is used, and I'd support a political restructuring as part of an Australian Republic.

As for "why not just use the UN itself. Is the C'wealth itself even necessary, if not just the last dying gasp of air of British colonial influence?"- the Commonweatlth is, as its name suggests, more interested in business issues than the UN; it may not actually be necessary, but it is useful.

To an extent - but it is still a network of countries united by European conquest. There is only one member nation that was not defined by that experience, and that is England itself. If not just rehased neocolonialism - the grouping countries together in the 21c based on the puff of a wind that brought tall ships to their shores centuries ago is a little arbitrary and irrelevant.

PS on "horrifying and disturbing legacies"- are they more "horrifying and disturbing" than what would probably have emerged under their pre-British governance?

Can you elaborate what you mean here? It's not clear. What "probably" emerged under their pre-British governance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks a very neat venue, as I thought it would. With this and the Armadillo and other developments, Glasgow is giving off the same sort of vibes as Newcastle with the Sage and the developments around there. Good stuff.

I_Want_To_Believe_01-297x300.png

Edited by RobH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the growing fixation within Australia - we would the Australian republican movement care about the opinion of any non-Australian? Let alone someone as irrelevant as Prince Harry. Australia's move to a republic model has nothing to do with the UK - it is the simple matter that our head of state should not be based on unearned, inherited privilege. Even if it is only symbolic, the idea makes me uncomfortable, which is why I support A.R.M.

Further, I think it would be a good opportunity for Australia to have a structural 'spring cleaning' - the 2010 election revealed some weaknesses in the way the current Westminster system is used, and I'd support a political restructuring as part of an Australian Republic.

OK, thanks for clarifying the source of the fixation, and you're right that a 'spring cleaning' should be a beneficial exercise. Just try to avoid the US mistake of believing that removal of the obvious symbol of inherited privilege has some bearing on the existence of inherited privilege (e.g. 4th/5th generation Murdochs).

it is still a network of countries united by European conquest. There is only one member nation that was not defined by that experience, and that is England itself. If not just rehased neocolonialism - the grouping countries together in the 21c based on the puff of a wind that brought tall ships to their shores centuries ago is a little arbitrary and irrelevant.

Funnily enough, England was defined by European conquest (culminating in 1066 and all that, complete with the genocidal "harrying of the North"). Personally, I think the arbitrary nature of the Commonwealth membership is a good thing, because it creates a broad mix of interest groups.

Can you elaborate what you mean here? It's not clear. What "probably" emerged under their pre-British governance?

That's "probably would have", not just "probably".

There is a tendency to vilify European colonialism as the source of too many evils. Some, such as the genocidal effects of exported European diseases (a huge but bad example, being a consequence of travel rather than imperialism), can indeed have no other source. However, others such as slavery, warlordism, human-sacrifice theocracy etc. existed quite independently (and within the British Empire at least, tended to be discouraged).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1383286_658510944173041_749120663_n.jpg

1374177_655692134454922_1785127209_n.jpg

Just to think, forty years ago, this was a run down ship yard...

I know I sound like a scratched record when I say this...You should've build an all purpose stadium here as well and pulled down the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously this is a bigger scale, the Commie hosting & Glasgow is much bigger city, but looking at that just makes me think of what Bristol could do if the city had a bit of guts. A proper arena might now be on the go, but it may well not be usable for sport, like in Leeds. And we're still stuck with the pathetic Gate for our main stadium. The new UWE stadium will at least be better, but it'll still be tiny. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful design and great materials. It's regal, modern and don't try to look like a torch. Don't like much the red thingie around the message though. I thought the letter would be kept in a pure white, luminous cylinder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...