Tuesday 23rd June 2026
Blog Page 1936

Scotland’s constitutional future

0

For the most part, the flurry of elections that took place around the UK this month saw a return to business as usual, the reassertion of the status quo. Electoral reform was resoundingly rejected and the Liberal Democrats’ brief venture into electability has ended with the party firmly back in third place. In Scotland however, the 5th May saw politics enter a new era. The Scottish National Party (SNP) now holds a majority of the seats in the Scottish Parliament and intends to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. This result is far more than the misplaced patriotism of a small group of kilt-wearing nationalists somewhere north of Newcastle. The debate on independence is only just beginning and it is not as simple as is portrayed by much of the UK media. It is also one which will have profound consequences for all parts of Britain.

Controlling 69 of the Scottish Parliament’s 129 seats, the SNP has become the first party to secure a majority in the chamber’s short history. Blair’s Labour Party pursued devolution as an attempt to contain separatist tendencies. The Scottish Parliament’s proportional electoral system was supposed to stop the SNP ever gaining a majority. Instead, devolution has been the lifeblood of the SNP, giving them an invaluable political platform. The party whose unifying goal is Scottish independence has risen from obscurity, to opposition, to minority and now majority government. To the casual observer it must seem only a matter of time before the final step to independence is taken.

But it’s not as simple as that. While support for the SNP has risen, support for independence remains stubbornly below 30%. A vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence. In recent years, the SNP has moved into the mainstream, securing the support of Scottish business leaders (yes, they do exist) and dropping its anti-English rhetoric. For many, the SNP frontbench are simply supported as the most competent politicians in parliament. The recent election campaign was fought on jobs, the economy and spending priorities; the issue of independence has only come to the fore after the surprise election result.

So don’t expect to see border guards on Hadrian’s Wall just yet. While the Scottish people have given their backing to an overtly nationalist party, they are yet to be convinced by the case for independence. There is also little clarity about what independence would entail. We are told the Queen would be invited to remain Scotland’s head of state, but would Scotland keep the pound? Would it have its own military?

In the past week, key SNP figures have indicated that the party may look to secure ‘independence lite’ where social security and defence are coordinated at a UK level. SNP leader Alex Salmond is a wily political operator who has accepted that gradualism is the best means of getting more power for Scotland. He will not risk losing a referendum by presenting a separatist option before an unwilling electorate. Many questions about Scotland’s constitutional future remain without plausible answers. The suggestion that Scotland should have a different currency to its main trading partner, England, is surely ridiculous given the amount of movement between the countries. But remaining in a monetary union would require some means by which the Bank of England would be directly accountable to Scotland. The recent troubles experienced by the Eurozone have also demonstrated that fiscal coordination is a must for countries living under the same monetary policy regime. Some form of federalism seems the only realistic solution.

Whatever the nature of the ‘independence’ option put before the Scottish people, some sort of formalised synchronisation will have to exist at a UK-wide level. This means that the ‘good riddance’ attitude towards the issue of Scottish independence expressed by some of the English media in recent days misses the mark. For even the most cynical English observer, independence will end up being about more than getting rid of the burden of the ‘sponging Scots’. Aside from the fact that an independent Scotland would leave the UK without a place to house Trident and end Labour’s ability to win a parliamentary majority at Westminster, any independence settlement would open a can of constitutional worms for the whole of the UK. Some sort of chamber with Scottish representation will have to exist to make decisions in those areas, such as defence and social security, where Scotland and the UK set coordinated policy. But this UK wide body could not reasonably also be the English legislature. The issue of an English Parliament would again raise its head.

Keeping the status quo is not an option either. Legislation currently making its way through the UK Parliament will give Scotland new powers over income tax with corporation tax control possibly to follow. As Scottish and English taxation and spending priorities diverge, the injustice of Scottish MPs in Westminster voting on solely English matters will only increase. At some point, the so called ‘West Lothian question’ will demand an answer. It is hard to see a possible future scenario where there is not significant change to the constitutional powers of the House of Commons.

The election of the SNP takes Scotland and the whole of the UK into uncharted territory. There are many questions about how an independent Scotland would actually work which will now be debated and are as yet without an obvious answer. What is clear is that the binary view of the nature of Scotland’s future options is naïve. A lack of concern amongst the English population also shows a lack of appreciation of the likely significance for the whole UK of the SNP’s success. Though the AV vote failed, the 5th May 2011 may yet turn out to be the day that the UK headed towards a new constitutional future.  

Letwin: We aren’t ‘Atilla the Hun’

0

On one level it is surprising that Oliver Letwin isn’t more of a household name. The Minister of State for Policy has been right at the heart of many of the most important decisions made by the Tory party in recent years, perhaps most notably as a prime mover among the reformers wishing to soften the toxic image of the “nasty party”. After the Conservatives’ defeat in 2005, Letwin sought to influence the selection of their new leader, giving enthusiastic public backing to the then relatively unknown David Cameron. Because of this and other nudges towards the centre ground, not to mention his joint oversight of the coalition agreement with the Lib-Dem Danny Alexander, the present Government is one which can be said to bear the marks of Letwin’s handiwork, both in terms of policy and presentation. So it is perhaps not immediately obvious why he doesn’t share a place in the public consciousness comparable with that of some of his cabinet colleagues.

The hint of an answer came in a revealing comment at the end of our conversation: “I have never been very good at popularity contests”. I had asked Letwin whether he was active in student politics at Cambridge: “I can safely say not at all. I played no part in the student politics of the day. To tell you the truth, my interest in politics is really an interest in practical political action and the ideas that lie behind that. And I didn’t find much of either of those going on in student politics!” Letwin does not come across as a man who enjoys the limelight or courts publicity for its own sake. His student experience sets him apart from, say, Boris Johnson (president of the Union) or Tony Blair (actor, musician), both of whom are (or were) very good at “popularity contests”. Letwin, by contrast, is more of a thinker than a communicator. To put it bluntly, he seems better at alienating the public than endearing himself to it. A notorious example of Letwin’s relative lack of PR acumen was the statement in 2003 that he would rather “go out on the streets and beg” than send his children to an inner-city comprehensive in London. More recently he has come under fire for allegedly suggesting that he was opposed to people from Sheffield going on cheap holidays. Indeed, Letwin has been seen by his party as somewhat of a PR liability: in the run-up to the 2001 general election he tried to stay off the press radar because of hostility met when he revealed his intention to make drastic spending cuts.

Letwin, then, is comfortable when working behind the scenes in the crisis-free world of policy development. Here there is little day-to-day press scrutiny, little need to play the popularity game. It is a role to which Letwin is amply suited: having taken fellowships at Princeton and Cambridge, and with several publications to his name including the philosophical treatise “Ethics, Emotion and the Unity of the Self” (Routledge, 1987) he is certainly one of the more cerebral members of the Commons. Letwin’s wise man of Westminster image combined with his genial manner earned him the nick-name “Gandalf”. He is the wizard behind a new Tory philosophy, one that maintains the Thatcherite agenda of shrinking the State but balances that with an emphasis on building happy, cohesive communities and promoting good citizenship. This touchy-feely outlook surfaced again and again in our conversation.

Having raised the subject of student protests, I asked Letwin whether the vehemence of public opposition to certain Coalition policies made him fearful of a resurgence of divisive class politics, or of a growing North-South split: “I don’t think so. There are, and there are going to continue to be, lively debates about all sorts of things including student finance. But I think people recognise, whether they are supporters of the Coalition Government or not, that it is a government that is trying to unite society not divide it. We are making enormous amounts of effort to cooperate with the Trades Unions and not to battle with them, we are trying to do everything we have to do to get the deficit down in a way that makes it least painful for the public servants that are involved. Across a very wide program we are focusing very heavily on trying to help the disadvantaged … the whole tenor of this government is about trying to make sure that there is more, not less, equality and mobility. Therefore I think it is very difficult for our opponents to characterise us as Attilla the Hun.” This last point was absolutely true. They characterise the government as “Tory scum” instead. I was surprised by Letwin’s answer. Flat denial that there is a risk of growing political division in the country suggests, if nothing else, that he doesn’t watch Question Time (which can get pretty heated). It probably is the case that we can expect to see more and more “lively debates” as the cuts start to bite.

I met Oliver Letwin only a few days after Cameron’s “only one black person at Oxford” gaffe. I was originally supposed to speak to him a lot earlier, but a COBRA meeting (so much more dramatic than “Cabinet Office briefing room A”) about Libya got in the way. I asked the Minister of State for Policy what Cameron meant – was he simply scoring a fairly cheap political point or does the government actually intend to do something about top universities’ “disgraceful” behaviour: “what David was saying, and I think it’s certainly right to say, is that … it’s implausible that there’s only [41] people who are in any sense of the term ‘black’ who have talents equal to many hundreds of others. That suggests that talent is not being sought out, not being encouraged, and is in some way or other, probably unintentionally, being discouraged. We need to change that.” Letwin seemed noticeably uncomfortable on this topic. I asked him whether he thought it was in any way the fault of the institutions themselves that black people were under-represented: “I don’t think attributing fault here is the issue. The issue is who can do something about it… one of the big reasons why we are making huge efforts to open up our schooling system and create more competition and more choice through the introduction of excellent new schools, is precisely to nurture talent. That’s something that the government is trying to do. But the deal we’ve struck with the universities is, if you are an institution that is sufficiently prestigious and desirable to be able to charge high fees, then the tit for tat is you have to make a particular effort to make sure that people who are not well off do apply.”

Letwin explained that the government’s wider strategy with Higher Education, as with so many other areas, is to introduce market forces (albeit in a limited way, given the cap on fees) driven by individual choice: “part of what we’re trying to do is to create a system in which those who are engaged in teaching feel the need to provide something that students want.” Students, i.e. customers? “Yes! In a sense, the whole of society is the customer of universities. One of the things they’re doing is to immensely enrich our culture, and another thing they’re doing is to immensely enrich our economy. In that sense there is a social dividend, and society is the customer. But they’re also there for the education of the student, and it’s important that they should feel the need to attract the student.” Time will tell whether this program of introducing individual choice, set in motion by Blair but with it’s philosophical roots in Thatcherism – now reinterpreted for 21st century Britain by Letwin et al. – will be successful. In one area at least, viz. the NHS, it seems to have completely imploded.

 

 

Review: She Was Yellow

0

‘Edgy’ is the adjective upon the audience’s lips as they enter the Burton Taylor Studio. And as much as this can be a pejorative term, Milja Fenger’s original play She Was Yellow is edgy – but in the best sense of the world. Experimental, unsettling and provoking She Was Yellow is some of the best new writing I’ve seen whilst at Oxford.

There is such sweetness and pleasure in the opening scenes of the play, and humour too, that I could easily have watched Alashiya Gordes as Aurelie and Sarah Perry as Ilona for a few acts as they move from hesitant friendship to established passion, such is the ease and joy they communicate. But unfortunately, the business of the play must continue and we zip dizzyingly through their courtship until Aurelie must deal with the implications of two diagnoses; pregnancy and a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. From here on out, the play delves into a much darker and sadder place; gone is the pleasing accompaniment of bouncy Jack-Johnson style guitar, and a particularly evocative strain of Gershwin-esque saxophone haunts the latter half of the production.

The set is minimal with Gordes and Perry creating the backdrop as the play progresses. The final image they create bringing together the themes of reproduction and perpetuation in a very satisfying climax and I applaud this innovative directorial touch. Most of all however, I enjoy the way in which the play is able to sustain an emotional intensity – I hear more than one person speak of trying not to cry as we leave the theatre – and I think this has a lot to do with Sarah Perry’s endearing portrayal of emotional strength.    

Milja Fenger’s script does something rather special: educating and celebrating scientific knowledge without conspicuously forcing facts down our throats. At its core is a celebration of both story-telling and science, something Aurelie knows and which it takes Ilona and us the rest of the play to find out. A play constructed around intimate dialogues rather than dramatic action it is often very funny. If it has a tendency to sound portentous then it is because the material calls for the characters to talk seriously and honestly to each other. She Was Yellow could perhaps do with a little more polish – there are a couple of moments when lines jar or timing is slightly off, but this did not hamper my enjoyment.

Experimental theatre may not fill the stalls but Fenger’s play deserves to. If you can get a ticket for the last couple of performances at the Burton Taylor I’d urge you to go, if not look out for what Fenger does next – I predict a colourful future. 

Festival Fever

0

As the week of Brasenose Arts Festival winds down, it’s a good time to reflect on the anomaly that is such a festival for those who speak in the American tongue. I’ve attended a play, an open-microphone evening, a dinner and a cabaret, and there’s still more to come with a celebratory party at the end. And at many other colleges across Oxford, other students, and denizens of the arts, will be experiencing the same sort of thing.

Yet when I mention it to my friends back home, the closest event they have for comparison is Spring Fling, or Greek Week, or Homecoming; all times of merriment, usually verging on raucous, but of pride in one’s university or its sports teams rather than in the arts. This is not to say that the arts aren’t held in esteem; however, celebration of artistic pursuits isn’t organized in the same way.

I’ve come to realize that this is probably because we don’t have summer music festivals along the same lines throughout much of America. We do have some, from Coachella in California, to Lollapalooza, to the now-ubiquitous Warped Tour (which no longer really qualifies as alternative). But in hearing my Oxford friends reminisce about their times at Bestival and Stonehenge, it’s occurred to me that they’re vastly different experiences.

So I appreciate this time, when entire colleges come together, gathering to watch performances and participate in workshops even if it’s not part of their students’ usual routine. I especially enjoy the chance to learn a few new things about being a Brit when it comes to songs. Before today, I’d thought the only song about a catastrophe in the capital was London Bridge. Now I’ve heard the sweet tune of London’s Burning, sung by my (slightly tipsy) friends on the committee, and it’s changed the way I see the world just a little bit. 

Rory and Tim’s Friday Frolics – episode 3

Rory and Tim have an essay crisis and a TV presenter torments the poor.

Review: Beastly

0

This reinterpretation of Beauty and the Beast, set in a high school scenario is presumably tooled to appeal to the ‘Twilight’ generation, and in many ways it hits the right notes. There’s a good-looking cast (aside from the obvious disfigurement that Alex Pettyfer’s character suffers), supernatural elements, a story of love triumphing over adversity, some funny moments and a central moral.

So how did it all go so wrong? Few would claim the Twilight films are great cinema – they’re reasonably entertaining and appeal to many people, but suffer from corny dialogue and plotting problems. Yet Beastly makes Twilight look like a magnum opus. In the opening sequence, in which Alex Pettyfer’s reprehensible narcissistic douche torments fellow classmates and struts around the hallways, the characters are so thinly drawn I’m surprised they show up on screen.

Pettyfer is the good-looking, arrogant, Big Man on Campus with Secret Hidden Pain, his love interest Vanessa Hudgens is a scholarship student from a poor background who knows the True Meaning Of Beauty, and so on. After the camembert opening, as Kevin (Pettyfer) actually puts his face on, the film picks up pace, and is much more watchable as a result, albeit with predictable consequences (SPOILER ALERT: He learns that looks aren’t everything, gets the girl and is cured).

Still, Pettyfer is so astonishingly wooden that unless he’s being intense, Kevin is hard to take seriously. Similarly, the usually reliable Hudgens (at least for tween films) falls flat, and other details such as the weirdly racist depiction of Kevin’s maid, and the lack of explanation for supernatural events in the film serve to jolt the audience out of any involvement in the story.

Much credit must go to Neil Patrick Harris (who should fire his agent), making the best of a bad script, delivering killer lines and characterization. He earns Beastly the star, but can’t save it.   

Review: The Miners’ Hymns

0

Opening like a tomb that has long been sealed, The Miners’ Hymns places a torch in your hand and sets your feet walking down into the darkness of the mysterious and unmapped tunnels of the labourers beneath the earth; a soundscape telling of secret, dangerous and beautiful places: historic great caverns that expand beyond the walls of your room. Jóhannsson has created something that you experience wholly; a master work, inspired by the miners of North East England.

Jóhannsson is Nordic, like many of the greatest currently-active musicians on the UK scene: Robyn, Miike Snow, The Caesars, The Tallest Man On Earth, Björk, to name but a few. But unlike the others, he’s not the type of artist that you would expect to release a chart topping single; more likely an avant-garde concept album, wonderfully crafted and sumptuously produced. The Miners’ Hymns delivers exactly that.

At some point during your relationship with Jóhannsson, you want to climb inside his head, and switch on some lights. Musicians not aiming for the easy-sell hit single have a small niche in the industry and it’s a shame. But he’s no fool – anything but. He’s given lectures across Europe in the creative use of sound in art and film, and co-founded Kitchen Motors to act as an artistic think tank, record label and promotion company, now renowned for initiating exciting new artistic collaborations, supporting experimentalism, and attempting to search for entirely new art forms. He’s a passionate artist with true integrity, and it certainly comes across.

The album concludes with the proud and heart raising march entitled ‘The Cause of Labour is the Hope of the World‘, the most prominent message of an album which exquisitely tells the tale of a world underground; a world that has shouldered much of the burden of the developing world, and a world that most of us know nothing of.

The Icelander at the coalface

0

As the UK finds itself in significant trade union unrest, the Icelandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson’s debut album for Fat Cat Records seems timely. Collaborating with the experimental filmmaker Bill Morrison, The Miners’ Hymns project marries footage of Durham’s coal-mining culture with Jóhannsson’s transcendental soundtrack. ‘We spent some time in the North East of England,’ explains Jóhannsson, ‘Bill doing research in film archives and me working with local musicians’.

It is all too easy to bring up the Nordic cliché when talking about Icelandic music. Yet a Nordic idea is often pushed by these artists, most apparently with the post-rockers Sigur Rós whose frozen soundscapes have won them a mainstream love. The same thread seems to run through the grandiose panoramas that Jóhannsson constantly visits. He acknowledges his share in this Icelandic aesthetic: ‘We were all a part of a very vibrant scene around the turn of the millennium in Reykjavik’.

Yet Jóhannsson has always displayed a significantly philosophical bent. His electro-acoustic explorations have long been concerned with our relationship with technology. ‘I guess there is an implied critique of technology in some of my work’ Jóhannsson concedes. On 2006’s IBM 1401: A User’s Manual he used reel tape recordings of a 1960’s IBM mainframe, playing with the idea of obsolete technology. ‘When my father worked for IBM in the 60’s, there was an understanding that the job was there for life,’ muses Jóhannsson. ‘Now the focus is on growth and consumption, with little regard to the cost in natural resources or workers’ conditions’.

For Jóhannsson, the acoustic is everything. The Miners’ Hymns was originally presented in a live performance at Durham Cathedral. This acoustic manipulation is constantly brought to its extreme. ‘For me the space is as important a part of the sound as the instrument and the performer, so the building becomes a kind of giant resonating box, an instrument in itself’.
Morrison’s film culminates in the Miners’ Gala procession. ‘I recorded the piece with members of the NASUWT Riverside band, which was originally a colliery brass band.’ It is the music of the brass bands, their hymns in particular, which has so influenced Jóhannsson. ‘I knew I had found the way to approach this project when I heard ‘Gresford’, which is a beautiful wordless hymn written by a miner to commemorate the victims of a tragic mining disaster in the 30’s’.

Jóhannsson seems firm, ‘I don’t like to repeat myself’. And yet he reflects, ‘there are certain obsessions that I seem to keep going back to’.

Review: DNA

0

Being put on as part of Catz Arts Week, Dennis Kelly’s DNA has great appeal for those who have escaped the brutal dynamics of the classroom. It follows a group of teenagers as they collectively try to escape the consequences of their actions and are forced to cooperate in order to prevent the truth from being exposed.

This is a play about secrets, a play about fear. It is brutal terror which characterises the entire script and which is demanded from the cast as they confront disturbing facts about society and human nature. These are expounded by the character of Leah, played by Lauren Hyett, during her scenes with Phil (Jeremy Neumark Jones), the silent presence who simply and efficiently orchestrates the group’s plans for survival. These ponderous monologues provide the backbone of the play, a steady ground between the fraught panics and sudden mood swings found in the group scenes where behind every word there is a struggle for power. In this way the desperation of the particular is subsumed into idealised generalisations of happiness, life and responsibility forcing the audience, like Phil, to reconsider their own views.

The acting is of a high standard across the cast with Neumark Jones and Hyett overcoming the obstacles of too few and too many lines respectively. Meanwhile the director’s choice to situate the action in the round showcases even the minor characters and prevents the largely immobile scenes from lacking interest. Together these elements, along with moments of comic brilliance, ensure that, despite the evident immorality of the group’s plans, as a member of the audience you are silently willing them to succeed.

This stimulating production which places the action in an outdoor setting evocative of the group’s woodland hideout, DNA even has the playwright Dennis Kelly hosting a post-show discussion on Thursday 26th May. Both exciting and thought-provoking in equal measure, this play explores the everyday violence of youth and the individual’s struggle to gain control of their own existence.

Review: Glengarry Glen Ross

0

It was a pleasure to spend my Sunday evening being treated to three scenes from David Mamet’s enthralling study of competitive capitalism. The play depicts four men who are forced into a cut-throat sales contest to sell dud tracts of Florida land. Set over two days, the men engage in multiple unethical and illegal acts such as lies, bribery, threats and burglary. It was clear from the first scene I watched that it would be the complexity of the characters, not their lack of virtue, that would command my attention.

At first, I watched a scene between Lloyd Houston, playing Shelley Levene, and Ziad Samaha, who plays the office manager John Williamson. In the scene Shelley tries to convince John to give him the names and numbers of promising potential clients for expensive properties. Houston’s thoroughly gripping performance was emphasised by the still and convincing mannerisms of Samaha whilst the simplistic setting only helped to further the engaging quality of their performances. It was immediately obvious that this cast had been committed and determined to convey strong and convincing Chicago accents.

The next scene presented Dave Moss (Jordan Waller) in a bid to convince George Aaronow (Joe Bayley) to stage a burglary and steal all the prime leads. The chemistry between these two actors was unquestionable, feeding and working off each other exceptionally well as Dave’s ruthlessness when compared to George’s naivety managed to encapsulate the struggle between power and morality. Notably Waller’s performance and the atmosphere of intimidation he created would be enough to sway the mind of any man with strong fortitude.

Both the tone of voice and physicality employed by each actor created this convincing and intriguing relationship. It must be noted that Jamie Macdonagh’s direction is equally commendable for the success and intense feel of these two scenes. His ability to keep direction and movement to a minimum allows the actors a much needed freedom to explore and express the inevitable darkness of their characters.

The final scene centred on a monologue delivered by Will Hatcher, playing Ricky Roma, directed to the potential purchaser of real estate James Lingk. By pitching each actor at opposite sides of the stage palpable tension was created between the men as they waited for Lingk’s eventual movement towards Ricky. Hatcher’s stage presence is unmatched and his performance truly encapsulated Ricky’s inherent ability to craft a sales pitch that exploits the weaknesses of the client.