The research sample: general observations

Variations in the amount of coverage across each national newspaper were clearly visible during the collection and analysis of data. In particular, within Britain, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and The Scotsman focused specifically on the jubilee celebrations. In addition, commemorative and souvenir editions were included (Dominion Post, 02/06/12; Vancouver Sun, 02/06/12) and coverage tended to center on each nation’s domestic jubilee celebrations, with articles focusing upon each nation’s relationship with the monarchy but also local celebrations.

Whereas, none of the newspapers attempted to ignore the jubilee entirely, The Australian, The Age as well as The Independent provided the least amount of coverage. Scotland’s the Herald was the most negative source of coverage on both the jubilee and the royal family, framing the majority of its content in light of the upcoming Independence Referendum. Incidentally, there was also a lack of jubilee coverage in the Belfast Telegraph on the 04/06/12 due to the passing of the London Olympic Flame Relay through Belfast and Northern Ireland on this day.

Unsurprisingly, in their coverage of the Olympic Opening Ceremony, each national newspaper included interviews with, and, editorials on, the medal hopes of its competing ‘national’ athletes. In this regard, the Belfast Telegraph was the most nation-centric in its coverage of competing athletes. However, this included articles on athletes from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This was continued across all newspapers in their coverage of the Closing Ceremony.

More broadly, coverage of the Opening Ceremony was widely reported across all the Commonwealth newspapers. ‘Olympic’ commemorative editions and special

‘pull-outs’ were also used within the British press. Critical attention of the games was provided by the Herald, which tended to include articles relating to problems with tickets and disruptions to the transport system. Indeed, whereas the above comments suggest that the amount of coverage tended to vary with regards to each nation, the following sections will focus specifically on those articles relating to the construction, representation and framing of Britain and British identity during both the Diamond Jubilee and London Olympic Games.

Chapter Five: ‘A Dis-United Kingdom’: devolution, British uncertainty and the survival of the British State?

Introduction

Writing a decade before the SNP’s victory in the 2011 general election, Edmunds and Turner (2001) proposed that devolution brought ‘no dramatic “break-up” of the UK’ a process that they believed to be ‘entirely consistent with the past’ (2001: 105). Here, devolution did not represent the complete dislocation of Britain, but ‘rather, … the redistribution of selected responsibilities, with core state power residing in the national, that is, the British parliament’ (Wilson and Stapleton, 2006: 2). In such instances, devolution reflected a continuation of the flexible and partial union of Britain, a relationship which Colley (2014a) believes has underlined the historical development of Britain since the Union of the Crowns in 1603. However, while devolution may form part of a long-term tradition in relations between the British home nations, ‘in recent decades … the flux, uncertainty and debate[s] that have characterised Great Britain and the United Kingdom have become more evident and more raw’ (Colley, 2014a: 7; see also Colley, 2014b). Consequently, in accordance with the possible strengthening of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nationalism, some have alluded to the lack of support for traditional British culture, ideas and values (Colley, 2014a; 2014b; Perryman, 2012; Rojek, 2007; Ward, 2004). Indeed, devolution may have ‘entrenched a process that whilst not yet complete nevertheless imprints an indelible question mark on what remains of a tattered and torn Union Jack’ (Perryman, 2012: 203).

With this in mind, both the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games took place within a British domestic figuration of continuing ‘dis-unity’. As a result, Hoey (2012) questioned the Queen’s reaction to devolution and its effects upon Britain, noting that ‘as Head of State of the United Kingdom she cannot have welcomed devolution in Scotland and Wales, perhaps seeing its as the possible start of the break-up of her realm’ (Western Mail, 02/06/12). In fact, the disparity between England and its neighbouring nations was exemplified in Morgan’s (2012) remarks that ‘the Olympics is bringing out a few of the inherent tensions in that curious balance between the overwhelming size of England and the three far smaller Celtic countries’

(Western Mail, 28/07/12). In particular, Morgan’s (2012) remarks sought to highlight the tensions between an ‘established’ England, dominant in size, and a smaller

‘outsider’ Celtic periphery (Bradley, 2008; Hechter, 1975; Kumar, 2003; Malcolm, 2012).

However, while Morgan’s (2012) remarks can be considered in relation to the dominance of English culture in constructions of Britishness, for the English press, such tensions were perceived as relating to a degree of uncertainty regarding the

‘future unity of the United Kingdom’ (Guardian, 02/06/12a). Consequently, Taylor (2012) asked ‘do we still run to “national” events capable of bringing a significant percentage of the population into the streets with a common purpose?’ (Daily Telegraph, 02/06/12). Similarly, Riddell (2012) added, ‘The economy is suffering, and so is Britain’s claim to be the cohesive country on display throughout the Jubilee’

(Daily Telegraph, 05/06/12).

Accordingly, it is possible that concerns regarding Britain’s lack of world role and anxieties regarding its future were related to a potential ‘break-up’ of Britain.

Indeed, in one of the very few comments related to the Scottish Independence Referendum within the English press, Sandbrook (2012) noted that:

Even the survival of the United Kingdom itself, perhaps the most successful state in history, now seems in doubt. Once an eccentric sideshow, Scottish and Welsh nationalism have been growing in confidence since the early Seventies.

With a Scottish independence referendum scheduled for 2014, it is a sobering thought that by the seventh decade of her reign, Elizabeth II may no longer preside over a united realm, but a ramshackle collection of squabbling little kingdoms, jumbled together across the British Isles (Daily Mail, 02/06/12) Sandbrook’s (2012) comments clearly highlight how the very unity of the ‘United’

Kingdom was itself under question by Scottish attempts to pursue independence.

To this extent, concerns regarding British cohesion (Riddell, 2012; Sandbrook, 2012; Taylor, 2012) and the apparent resurgence in national identifications across the UK (Perryman, 2009) may reflect the disintegration of the British state as a structural apparatus and the decline in British identity as an effective collective attachment (De Swaan, 1995). Indeed, such concerns can be viewed as part of the ‘inherent tensions’

(Morgan, Western Mail, 28/07/12) that arise when the British home nations are brought together to compete in international sporting events or to celebrate national occasions. Certainly, as chapters two and three have highlighted, such tensions do not arise independently but are located within a figuration of changing power balances between different groups (Burkitt, 1993). The fact that England failed to receive its own devolutionary measures provides one example of how established-outsider

relations within the British state, that is, the balance of power between England and the other home nations, has changed since devolution. Instead of reinventing national polarities, attention can be given to exploring the relational aspects, which underscore contemporary constructions of Britain. To this extent, it is possible to observe how the British and Commonwealth press seek to negotiate their representation of, and, relation to, Britain.

With this in mind, Elias and Scotson’s (1994) work on established-outsider relations will be used in order to explore how changing power relations between various groups are related to changes in national habitus (Mennell, 1994; Velija and Flynn, 2010). Indeed, this works alongside previous chapters, which have endeavoured to highlight how British home nation and imperial relations have

‘coexisted and competed … according to complex rhythms’ (Potter, 2007: 646).

Consequently, the following sections will explore these ‘complex rhythms’ in relation to changes in the British domestic and imperial/Commonwealth figurations (decline from empire, emergence of the ‘Commonwealth of Nations’, devolution). Therefore, this chapter will be divided into two interrelated sections.

The first section will aim to examine how constructions of Britain’s past and anxieties about its future were drawn upon in the British and Commonwealth coverage. More importantly, this will explore how past/present constructions were used in the press’ framing of Britain, not just within coverage from the British home nations but also within the former dominions. Rather than being viewed as distinct and separated however, such constructions can be used in order to ascertain a processual account of the press’ representation of Britain and British identity. This will be considered further in the second part of this chapter, where Elias and Scotson’s (1994) established-outsider framework will be employed. Primarily this section will seek to observe how representations of Britain within the domestic – in particular, Scotland and England – and Commonwealth press coverage, underwent negotiated constructions of alteration, assimilation and contestation (Atkinson, 2002;

Bucholc, 2013; Mennell, 2007; Sutton and Vertigans, 2002; Van Stolk and Wouters, 1987; Velija and Flyn, 2010). In particular, the established-outsider theory will be used to explore how relations between the British home nations and the former dominions can elucidate upon aspects of British ‘dis-unity’ during both the Diamond Jubilee and London Olympic Games. It is here that a relational analysis of the media’s coverage will be utilized in order to consider how constructions of British

identity are reflective of wider – yet changing – power structures involving both Britain and the Commonwealth.