LONDON 2012 - Summer Olympic Games / Games of the XXX Olympiad

[PortoNuts]

IOC boss hails London 2012 a model of regeneration

IOC president Jacques Rogge said London 2012 was a "beautiful example" of what the Olympics should be about, with a Games that breathe life back into a run-down part of a host city.

The International Olympic Committee chief said the regeneration of the "polluted, derelict" quarter of east London at the heart of the Games was a "remarkable" project.

The Belgian said he was confident London would be able to fix the IOC's concerns about transport problems, and insisted the new Olympic Stadium must remain as an athletics venue as 2012 chiefs work out what to do with it afterwards.

"It's a beautiful example of city regeneration and I would say of a positive legacy," Rogge told AFP in London, at the signing of a 10-year sponsorship deal between the IOC and US consumer goods giant Procter and Gamble.

"East London was totally polluted, derelict, and we are going to revive it.

"We are going to put back a heart, a soul, life, housing and a local population. That's what's remarkable.

"They will revamp it with new access roads, building and social housing. That is a positive legacy of the Games.

"We always demand that there is a legacy which is not purely sporting, with one or two stadiums, but also has an economic, urban and human legacy."

At the IOC's latest check-up on London earlier this month, Olympic chiefs said they were happy with the progress but said their chief concern was the British capital's congested road network.

"It's true that transport in London is difficult because there is lots of traffic but the roads are not very wide," Rogge said.

"But the organisers, along with the city and the public authorities, have come up with a transport plan which, in my opinion, could work well. I'm not worried."

The original Olympic Stadium pledges presented to the IOC in London's 2005 bid had the 80,000-seater venue's top tier removed to leave a 25,000-capacity athletics arena.

But its future is still uncertain, with local English Premier League football side West Ham interested, and other plans for concerts, entertainment use and even cricket have been mooted.

But Rogge was adamant the athletics function would remain.

"We insist that they should not leave 'white elephants'," the 68-year-old said.

"We are sure that there will be an athletic legacy and another one -- could be football, could be entertainment, could be something different.

"You can perfectly have a football pitch of highest quality with an athletic track around.

"You can combine both, which in terms of legacy is absolutely perfect, so we have no concerns about that."

The London Games are on schedule and running within their budget of £9.3 billion (14.5 billion dollars, 11.2 billion euros).

"I expect that budget to be on balance," Rogge said. "We're not speaking about overspending."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...T-bAkuoZq-9DtQ

...............

[PortoNuts]

Aquatics Centre

[Steel City Suburb]

Originally Posted by PortoNuts

Aquatics Centre

As someones pointed out already in a different thread, the aquatics center with the road behind it looks like a stingray.

[lwa]

Originally Posted by RobH

Some people think it's great, others not so much. I'm not completely sure the recession has changed many people's minds. If you were pro before you probably still are and visa versa - though I would say the antis have mellowed in their stance.

Firstly, I must point out support for the Games has always been solid. Polls have always shown support around the 70% range. This hasn't changed in the last two years and, if anything, seeing real structures emerging from the mud has excited people more.

The recession has been a double-edged sword for the perception of the Olympics I suppose.

The obvious response would be "why are we spending all this money on this now?". And I have heard that point of view several times. The truth is though, and even the harshest critics of 2012 recognise this, there is no going back. It's an unstoppable juggernaught and doing a bad job or pulling back from hosting would do irreperable damage to our international profile, and hurt the economic recovery. Those who were against the Games coming here are reluctantly supportive now, because there is no other option.

But, counterituitivly, the recession could also be said to have bolstered support. Firstly, thousands of people are in work on the construction site who mightn't otherwise be. Secondly, it's a good news story in a time of financial gloom and London is doing a rather good job (against certain people's and certain newpaper's *spit* expectations and predictions). Thirdly, £7bn on a hugely positive regeneration scheme with a big party at the start of it doesn't sound like quite so much money when your government is, at the same time, bailing out the banks to the tune of tens of billions of pounds - money thrown down the drain. A small fraction of that on an Olympics? Hell yeah, we deserve it!

And of course, the government will be looking forward to basking in the glow in two years. They'll happily knock the previous government's spending in many areas but they won't do this for the Olympics. Why is this, you ask? Because of spending cuts in public services, they know they'll most likely be an unpopular mid-term government looking for a boost in the polls by 2012. The Olympics are important to them in that sense and aside from a token £27m cut in the ODA's budget, they've not tampered with the project at all. It'll be one massive bit of good news in the midst of government spending cuts and they'll cling onto that for all it's worth.

So yes, we're all in this together. Most are behind the Games; the majority enthuisiastically, a minority reluctantly (becuase there's no going back and a botch job will do more harm to our economy than good), and the new government for genuine as well as political reasons. In a weird way, the recession may have brought people together behind the project more.

Only polls in London - if you go further north you will find that number decreases, and by the time you get as far as Glasgow/Edinburgh hovers a little over 0%.

Yes Londoners are paying more - but Millions of government money is being spent on the olympics which would otherwise been spent of sports projects throught the country - much of it building a new athletics stadium after we were told the reason Wembley was costing so much was because it was so state of the art, and among other things could host athletics events... So why do we need a new stadium? Thats now 2 massive stadiums in London which have had my money thrown at them, and one in Cardiff - yet when the SFA wanted to redevelope Hampden the tory government (uncharacteristically ) decided to screw them over by removing all funding and leaving them to it - only to offer some cash AFTER 3/4 of the ground had been done.

And what benefit do we get from the games? little - I believe 3 teams have chosen to base themselfs in Glasgow before the games, something seriously negated by the fact a lot of the major teams have decided to use the same base in England for the Olympics and the Commonwealths in Glasgow 2 years later. Oh, and we get a couple of football games at Hampden Park - as part of a tournament that will threaten the very existence of the Scottish (along with English, Norn. Irish and Welsh) National Team!

There is serious talk of a mass-boycott of the football games taking place in Glasgow! (or if 'GB' play there - the EFA tried to blackmail the SFA into taking part by offering us the opening game - doubt we will get it though since the SFA told them where to shove it! - there will be 52,000 there supporting the opposition)

Oh, and most people up here seriously object to Seb Coe's position aswell - the man was asked what he thought about the SFA, FAI and FAW opposition to a british football team, to which he replied: "there will be a team taking part in 2012 - the scots can go f*ck themselfs" In any other role, those coments would get you the sack!

[RobH]

Only polls in London - if you go further north you will find that number decreases, and by the time you get as far as Glasgow/Edinburgh hovers a little over 0%.

It's hard to take you seriously when you start your wise and thoughtful post with an OUTRIGHT LIE

A poll done last December:

"In the North-East of the country, 67 per cent backed the Games, while 68 per cent in Scotland and Yorkshire were in favour."

Link

Now even if this has a huge margin of error, it's still very possible to say most Scots are in support of the Olympics. And on other Olympic forums I post on there are several Scottish members interested in what's going on and looking forward to London 2012, so don't arrogantly pretend to speak on behalf of all your fellow countrymen.

There is serious talk of a mass-boycott of the football games taking place in Glasgow! (or if 'GB' play there - the EFA tried to blackmail the SFA into taking part by offering us the opening game - doubt we will get it though since the SFA told them where to shove it! - there will be 52,000 there supporting the opposition)

Inferiority complex thy name is Scottish football...most English support the Scottish national team when they play, believe it or not, as long as they're not playing England. But if you want to look pathetic in the eyes of the world by supporting the opposition in 2012 that's your lookout. And you do look pathetic by taking that stance, don't try to argue otherwise.

And the SFA, at one point, were opening up to the idea of a one-off Team GB for the Games, but FIFA (in their 'wisdom') failed to provide the necessary assurances, which is why we have the fudge we currently have with only English players playing in the team. Seb Coe is right (even though you stupidly decided to twist his words like the noobie you are; as well as making up quotations). Not having a Team GB in our national sport at our home Olympics would be a real shame. Rugby manages it, so do other sports which normally play as England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland but come together in certain tournaments. That football can't have a one off Team GB for the Olympics is rather sad to be honest, especially for young Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers who might have liked the chance to play at an Olympic tournament in 2012. Other sports must look at football and laugh at the muddle they've got themselves in over what should be a non-issue; a one-off Team GB for the Olympics, seperate teams the rest of the time. "What's so tricky about that?" they'll no doubt wonder, as do I. Rugby is being introduced to the Olympics in 2016. Mark my words, we won't have the same arguments over a Team GB Rugby side.

Don't support the Olympics lwa? That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Making up quotations, making up survey figures on behalf of your fellow Scots, and supporting opposition football teams however is so utterly pathetic...I'd be hard pressed to find anyone on here who doesn't laugh at your lack of coherent debating skills, and I think many Scottish SSC members would cringe to think you're pretending to speak on behalf of them after reading that post.

The fact is, in case anyone missed it or was persauded by lwa's argument, figures show most Scots support the Games. Those that don't are perfectly entitled not to. But that a vocal minority with a clear victimhood/inferiority complex - like lwa - think that they can speak on behalf of every other Scot is arrogant in the extreme. Support the Games or don't, but don't pretend your personal view represents everyone in your country.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by lwa

Only polls in London - if you go further north you will find that number decreases, and by the time you get as far as Glasgow/Edinburgh hovers a little over 0%.

Yes Londoners are paying more - but Millions of government money is being spent on the olympics which would otherwise been spent of sports projects throught the country - much of it building a new athletics stadium after we were told the reason Wembley was costing so much was because it was so state of the art, and among other things could host athletics events... So why do we need a new stadium? Thats now 2 massive stadiums in London which have had my money thrown at them, and one in Cardiff - yet when the SFA wanted to redevelope Hampden the tory government (uncharacteristically ) decided to screw them over by removing all funding and leaving them to it - only to offer some cash AFTER 3/4 of the ground had been done.

And what benefit do we get from the games? little - I believe 3 teams have chosen to base themselfs in Glasgow before the games, something seriously negated by the fact a lot of the major teams have decided to use the same base in England for the Olympics and the Commonwealths in Glasgow 2 years later. Oh, and we get a couple of football games at Hampden Park - as part of a tournament that will threaten the very existence of the Scottish (along with English, Norn. Irish and Welsh) National Team!

There is serious talk of a mass-boycott of the football games taking place in Glasgow! (or if 'GB' play there - the EFA tried to blackmail the SFA into taking part by offering us the opening game - doubt we will get it though since the SFA told them where to shove it! - there will be 52,000 there supporting the opposition)

Oh, and most people up here seriously object to Seb Coe's position aswell - the man was asked what he thought about the SFA, FAI and FAW opposition to a british football team, to which he replied: "there will be a team taking part in 2012 - the scots can go f*ck themselfs" In any other role, those coments would get you the sack!

You get the CWG in 2014!

[lwa]

Originally Posted by RobH

It's hard to take you seriously when you start your wise and thoughtful post with an OUTRIGHT LIE

A poll done last December:

"In the North-East of the country, 67 per cent backed the Games, while 68 per cent in Scotland and Yorkshire were in favour."

Link

Now even if this has a huge margin of error, it's still very possible to say most Scots are in support of the Olympics. And on other Olympic forums I post on there are several Scottish members interested in what's going on and looking forward to London 2012, so don't arrogantly pretend to speak on behalf of all your fellow countrymen.

A poll of 4,500 people nationwide - now if we assume they have split that around the country to reflect population, that amounts to maybe 500 (being generous here) people in Scotland who were asked... They might aswell have made that figure up! And how did they choose people to ask?

Certain areas in Scotland are packed with English folk anyway (mainly around military establishments, and for some reason Aberdeen) - if you aks them then any figures are redundant. I based my prediction on my experience of living in the country - And of everyone who I have spoken to about it, only 1 person hasn't been against the games (note against, not just indifferent) - and he only supports it because he wants to compete at the Paralympic Games!

And many of the folk I have spoken to about it have also comented that no-one they know supports the games in London. so if 68% of Scots really support the games - where are these 68%?

Inferiority complex thy name is Scottish football...most English support the Scottish national team when they play, believe it or not, as long as they're not playing England.

And I would probably do the same in return, were it not for the way the English media behave when England are playing - and I have spoken to many an England fan who has agreed the BBC can be very patronising towards Scotland, Wales and Norn. Ireland in that respect. I support Wales and Norn. Ireland whenever they play.

But if you want to look pathetic in the eyes of the world by supporting the opposition in 2012 that's your lookout. And you do look pathetic by taking that stance, don't try to argue otherwise.

That stance is nothing to do with not liking England, and everything to do with objecting to a GB football team threatening the existence of Scotlands national team.

And the SFA, at one point, were opening up to the idea of a one-off Team GB for the Games, but FIFA (in their 'wisdom') failed to provide the necessary assurances, which is why we have the fudge we currently have with only English players playing in the team. Seb Coe is right (even though you stupidly decided to twist his words like the noobie you are; as well as making up quotations). Not having a Team GB in our national sport at our home Olympics would be a real shame. Rugby manages it, so do other sports which normally play as England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland but come together in certain tournaments. That football can't have a one off Team GB for the Olympics is rather sad to be honest, especially for young Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish footballers who might have liked the chance to play at an Olympic tournament in 2012. Other sports must look at football and laugh at the muddle they've got themselves in over what should be a non-issue; a one-off Team GB for the Olympics, seperate teams the rest of the time. "What's so tricky about that?" they'll no doubt wonder, as do I. Rugby is being introduced to the Olympics in 2016. Mark my words, we won't have the same arguments over a Team GB Rugby side.

The Rugby comparrison is pointless - There is a proud tradition in Rugby of the British Isles coming together every so often to tour the best the southern hemisphere has to offer. pre-RWC, that along with the 5 Nations was the pinnacle of the sport - oh, and the IRB was essentially only British and Commonwealth Nations (plus Ireland), and no-one at the IRB could see any benefit to getting rid of either the Lions or the individual unions.

That doesn't transfer to football - FIFA are seriously corrupt (and amazingly are still getting away with it - despite sacking someone for saying he was going to expose any corruption... proof if needed they have something to hide), and Sepp Blater is proped up by the votes of Jack Warner and co in CONCACAF, and hence what CONCACAF wants, Sepp does his best to get. CONCACAF objects strongly to the fact the UK, which is politically one nation, gets 4 seperate football associations, each giving an additional UEFA vote - and indeed holding their very own vice-presidency between them.

Sepp Blater has never been able to make his mind up on this matter, and has said that " "If you start to put together a combined team for the Olympic Games, the question will automatically come up that there are four different associations so how can they play in one team.

"If this is the case then why the hell do they have four associations and four votes and their own vice-presidency?

"This will put into question all the privileges that the British associations have been given by the Congress in 1946."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olym...ll/7286011.stm

I dont see how an all-english team would be any better TBH - many folk around the world dont know the difference between England and GB. And for the record - I would like to see a British football team, giving 20-odd youngsters the chance to play in the Olympics - but only if it was garunteed it would not threaten our status within FIFA. Unfortunatly, FIFA rules dictate that no administration can be bound by the promises of the previous one, and hence it is impossible to be given those assurances.

As for the SFA's stance, the Association of Tartan Army Clubs (which represents thousands of Scotland supporters) have said on several occassions that they felt betrayed by Gordon Smiths acceptance of an English-only team playing - so hardly a personal feeling of mine that isn't shared by others.


Oh, an there will be issues with the Rugby 7's aswell - the Lions represent the British Isles, not GB or the UK.

Don't support the Olympics lwa? That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Making up quotations, making up survey figures on behalf of your fellow Scots, and supporting opposition football teams however is so utterly pathetic...I'd be hard pressed to find anyone on here who doesn't laugh at your lack of coherent debating skills, and I think many Scottish SSC members would cringe to think you're pretending to speak on behalf of them after reading that post.

I didn't make up survey figures, and never tried to pass them off as such. What I used was my personal experience which is probably far more reliable than any survey of 500 people.

Can you point me to the 'made-up quotation'? I maybe paraphrased the Seb Coe quote - but believe it or not, that DID actually happen!

The fact is, in case anyone missed it or was persauded by lwa's argument, figures show most Scots support the Games. Those that don't are perfectly entitled not to. But that a vocal minority with a clear victimhood/inferiority complex - like lwa - think that they can speak on behalf of every other Scot is arrogant in the extreme. Support the Games or don't, but don't pretend your personal view represents everyone in your country.

Im not speaking for everybody in the country - just the ones I have spoken to and like I say, I have yet to find someone who supports the games who isn't a paralympic athlete. And my personal experience is no more or less acurate than the survey you posted...

[lwa]

Originally Posted by RobH

But if you want to look pathetic in the eyes of the world by supporting the opposition in 2012 that's your lookout. And you do look pathetic by taking that stance, don't try to argue otherwise.

oh, and i suppose this will also apply to the Football Supporters Federation in England, who have also constantly stood alongside ATAC, FSF Cymru and the Northern Irish supporters body (can't remember their name of hand)

The only, repeat, ONLY body in the world of football who support this idea are the FA, and so far as I know very few real football fans in any of the 4 nations support the idea. (certainly none in Scotland do)

[RobH]

As I've said, I post on other Olympic forums with several Scottish members who are neither Olympic nor Paralympic athletes, who are fully supportive of the Games. We can both pass off our "personal experiences" as representative but the only actual survey figures I've seen suggest reasonable, if not necessarily brilliant support north of the border. Being a newbie, and opening your first post on the subject by saying support "hovers a little over 0%" immediately suggested you had an agenda to push rather than being interested in serious debate; though your latest post is much more sensible...so thank you for the response.

I agree with you with regard to FIFA; it's such a shame they can't get their act together and allow a one-off team. And it's disgusing that they're so two-faced as to give assurances in public but warnings to the SFA in private - there was a point when the home nations were close to agreeing a deal, but Blatter seems to have scuppered it.

Don't forget, this is an under-23 team which will only contain 1 or 2 "known" players. It simply shouldn't be an issue and the fact that is threatens to overshadow the Olympic football tournament is FIFA's own doing. They put us in a position whereby whatever solution was reached would have upset some.

As far as I'm concerned, not having British players in a London Olympics, in our national sport, would be a travesty. And I can, of course, understand your own concerns about Scottish football's autonomy. I happen to think that the current solution, combined with the fact that our countries have seperate leagues and FAs, and further combined with the fact that this is an U23 competition, means the threat is somewhat overblown and FIFA have much better things to do than upset the status quo. But the lack of assuarances obviously led to concern.

I also dislike the fact that politicians on both sides of the border tried to use this to push their own agendas; be it the SNP, or Gordon Brown when he was trying to come across as "British" rather than "Scottish". And I do think there are a minority of Scots who will use this issue as a stick to beat the English and who are overplaying the issue...although perhaps I was a little hasty in casting aspersions on you in that regard.

All in all, it's an unnecessary mess. Olympic football is a tiny part of what 2012 will be about, but because of the idiots at FIFA, it seems to dominate some Scots' feelings about the Games. That upsets me.

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by RobH

a one-off Team GB for the Olympics, seperate teams the rest of the time.

Yes, the faux "Team GB" which leaves out Northern Ireland from the name and Wales from the flag.

Most of the world doesn't understand the complexities of the situation, and not all the counties that compete in the "team" support it, so let's just have separate teams all the time including the Olympics.

The Olympics means nothing to me as they don't represent my country in isolation so I have no passion for them. If I competed and won (I know, it would never happen!) I would be banned from celebrating with the flag of my own country as it would be seen as a political demonstration!

That is completely different for the Commonwealth Games, Football, Rugby etc where my country has representation and thus where I am able to display my support of my country.

[RobH]

Well, that's a much bigger debate for another time, but at the Olympics it's Britain and always has been. That's not going to change anytime soon.

[lwa]

Originally Posted by RobH

As I've said, I post on other Olympic forums with several Scottish members who are neither Olympic nor Paralympic athletes, who are fully supportive of the Games. We can both pass off our "personal experiences" as representative but the only actual survey figures I've seen suggest reasonable, if not necessarily brilliant support north of the border. Being a newbie, and opening your first post on the subject by saying support "hovers a little over 0%" immediately suggested you had an agenda to push rather than being interested in serious debate; though your latest post is much more sensible...so thank you for the response.

I agree with you with regard to FIFA; it's such a shame they can't get their act together and allow a one-off team. And it's disgusing that they're so two-faced as to give assurances in public but warnings to the SFA in private - there was a point when the home nations were close to agreeing a deal, but Blatter seems to have scuppered it.

Don't forget, this is an under-23 team which will only contain 1 or 2 "known" players. It simply shouldn't be an issue and the fact that is threatens to overshadow the Olympic football tournament is FIFA's own doing. They put us in a position whereby whatever solution was reached would have upset some.

As far as I'm concerned, not having British players in a London Olympics, in our national sport, would be a travesty. And I can, of course, understand your own concerns about Scottish football's autonomy. I happen to think that the current solution, combined with the fact that our countries have seperate leagues and FAs, and further combined with the fact that this is an U23 competition, means the threat is somewhat overblown and FIFA have much better things to do than upset the status quo. But the lack of assuarances obviously led to concern.

I also dislike the fact that politicians on both sides of the border tried to use this to push their own agendas; be it the SNP, or Gordon Brown when he was trying to come across as "British" rather than "Scottish". And I do think there are a minority of Scots who will use this issue as a stick to beat the English and who are overplaying the issue...although perhaps I was a little hasty in casting aspersions on you in that regard.

All in all, it's an unnecessary mess. Olympic football is a tiny part of what 2012 will be about, but because of the idiots at FIFA, it seems to dominate some Scots' feelings about the Games. That upsets me.

I dont think the threat is overblown atall - perhaps because I really dont trust FIFA - but even if it was, there is still a threat. As you say - this is an U-23 tournament... Is it worth risking our footballing autonomy for a tournament which, ultimatly, doesn't count for much? I have asked various people while discussing this in pubs before Scotland games - and while everybody knows who won the FIFA WC in 1974, or Euro 1992, nobody has been able to name even the current Olympic Champions!

Yes it would be nice if we could take part - but in reality its only a big competition for the players involved and its not something worth risking our future over.

Anyway, this conversation should be irrelevant - Football Shouldn't be in the Olympics anyway, although that is a whole different argument...


And its only natural the football arguments will dominate views in Scotland - the vast majority of Scotland is football-daft (only the Borders - Rugby - and parts of the Highlands - Shinty - aren't dominated by football. And even then its changing in the borders), and the football is the only event we are likely to get close to.

Believe it or not, from my experience there is more support for Englands FIFA World Cup bid in 2018 than there is for the 2012 Olympics! (And I know I am more excited by the 2015 RWC)

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by RobH

Well, that's a much bigger debate for another time, but at the Olympics it's Britain and always has been. That's not going to change anytime soon.

Well I wouldn't be so sure if I was you.....

"An independent poll was conducted by Market Research UK, with a representative sample of Scots being asked:

Would you like to see Scotland send its own Olympic Team to London 2012?

A summary of results is as follows:

78% of all respondents said YES
11% of respondents said no
11% had no opinion

A ratio of 7:1 who expressed an opinion were in favour.

Support for the campaign was equal among men(78%) and women(77%).

Support was also strong among supporters of all political parties, with supporters of the two largest parties in the Scottish Parliament at 79% yes (Labour) and 83% yes (Scottish National Party).

Readers of the two most widely read newspapers also showed similar levels of support at 81% (Daily Record) and 80% (Scottish Sun).

Levels of support were consistent across geographic and demographic variables, with no group showing less than 72% support. The message is quite clear – The people of Scotland support the creation of a Scottish Olympic Team."


Sport is a fully devolved matter and decisions on the formation and funding of a Scottish National Olympic Committee are completely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and Scotland’s sporting bodies.

Don't be surprised to see a Scottish team at the 2012 Olympics or at the very least 2012 being the swansong of "Team GB".

The Scottish Parliament is obliged to deliver the will of the people of Scotland and the people want their own team.

[lwa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

Well I wouldn't be so sure if I was you.....

"An independent poll was conducted by Market Research UK, with a representative sample of Scots being asked:

Would you like to see Scotland send its own Olympic Team to London 2012?

A summary of results is as follows:

78% of all respondents said YES
11% of respondents said no
11% had no opinion

A ratio of 7:1 who expressed an opinion were in favour.

Support for the campaign was equal among men(78%) and women(77%).

Support was also strong among supporters of all political parties, with supporters of the two largest parties in the Scottish Parliament at 79% yes (Labour) and 83% yes (Scottish National Party).

Readers of the two most widely read newspapers also showed similar levels of support at 81% (Daily Record) and 80% (Scottish Sun).

Levels of support were consistent across geographic and demographic variables, with no group showing less than 72% support. The message is quite clear – The people of Scotland support the creation of a Scottish Olympic Team."


Sport is a fully devolved matter and decisions on the formation and funding of a Scottish National Olympic Committee are completely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and Scotland’s sporting bodies.

Don't be surprised to see a Scottish team at the 2012 Olympics or at the very least 2012 being the swansong of "Team GB".

The Scottish Parliament is obliged to deliver the will of the people of Scotland and the people want their own team.

It wont happen before 2012 - even if Parliament voted for it in the next 5 minutes, it would be unlikely to come into effect until after the London Games (it would be nigh on impossible to set up an Olympic Comittee and secure funding ect. overnight. If it was agreed to go down this road (and the SNP have tried to push the issue in the past) there would no doubt be an agreement to work towards a split at the start of the next Olympic cycle after the London Paralympic games)

Will it happen after the 2012 games? It depends on the political situation with the union ect. and starts to get very, very off topic so we wont go into that, except to say there definatly wont be a team GB at 2016 if the act of union is no longer in force. Like I say though, this isn't the place to discuss that issue.

Point is, the ship has sailed on the idea of team Scotland at the London Olympics. except of course, the twist in the tail is that the Scottish U-21 football team is looking like they might qualify for the London Olympics...

[RobH]

Like the threat to the home nations in football, changing the status quo in the Olympics isn't something which will happen any time soon. There's too much momentum, history, vested interest for much to change and I'd imagine it has to get past the IOC before anything can happen anyway. Even Chris Hoy calls the idea "ridiculous".

I honestly can't see any change happening, unless Scotland secedes from the Union, which is also pretty unlikely despite the noises from the SNP.

Seperate teams in football are because of the history of the sport - the first international being between England and Scotland. There is no such similar history in Olympic sport. If the IOC permits a Scottish Olympic team, they'll start getting applications from every other region in the world that feels its seperate from its political nation - a Basque team, a Quebec team, a Tibetan team.

This is the current state of affairs:

"Only independent nations, as recognised by the international community, can have national Olympic committee status bestowed on them."

Can you really see the IOC making an exception for Scotland?

[lwa]

Originally Posted by RobH

Like the threat to the home nations in football, changing the status quo in the Olympics isn't something which will happen any time soon. There's too much momentum, history, vested interest for much to change and I'd imagine it has to get past the IOC before anything can happen anyway. Even Chris Hoy calls the idea "ridiculous".

I honestly can't see any change happening, unless Scotland secedes from the Union, which is also pretty unlikely despite the noises from the SNP.

Seperate teams in football are because of the history of the sport - the first international being between England and Scotland. There is no such similar history in Olympic sport. If the IOC permits a Scottish Olympic team, they'll start getting applications from every other region in the world that feels its seperate from its political nation - a Basque team, a Quebec team, a Tibetan team.

This is the current state of affairs:

"Only independent nations, as recognised by the international community, can have national Olympic committee status bestowed on them."

Can you really see the IOC making an exception for Scotland?

can't see the IOC making an exception (although I do happen to think an Independent Scotland is a far more real prospect than many people make out - and historically Tory governments in London havent helped galvanise the Union, infact quite the opposite. But like I say that is seriously off topic, and there are other sites for discussing that on the internet)

The point about the Autonomous regions looking for seperate teams has reminded me of something else, mind. While the majority of UEFA supports having the 4 individual home nations (its an extra 3 votes who willgo with whats best for UEFA), some of the autonomous regions of Spain - particularly the very nationalist Catalan region - have pointed to the situation in British Football and questioned why they can't have their own national football team. (or rather, why the one that exists can't play in FIFA competitions)

From FIFA's point of view, its far easier to end the special case in the UK than it is to deal with requests from the like of Catalonia, Euskal Herria, Tibet, Galicia, Monaco, Tuvalu ect.

[RobH]

I doubt it would be "far easier" to be honest. I think the seismic rumbles even a hint of a merger caused during this Olympic football team saga shows that FIFA would have a very difficult time changing things. The status quo is the easiest thing to stick with; citing historical precedent whenever anyone questions it. They've got better things to do than faff around with a system that has worked well; same with the IOC. Just because FIFA didn't give assuarances to Scotland, doesn't mean there's movement towards merging us. And just because the majority of Scots apparently want a Scottish Olympic Team, doesn't mean the IOC will even discuss it. It's mostly a lot of hot air from everyone involved.

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by RobH

This is the current state of affairs:

"Only independent nations, as recognised by the international community, can have national Olympic committee status bestowed on them."

Can you really see the IOC making an exception for Scotland?

Should Scotland even stay within the United Kingdom the IOC wouldn't even need to make an exception as Scotland already has the necessary number of National Federations (5) recognised at International level by the IOC.

In fact, Scotland has as much of a claim to have an Olympic team than some of the 203 National Olympic Committees. There are currently two teams from the Virgin Islands, one from Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), Bermuda, Hong Kong, Palestine etc etc.

The IOC charter states, "Although most National Olympic Committees (NOCs) are from nations, the IOC also recognises independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas."

[RobH]

I suppose that's an issue for you to sort out amonst yourselves and the IOC though - can't see it happening for many years and this being a London 2012 thread means we're going off topic a lot. It would get incredibly knotty though. It wouldn't be a case of us splitting into our seperate nations. We'd end up with a Team GB competing against a Team Scotland. Presumably Scottish athletes would be allowed to choose which team they represented just as Northern Irish athletes are permitted to. It's clear, that as a poltical football for the SNP, it could backfire if you get the likes of Chris Hoy choosing Team GB over Team Scotland; as he would almost certainly do.

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by RobH

It's clear, that as a poltical football for the SNP

It's not a political football if 78% of the population support it and only 11% are against it.

It also has cross party support within the parliament not just within the SNP but also within the Greens.