In the National Interest

     After the past two weeks here in the US, there may be a conclusion with regard to the election of a new Speaker of the House of Representatives.

     Ohio Republican Representative John Boehner has been at the post (which among other things, is second in line to the presidency) since 2011, when his party took control of the lower chamber of Congress, but announced his resignation last month. In his place was supposed to Kevin McCarthy of California, who is the current Majority Leader in the House. However, he was beset with criticism over his relative inexperience as a Member of Congress, as well as for his public gaffe’s, which include the apparent revelation that the Republican-led committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya may have been a vehicle for attempting to damage then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is currently seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

Current Speaker of the House, John Boehner of Ohio. Gage Skidmore  via Flickr cc

     But the biggest issue he faced was the potential opposition from about 40 hard-right backbenchers, who (despite political reality) do not want to makes compromises with the Democrats in the Senate (where Republicans have a majority, but not have enough members to overcome a potential Democratic filibuster) or with President Barack Obama, who wields the veto pen (and will not, for example, sign a bill that will overturn his signature health care law).

     Even so, McCarthy had every expectation to get enough votes from his fellow Republicans to nominate him as Speaker behind closed doors before a vote before the full House with the Democrats, where the Republican majority should have ensured him the speakership. But at the last minute, he withdrew his candidacy to the shock of virtually everyone in the Washington Beltway and the wider political world. In doing so, he threw what was supposed to be a more-or-less pre-arraigned process into total disarray as John Boehner announced that the election would be postponed indefinitely.

     Since then, the party has been looking again for a person to ascend to the role which Boehner wishes to vacate. The problem is that no one (especially people with White House ambitions) really wants the job because they know that it will likely be their political graveyard.

Congressman Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Majority Leader. U.S. Government and Printing Office (Public Domain)

     Indeed, part of the reason why Boehner wants out is because much of his time as Speaker has been characterized by dealing with the divisions within his own party. Even though the Republicans have had a majority in the House since 2011, Boehner has had a tough time ensuring that he could get a majority of them to vote with him on contentious issues, such as raising the debt ceiling and passing a budget. A small but vocal minority of hard right conservatives (known as the House Freedom Caucus) have attempted to use showdowns on budgets and the debt ceiling to force the defunding of things to which they objected, such as "Obamacare" and Planned Parenthood.

     Boehner knew that Senate Democrats (who had a majority until this year) would block such measures and even if they made it to the White House, the president would veto them. A long-time representative and establishment figure, he knew that compromises would have to be made, but would be forced to go to the brink by this minority of representatives – many of whom have been elected only within the last five years on a platform of opposing Obama. Eventually, Boehner would be able to push through his agenda, but only after high stakes drama and the threat of government shutdowns, and indeed, there was a costly shutdown in 2013.

     This was why Boehner wants to leave, but with almost no one else amongst House Republicans wanting the speakership for the same reasons, this caused some outside-the-box thinking – literally, since there’s nothing in the Constitution which states that the Speaker must be a member of the House. Names of prominent Republicans who are no longer in public office had been mentioned, including former vice president Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who served as Speaker from 1995-1998 while a member of House.

     The most intriguing possibility was the election of a compromise candidate between Democrats and Republicans who are tired of the obstruction by their fellow members (i.e., the tyranny of the minority). After all, the Speaker needs only support from a majority of the overall House, and need not come from the majority party, and indeed, a Speaker having broad support from throughout the House may have been the ideal that our Founding Fathers wanted.

     Nevertheless, speakers elected along party lines has usually been the tradition, and anybody who broke this mold would have be taken an enormous risk.

     However, it now appears that conventional thinking will prevail with the announcement that Congressman Paul Ryan will seek the nomination to become Speaker. The 45 year old representative from Wisconsin has been a member of the House since 1999, and ran for vice president as Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012. Ryan is well-regarded throughout the party and seen as a unity or consensus candidate, which is why he was the most often-mentioned name for the job. But he – currently the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee – expressed no interest in it.

     But after coming under much pressure, Ryan has announced this week that he would become a candidate for becoming Speaker, but only on certain conditions (more on that later). Yet, even if he becomes Speaker on party lines, it may well lead to the end of his political career and any prospect of occupying the White House in the future due to the hard choices he will have to make which may make him deeply unpopular with the base voters of the Republican Party. If John Boehner ends up serving the remainder of his term as Speaker, he is looking at the possibility of calling on Democrats to help get around the rebel backbenchers and push legislation through.

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan - the reluctant Seeker for the Job . Gage Skidmore via Flickr CC

     All of this has been presented as taking one for the team, or more appropriately, doing what’s best for the country.

     This is nothing particularly new – the notion of a politician stepping up to do things in the national interest, and often in the face of opposition by his or her own party. John F. Kennedy wrote about this in his book, Profiles in Courage, and how some of his predecessors in the US Senate put themselves into great political and personal jeopardy by doing what they believed was best for the country.  

     In Britain, a politician who comes to mind in this regard is Ramsay MacDonald, a man who remains quite controversial in British politics.

     MacDonald was born in Lossiemouth, Scotland and was a founder of the Labour Party. In 1924, he led a minority government as the first Labour prime minister of the United Kingdom (and the first from a working class background), but only lasted for less than 10 months. Five years later, Labour was elected back into power with MacDonald as prime minister for a second term with a larger mandate this time around, although he still led a minority government with support from the Liberal Party.

     Two years later, MacDonald was faced with dealing with the economic crisis that had begun with the 1929 Stock Market Crash, and had blown into the Great Depression. As unemployment soared and government finances deteriorated, MacDonald’s government struggled as it attempted to reconcile two conflicting aims: balancing the budget to maintain the Gold Standard and prevent a run on the pound, as well as maintaining social welfare assistance to the poor and unemployed. A committee was appointed to review public finances, which in July 1931 recommended sweeping reductions in public spending (including welfare and unemployment payments) and public sector wage cuts to avoid a budget deficit. MacDonald and a majority of the Cabinet agreed with the need to balance the budget, but this was a slim majority, with the Cabinet effectively split down the middle and senior ministers – some of whom wanted to enact countercyclical fiscal policies advocated by John Maynard Keynes – threatening to resign from the government in protest.

     Faced with this, MacDonald was prepared to tender his own resignation to King George V, but the King insisted that MacDonald should stay at his post and lead a National Government with Conservatives and Liberals. MacDonald knew that if he did this, he would draw fire from his party and bring odium to himself, but the King believed that – in this moment of crisis – that MacDonald was the only man who could be prime minister and make the decisions to get the country on track.

Ramsay MacDonald, Britain's first Labour Prime Minister. George Grantham Bain Collection - U.S. Library of Congress

     MacDonald agreed to form a National Government, which meant bringing down his own Labour government, and by doing so, he and other Labour people who supported the National Government were expelled from the party that he had helped to create. In the ensuing general election that year, the National Government won 554 seats – one of the largest electoral mandates in British political history, and though MacDonald remained prime minister, he was only one of a handful of pro-coalition Labourites (under the name National Labour), and the government was dominated by the Conservatives. The main Labour Party itself suffered its worst defeat up to that time, and took over a decade to recover, which only stiffened the antipathy toward MacDonald, even though he still believed himself to be a Labour man and believed that the National Government would be temporary.

     Under his watch, the government finances were righted with the reductions to public spending, and the economy eventually began to turn around. He resigned as prime minister in 1935 due to declining health, and died two years later at the age of 71, leaving a mixed legacy behind.

     To some Labour Party members to this day, MacDonald is seen as a power-hungry traitor who made incestuous deals with the enemy – the Tories – to stay in Downing Street at the expense of his party and the people he was supposed to represent – the working classes. On the other hand, he is also viewed as a co-founder of that party who helped to carry it from being a protest organization to being a legitimate party of government, and who when on to make tough decisions in the national interest of the UK. In both veins, he can be considered courageous for doing what he believed was right.

     More recently in our time, the decision of Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats to join a coalition government with David Cameron and the Conservatives following the hung parliament of the 2010 general election is arguably another example of a politician risking so much for himself and his party in the pursuit of doing what was thought best for the national interest. With the British economy still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis and Great Recession, compounded with the eurozone crisis and other international economic issues, it seemed only reasonable for them to join forces with Tories, who were the biggest party in the House of Commons, but just short of achieving an overall majority.

     As with Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, Nick Clegg believed – or at least, made everyone else believe – that in a moment of crisis, a strong coalition government was needed to steer the UK, as opposed to a weak minority Tory government. One path offered stability and a path way to recovery, the other offered instability and an economic roller coaster, along with a potential second election that year. Financial markets and businesses, who prefer stability and certainty, would have questioned the ability of the British government to handle its affairs, especially if there were multiple elections and uncertainty of who would lead the country.

Nick Clegg's Decision to Join the Conservatives in a coalition government was controversial in 2010 and has Cost his party dearly. Chatham House via Flickr  CC

     As it was, the Nick Clegg took his party into coalition with the Tories, and to the surprise of most political observers, the coalition government – with Cameron has prime minister and Clegg as deputy prime minister – survived through the end of the five year parliament. However, the LibDems ended up paying a huge electoral price for being seen as propping up the Tories and acquiescing to their program of austerity, which included the raising of tuition fees (which the LibDems had promised they would abolish). They were credited in some circles for putting the brakes on (or watering down) some of the more controversial policy proposals from the Conservatives – such as overturning the Human Rights Act and weakening the fox hunting ban. In the end however, it did not really matter. They lost waves of seats in local council elections, the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the 2014 EU election, and in this year, the UK parliamentary election in which they were reduced from 57 seats to just eight.

     Back home in the US, the saga over who becomes the next speaker may not lead to such consequences, but there’s the chance that it could, especially if the new Speaker is a Republican who uses Democratic votes to get legislation through, or – more unconventionally – the new Speaker is a compromise between both parties. One party or the other will accuse people within it of treachery and selling out for power and prestige.

     However, this likely will not be happening since Paul Ryan relented under pressure to step up and offer himself as the Republican nominee for the speakership, albeit on the certain conditions – most significantly, that he must have House Republicans united around him if he is to be the consensus candidate for the job and if he is to be an effective Speaker. To this end, he made an appeal to acting in the national interest – saying the speakership was not a job he wanted or ever sought, but that he came to the conclusion that this was “a very dire moment”, not just for Congress or the Republican Party, but for the entire United States, for without effective leadership in the “People’s House”, the business of the nation cannot be done.

     He made it clear that he is a principled conservative who will not acquiesce to the White House, but also made it clear that he wants to lead as the principle spokesperson and agenda setter for the House GOP without the threat of revolts from the hard right of the sort that have made John Boehner’s life a living hell for the better part of the last four years. For more assurances, Ryan has said that he will seek to make it more difficult to remove a sitting speaker, which is a procedure that requires only a simple majority vote. Some Republicans balked at these demands, but it appears that Ryan has pulled the great bulk of them together, including most members of the Freedom Caucus), and this has given him a clear pathway for the nomination and the speakership itself.

     Whichever way it goes for the Republicans (and for that matter, politicians of any party in the US or UK), the common refrain is that so often, those who step up and make sacrifices – personally and politically – for the good of the country are often vilified and do not receive any thanks for it, except in the annals of political history, and usually long after such people step away from the political stage. They do what others either cannot or will not do due to the lack of political courage, and they know very well that it all may well come crashing down on them in the end. In a hyper-charged political era where we ask for more statesmanship from our politicians, perhaps it is time that such people were looked in a more measured light in their time, and ours.

My Experience at the Proms

     Yes, that’s right. I attended the BBC Proms a couple of nights ago in my hometown in the United States.

     Well, sort of. As it was, I found that there was going to be a special screening of the Last Night of the Proms – as it was seen on the BBC on the evening of September 12th – at select movie theaters (cinemas, in British parlance) across the country, and upon finding that it would be featured at one theater in Savannah, I purchased my ticket.

     The Proms – officially known as the Henry Wood Promenade Concerts after their first conductor – are arguably the world’s greatest musical festival, and have been a British summer time institution for over a century. The Last Night is the most iconic part of the whole season, which runs from July to September, and is what most people think of with regard to the Proms. I have seen bits and pieces of Last Night celebrations, and have also listened to it over the radio, but had never seen the whole occasion from end to end.

     The result was that I was really excited and stoked about attending this special screening and looked forward to a great British time.

Image Credit: Wesley Hutchins

     It began at 7:00PM, but on this day, I did not get off from work until 7:15PM. Fortunately, the theater was not that far from my job, and I arrived in the auditorium just in time to watch a video which featured a history of the Proms, and specifically, the people who attend them – the Prommer’s, some of whom are annual attendee’s over the course of years, if not decades. This is their special season, the one which they look forward to every year, and it was good to see that dedication to such an awesome event.

     Unfortunately, the same could not be said about the attendance in the theater auditorium, for including myself, there were only ten people there. This was quite disappointing, and may have been a result of a lack of promotion. After all, I had only found out about the event via a friend on a Facebook group, and that was by chance. However, I believe that the poor attendance had much to do with the event being held on Wednesday night – the middle of the work week – as opposed to a Friday or Saturday night on the weekend, when more people have time for leisure activities.

     Nevertheless, it was at least good that I was not alone that evening, and looking at the program from the BBC’s website, I realized that I did not miss that much – only two selections: the world premiere of the BBC-commissioned Arise, Athena! by Eleanor Alberga and Shostakovich’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in F Major.

     Following the video, the presenter (or as we say in America, the host/anchor) Katie Derham guided us through the proceedings on a platform overlooking the main floor of the Royal Albert Hall in London, which has been the home of the Proms since World War II. Derham introduced us to Arvo Part’s Credo, a 12 minute-long piece from 1968, which is characterized by a combination of rite and scripture, as well as the social and spiritual conflicts faced by Part himself during this period. The chanting by the BBC Symphony Chorus and the BBC Singers, as well as the performance of BBC Symphony Orchestra was quite powerful and at times, produced a cacophony of noise which was meant to symbolize good vs. evil. Indeed, the Soviet authorities at the time were suspicious of the religious overtones and the apparent message of passive opposition to their authority (in his native Estonia), and the music was not performed there for several years after its original outing.

     But here, it was performed in all of its glory and sense of spiritual uplifting. It was followed up by Richard Strauss’s Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche (Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks), a musical chronicle of the pranks and misadventures of a peasant folk hero from Germany. If it was a bit more light and less powerful than Credo, it was certainly made up for by the rather crafty tone which befitted the conduct of the title character.

     Following this was a break in the action in which another video was shown, this time about the people who make the Proms and keep it going every year. It was a fascinating look at the work of the organizers, camera operators, stage hands, engineers, lighting crews, musicians, and so many others who are the unsung and (quite often) unseen hero’s of the Proms and everything that they do in the course of the concert season which make the Proms quite memorable and thoroughly enjoyable as the greatest music festival in the world.

     Part of that greatness is born in the fact that the Proms attracts top-flight musical talent from around the world, and to conclude the first part of the night was the exceedingly impressive German operatic tenor, Jonas Kaufmann, who performed selections from three operas by Giacomo Puccini: Tosca, Manon Lescaut, and Turandot. The power of his voice at times was like trombones within itself which pierced through the instrumental sounds to take over the whole stage and fill up the entire hall, and the crowds lapped up to it in earnest.

The Royal Albert Hall - current home of the Proms. Image Credit: Drow Male via Wikimedia Commons cc

     Before heading to intermission, another video was shown which featured highlights from the whole Proms season beginning in July. Among other things, there was a piano soloist masterfully playing George Gershwin’s iconic Rhapsody in Blue, an African-American group performing Sing, Sing, Sing, a children’s chorus singing Zadok the Priest, the sounds from the Finale of Tchaikovsky’s 4th Symphony, and many other great musical selections from throughout the season by various groups, bands, and solo artists – some famous, other not so – from around the world. Indeed, it appeared to have been a fun, exciting, and eventful concert season – with the best still yet to come in part 2 of the broadcast.

     During the 10-minute intermission, I stepped out of the auditorium to grab some popcorn from the concession stand. Typically, I do not this because of the exorbitant prices, and the popcorn I bought – a small bag of it – ended up costing me $6.62 (with tax). Unbelievable, and against my better judgment this was, but I was in a good mood following the first half of the Proms, and since this was a week night with the theater virtually empty, there was no long line as may be typical on a more crowded evening on Friday's or the weekend (though if it meant having more people in the auditorium, then that would have been preferable).

     Upon return to the auditorium, the second half of the great show commenced with Katie Derham taking us to witness the highlights from the parallel Prom in the Park events around the United Kingdom. In Hyde Park, nearby the Royal Albert Hall, Australian-American soprano Danielle de Niese was singing Granada, a fast-based and highly-energetic tune by Mexican composer Agustin Lara before an outdoor crowd of over 20,000. At Singleton Park in Swansea, saxophonist Alexander Bone teamed up with the BBC National Orchestra of Wales for a pleasant performance of the whimsical song Pure Imagination from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. North of the Cheviots in Glasgow, I Will Always Love You – immortalized by the late Whitney Houston – was soul-stirringly sung by Alexandra Burke with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra before a large crowd on Glasgow Green, none of whom could have been left with a dry eye at the conclusion of that emotional performance. Across the North Channel in Belfast, the Riverdance group – celebrating their 20th anniversary this year – performed an Irish folk dance routine backed by the Ulster Orchestra on Titanic Slipways, the area on which the RMS Titanic and her sister ships were built.

     It was all quite good to have a taste of the events going on elsewhere throughout the UK with the enormous wealth and diversity of talent on display. Following this, everyone from all over the country joined the main event at the Royal Albert Hall where the second half opened up with a bang in the form of the jazz standard Victory Stride by American James P. Johnson. Indeed, while the first half was mainly heavy on classical music, the second half would be a looser and lighter affair, with Victory Stride providing an appropriate start. It was a dynamic piece of music to which I and others in the theater could get into along with the Prommers on the screen, who themselves were having a good time as the real party started.

     Indeed, this was the part of the night when some members of the orchestra and singing groups were decked out with decorations, such as glitter and flags hanging from music stands, and the bust of Sir Henry Wood overlooking the hall was graced with a wreath. In the audience, the sounds of streamers, poppers, and air horns could be increasingly heard throughout the hall as the previously sober and serious atmosphere gave way to an atmosphere of mischief, wackiness, and good-natured British sense of fun, albeit with an American twist – and not just with the music.

     This came in the form of Marin Alsop, the music director of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra who made history two years previously as the first woman to conduct the Last Night, and who was now back for her second go it. Following Victory Stride, she stood before the crowd – on a well-decorated conductor’s platform – and rendered a warm welcome to the audience in the hall and elsewhere throughout the UK and around the world, and engaged the Prommers in the hall, Hyde Park, Singleton Park, Glasgow Green, and Titanic Slipways to greet one another in a wholesome spirit of togetherness.

     The American influence of this Last Night was continued with a performance of Aaron Copland’s I Bought Me a Cat from Old American Songs, and to make things interesting, it featured an extraordinary sing-a-along effort – with the first two verses sung by the audience in the hall, followed by one verse sung by each audience in the park events in the following order of Hyde Park, Swansea, Glasgow, and Belfast. Then, everyone joined in for the last verse in a spectacular finish to the light-hearted and somewhat disjointing song to rapturous applause up and down the country. It was, as Derham said, like going on a tour of the national farmland of the United Kingdom, and as Alsop had hoped, the technology gods had cooperated in this effort.

     We were then treated to the gifted hands of Benjamin Grovesnor, who masterfully performed George Gershwin’s Love Walked In and Morton Gould’s Boogie Woogie Etude, the latter of which lived up to its name with the audiences getting more of a pop in their step following the more gentle selection.

Main HAll of the Royal Albert Hall from above. Image Credit: yisris via Flickr cc

     After this was a small break in the action during which the Proms celebrated the 50th anniversary of Rodgers' and Hammerstein's Sound of Music by featuring a collage of videos with several ordinary Briton’s performing Do-Re-Mi from the great musical. Among those showcased were nuns, children’s groups, community choirs, family's, as well as a host of individual efforts from all across the UK, including the BBC’s own Jeremy Vine in Glasgow and some of its staff and other presenters. It was an eclectic mix of young and old, from various backgrounds, creeds, and faiths – all of it wrapped in the overall sense of being British on this most British of occasions.

     But the show was back on the road with Jonas Kaufmann making a return to the hall to perform Lehar’s The Land of the Smiles, Danielle de Niese hoping over from Hyde Park to artfully enlighten the crowd with The Girls of Cadiz, and Peer Gynt, Op 23 (Morning) tranquilly performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra – led by the leaf-like flutes and gradually building to a decent satisfaction by the whole ensemble.

     Danielle di Niese was brought back to further honor the 50th anniversary of the Sound of Music by leading a supreme performance of its medley with all of the UK participating at the same time in what Marion Alsop claimed was the biggest sing-a-long ever. It was certainly a brilliant moment shared by all who were in the hall, in the parks, and watching or listening from home or wherever they happened to be located.

     And yet, all of this was but a prelude to the very best part of the night with some of the favorites of British patriotic music being played to finish out the spectacular evening.

     First up was Elgar’s Pomp and Circumstance March, No. 1 – Land of Hope and Glory. Truly one of the great pieces of music in the world, it was born out of the age of imperial height and expansion, but today decently captures the hopes and aspirations of the British people for themselves and their country, the United Kingdom, so that it can be a better country and so that they can lead better and more fruitful lives. For this reason, it is like an alternative national anthem with an inspiring air to it which provides a huge burst of patriotic passion. The climactic ending was enthusiastically played twice, and to the supreme satisfaction and joy of the people.

     This was followed by two selections from another favorite: Fantasia on British Sea Songs - a nine part medley of maritime songs which was arraigned by Sir Henry Wood himself. The two selections performed that night were like night and day, with Home, Sweet Home providing a soft and measured melody tinged with a bit of nostalgia as the audience elegantly hummed to the tune of the oboe as it was played. Then there was Jack’s the Lad, with its repeated melody starting slow with the flutes and than building up at a faster pace as more instruments joined in. It was a bit of a kooky rendition with seemingly deliberate and disjointed mistakes in the early part to amuse the audience, who clapped and stomped to the three beats at the end of each repeated line of the music (and causing enough rocking to shake the cameras). As the end approached, the pace had quickened to result in a dramatic climax with the energy of everyone going to a new high.

     Fantasia then set the stage for another song about Britain and the sea: Rule Britannia! It is arguably one of the most iconic of all British patriotic songs, with it being performed to represent the country around the world in such a way that it – like Land of Hope and Glory – sometimes feels like the national anthem. (Indeed, I had once thought it was the national anthem and I suppose many of my fellow Americans think it is as well.) For this year’s performance, Jonas Kaufmann was brought in to sing the main lyrics whilst the crowd and the choir sang the electrifying chorus part. Kaufmann made history as the first German to lead Rule Britannia, and he did not fail to make an outstanding impression with his voice leading the way and providing enormous excitement for the crowds in the hall and elsewhere - truly rocking the Proms.

Proms in the Park at Hyde Park, London. Image Credit: Neil Rickards via Flickr cc

     Those crowds were now really getting into the spirit of the night, and this is truly where the Proms is very special. In addition to the singing, people also displayed their British patriotism with the Union Flag of the United Kingdom, which was seen throughout the night in the form of fancy and funny hats, socks, bow ties, dresses, and vests. In addition, there was a Sikh gentleman in the BBC Symphony Chorus who wore a Union Flag-themed turban, and Jonas Kaufmann caused a frenzy by throwing a pair of the flag-themed boxer shorts to the audience following Rule Britannia! Most importantly, it was proudly flying from the hands of thousands of people that evening, as were also those of the Home Nations of the UK – the Red Dragon of Wales, the Saltire of St. Andrew and the Red Lion Rampant for Scotland, St. George’s Cross for England, and St. Patrick’s Saltire and the Ulster Banner for Northern Ireland. The Channel Island flags for Jersey and Guernsey were also on display, as were those from the Isle of Mann and some counties – like Yorkshire and Cornwall. Still yet, there were some American Stars and Stripes in the crowds, along with Irish and French tricolors, the flags of Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada, Jamaica, South Africa, India, Germany, Spain, the flags of sports teams, as well as the EU and UN flags.

     On top of all this was the supreme sight of seeing so many people from various backgrounds, cultures, creeds, and faiths – all having a good time and sharing in this moment of a truly British night all around. Indeed, it showed how the Proms is able to bring these people to together to celebrate their common sense of being British and enjoying the company of one another – bring them together and allowing them, if even for only a moment, to forget their differences and join together as one.

     This was said as much by Marin Alsop - the woman of the hour - as she faced the crowd following Rule Britannia! to give her closing speech.  She spoke about the power of music to bring people together like few other things do, and that even though it does not solve the great issues of our time, it can provide a bridge for greater understanding and cooperation to make solving these issues a bit easier. If nothing else, moments like the Last Night are good for getting out and sharing a special time with, and bringing voices together among, fellow citizens.

     Alsop made this point personal by referencing her own hometown of Baltimore, which has experienced protests social tensions over the last year in response to what many people believed was the wrongful death of a black man whilst in police custody. She spoke of how efforts involving her and other Baltimore musicians to get more kids interested in music and other fine arts, so as to give them opportunities to find their talents and make something out of themselves and perhaps be in her place one day.

     She particularly emphasized the need for girls and women to get into music and appealed for more support for the arts – privately and publicly – and to this end, she thanked the Prommers for helping to raise a record £107,000 for musical charities over the course of the Proms season. Alsop also thanked them for being a great – if also wacky and somewhat unruly – audience, and gave praise to all the people, seen and unseen, who made this Proms season one of the best thus far, and for this, she got a rapturous applause.

     Her remarks having been well-received, Alsop continued on with the final leg of the night – beginning with a wholesome performance of Jerusalem. Its sweet and soft melody set against the powerful imagery of its lyrics was pleasantly received by the crowd which sung it in earnest.

     Then came arguably the most important part of the night: the performance of the National Anthem of the United Kingdom. As has been the case most years, it was Benjamin Britten’s stirring arraignment that was performed with the chorus singing the first verse ever so softly, which led to a spine-thrilling build up and the full-throated strains of the orchestra, singing groups, and the crowds inside and outside the hall on the second verse – punctuated with a spectacular climax featuring the last line of “God Save the Queen!” being sung three times to close out the anthem.

     Inside the theater two rows in front of me, there was one person who stood during the anthem in solidarity with almost everyone on the screen. Whether she was British was not of any significance because what mattered was that she had that kind of respect for the United Kingdom and its people. Indeed, it was quite inspiring to watch all of those people – thousands of them – with their flags, funny dresses, hats, and costumes, and in many cases, just themselves joining together and singing with one “heart and voice” in honor of Her Majesty and with reverence and pride in the country over which she reigns. At the end of the day, it is the people who make this country.

     At the conclusion of the National Anthem, Alsop struck up the orchestra to perform Auld Lang Syne, the traditional closing song of the Proms, and it was truly a moment of warm fellowship and camaraderie as everyone joined in the arm crossing of hands and extended a true farewell to one another until next year. To top it all off (and in a sign of the times), Alsop raised a selfie stick to take two cheeky selfies: one of herself and the audience in the hall, and then another with the orchestra and chorus in a final hurrah for the glorious night. Take that, Nicola Sturgeon.

Amazing night! @bbcproms really is a music festival for all! #LNOP #bbcproms #selfiesaturday pic.twitter.com/4swoVDJuQJ

— Marin Alsop (@marinalsop) September 12, 2015

     And so ended my “experience” at the Proms, which was so memorable and well worth the money for the ticket (though perhaps not the popcorn). As enjoyable of an experience it was, it is nothing compared to actually being there in person, so as to truly get a feel for what it is like to be among those crowds of Prommers, with all of the good-natured fun and togetherness that entails. Personally, it would a treat if I managed to attend the main Prom event at the Royal Albert Hall, as well as the Prom in the Park in the events throughout the country with their unique programs.

     However, this is where I do have one particular gripe with what I saw. Following the Sound of Music medley with Danielle di Niese, the Glasgow Green and Singleton Park (Swansea) events dropped from the main event, and Titanic Slipways in Belfast left following Land of Hope and Glory. All of them apparently went back to their own events independent of what occurred in London, which meant that they were no longer part of the overall UK event with the most rousing of British patriotic airs, including the National Anthem itself. This was massively disappointing because with the absence of those places in the latter part of the coverage, it was as though critical and indispensable pieces of the United Kingdom were grossly missing, and in a big way which made the country somewhat diminished compared to if those areas were included.

     The second half of the Last Night ought to be an event for the whole UK, with all events involving themselves in the same coverage to finish out this most British of occasions. Perhaps an exception could be made with regard to the section where Jerusalem is played (since it is more specifically an English anthem), but even then, you could find Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, and even Irish flags being flown to this song – often with respect. At any rate, something ought to be done to ensure that all Prom events are going to the same script for the latter half as an occasion for all of the United Kingdom to come together as one, and it is my hope that this event can help to make the “united” part real and truly meaningful, and show that there is much, much more to the UK than just "big bad (evil) Westminster."

     Nonetheless, this Proms experience at the movie theater was one which I thoroughly enjoyed and will greatly treasure. It was a truly fun and joyous time to celebrate Britain and to take part in a British event that is open to the world.

Just Another "Westminster" Party

Underneath the facade of being anti-Westminster, the SNP is just another "Westminster Party" (Credit: Jim Trodel via Flickr cc; Modified by Wesley Hutchins).

     Throughout the independence campaign last year and the general election campaign this year, the SNP talked a lot about how it represented a “new form” of politics, and that this was diametrically different from that of the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats (a.k.a., the “Westminster parties”) – characterized by cronyism, use of public office for personal gain, and political favoritism.

     Eventually, they and their acolytes went along to claim that this was not just an ethical difference between the politics of the SNP and the other parties, but a difference of moral and political cultures between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Scottish politics, we were told, was egalitarian-based, transparent, and emphasized doing right on behalf of the people. It was characterized by men and women who were honest, upstanding, trustworthy, and – most importantly – incorruptible. UK – or rather “Westminster” – politics was all about using the public trust to extract personal benefit, tightly-knit cliques, inherent corruption, and cronyism that made even saints and angels swear in disgust.

     Not so with Scottish-based politics, so this was presented as yet another reason of how Scotland and the rest of the UK were so incompatibly different, and why therefore, Scotland should have voted to separate from the rest of the UK and break up the Union. (And if you voted No, you obviously supported - according to the more fanatical Yessers - pedophilia, illegal wars, and throwing sick people off of benefits).

     In short, the politics of “Westminster” was the politics of sleaze and helping yourself, whilst the politics of Scotland (and especially the SNP) was the politics of cleanliness and helping others.

     This was a message which chimed in well with a massively cynical public that was fed up with politics and the political establishment following – among other things – the parliamentary expenses scandal and the sense that politicians looked out for themselves and their close associates and family. The SNP successfully conflated this with Westminster as an institution – as if to say this was representative of the UK as a whole – and has massively benefited as a result.

     But recent events have called this image into question.

     First, is the issue of Michelle Thomson, MP for Edinburgh West, who came to prominence during the referendum as the managing director of the pro-independence group Business for Scotland, and then became the SNP’s candidate for the Edinburgh seat in the House of Commons, which she won in the general election last May.

     She was glowingly touted within the party, not least because of her business background, which helped to give the party a pro-business image despite its increasingly left wing rhetoric to gain Labour voters. Indeed, she was portrayed – not least by herself – as the sort of business person who managed to combine commercial success with a sense of community and social justice. As such, she became the party’s Westminster spokesperson on Business, Innovation, and Skills, and was seen as a rising star.

     However, it turns out that part of her more recent success came from her and her husband purchasing properties from desperate sellers at knock-down prices in the aftermath of the financial crisis and Great Recession – people who were almost certainly facing dispossession and needed properties taken off their hands in the face of economic hardship. In one case, the Thomson’s bought an apartment from a pensioner couple for £73,000, even though the market valuation according to the Land Register was £105,000. Another person sold his property to the Thomson’s for £60,000, even though it was valued for £25,000 above that amount.

     Taking advantage of these below-market prices, the Thomson’s eventually built a property portfolio estimated to be around £2 million with 17 homes, which has probably grown in part because some properties were sold for massive profits which then went toward purchasing more expensive ones, and therefore increasing their personal wealth substantially.

     The controversy surrounding this had its seeds in May 2014 when Christopher Hales, the solicitor (lawyer) for the Thomson’s, was struck off for professional misconduct by a disciplinary tribunal which concluded that he “must have been aware that there was the possibility he was facilitating mortgage fraud” in relation to the work he did for some of his clients, including the Thomson’s.

     It finally came to light when the Sunday Times featured a report on the Hales affair and his links to Michelle Thomson, which has sparked a police investigation, the resignation of Thomson as an SNP frontbench spokesperson, and her suspension from the party, which means that the SNP has 55 MP’s at the moment (down from 56) as Thomson is now an Independent MP (in similar fashion to Labour’s Eric Joyce (Falkirk) during the 2010-2015 Parliament).

     Now, some people may say that Thomson was not an MP at the time, and that this had nothing to do with official conduct, such as using public office for personal gain – either for yourself or for close friends and relatives.

     Fair enough, but then, what about the brouhaha surrounding the T in the Park music festival and the Scottish Government’s decision to spend £150,000 of public money on it? The reason – ostensibly, at least – from Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop was that the money was needed because if it was not given, the festival may have moved out of Scotland, with a huge cost to the economy. But from all accounts, the festival was a profitable concern backed by private sponsors, so why the need for public spending here, when it could have been used to build houses or provide college places?

     The answer may have to do with the fact that the concert promoters had obtained the lobbying services of Jennifer Dempsie, a former special advisor to former SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, as well as the partner of Angus Roberston – the party’s leader in the Commons.

     Now there is nothing to suggest that Dempsie or the concert promoters did anything wrong or illegal, or indeed, that T in the Park would not have received the funding from Holyrood if Dempsie was not lobbying in its behalf. However, it goes without saying that having Dempsie on board certainly did not hurt in the pursuit of the funding, and it may not be a stretch to think that her close connections to senior party leaders helped along to ensure funding for the festival.

     In the same vein with regard to Michelle Thomson, there is nothing illegal about purchasing property at below market rates from people in a desperate situation – economic or otherwise. It must also be noted that at this point, Thomson has not been convicted of anything, much less formally accused or charged with a crime. Therefore, there is no need for her to resign her seat, and it will be for the proper authorities to decide if there is evidence that she had engaged in mortgage fraud, and if she is formally charged, it will be a court of law which decides her legal fate.

     On this note, it is now known that Law Society of Scotland “informally” raised her now-disgraced former solicitor Hales’ case with the Crown Office, but only “officially” brought it up in July this year after Thomson had become an MP. This has brought about speculation that the delay may have been due partly to the fact that Law Society committee secretary responsible for disciplinary tribunals was a member of the pro-independence group Lawyers for Yes and an admirer of Michelle Thomson. On top of that, it has been confirmed that the head of investigations at the Law Society had received the tribunal report naming the Thomson’s and their business partner, and that the Crown Office had asked for detailed case files in December 2014 and in April this year – just before the general election – but only received them in July.

     The Law Society has rushed to defend its staff from any accusation of impropriety, but the rushed press conference on Thursday appeared to raise more questions than answers – chief among them being, why did it take a year for the Crown Office to receive the case files from the tribunal investigation? At this point, there is no evidence that anyone from the Law Society acted improperly and sat on this case, so as not to endanger the independence campaign or the SNP’s – and especially Michelle Thomson’s – general election campaign. But the whiff of impropriety – that an investigation was stonewalled for political purposes – does not look good.

     In the court of public opinion, it may already be too late for Michelle Thomson, for even in the case of Thomson as a non-public official at the time of her property dealings, it brings into to question her commitment to social justice and gives a bad image for a party that claims to be standing for ordinary people against predatory interests that seek to profit from their misery.

     Between this and the T in the Park affair, you may cynically say these things happen without regard for politicians of any political party. Certainly, some Nationalists will say that “Westminster politicians” do this all the time. Nothing to see here; move along, citizen. (Furthermore, we have our own issues with cronyism in the States.)

     But, is that not the point? The SNP has gained traction by portraying itself as something unique and in another world from the “self-serving Westminster eite.” Without this distinction, what else does the SNP have going for it (aside from wanting to break up the UK)?

     However, the reality is that the SNP has never really been Ms. Goody-Two-Shoes. It will play politics and play dirty when necessary. It is a ruthless and well-oiled political machine that is not above doing whatever is required to suit its political ends. By the end of last week, Sturgeon was effectively throwing Michelle Thomson under the bus for the fact that she is no longer – at least for now – an SNP member, and Jennifer Dempsie is no longer a Holyrood candidate. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is The Cause.

     As for First Minister Sturgeon, what do we make about her claims that she and others in the party had no clue about Thomson’s business dealings in the course of being vetted to stand for election to the Commons? In a party supposedly as disciplined as the SNP, one would think that some sort of thorough background investigation would have raised a few red flags.

     Perhaps this can be excused by the fact that the party experienced a tremendous growth spurt following the referendum – climbing from around 30,000 members to over 100,000 in less than eight months, and making it the third largest political party in the UK. During that time, it may be believable that the SNP simply did not have enough staff at the time to handle all of their business from the referendum to the general election, and that they had little choice but to take Thomson at her word that there was nothing that could even remotely blacken her name and cause embarrassment for the party.

     Nonetheless, serious embarrassment has been caused, not least because the words “mortgage fraud” has appeared alongside pictures of Sturgeon and Thomson together in newspapers, online articles, and other media. Similarly, the praise that she received from other senior SNP figures (during the referendum and leading up to the general election) has been plastered about to underscore just how much of a rising star she was, in part because of her business experience. For that matter, if they did not know what that business experience was, why did they take it at face value and make her the spokesperson for Business?

     But if Sturgeon can claim deniability with regard to Thomson, how does she square away with the decision to sanction to public grant for T in the Park? Her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, was aware of the request for taxpayer money and even offered advice on how agencies of the Scottish Government could assist in the funding. The Culture Secretary and member of Sturgeon’s cabinet, Fiona Hyslop, has come under fire for signing off on the grant without rigorously looking into the finances of the event, and it is now known that grant was not paid out until after the event had occurred.

     Then, what about Sandy Adam, an independence supporter who had given almost £100,000 to the SNP and the Yes campaign over the last three years (as well as £5000 to Michelle Thomson for her campaign)? His property company had been given a Scottish Government loan of £1 million, and selected to take part in a lucrative scheme where mortgages for new houses are guaranteed by the government.

     Perhaps this is a bit too harsh, because after all, we are all human and seek to use connections whenever possible to achieve personal ends, and this is not always illegal. Nor is it illegal to take advantage of certain opportunities when they arise.

     This isn't to say that we ought not expect more of our politicians and other public servants, because of course, we should. However, we should not be fooled into believing that any political party has a monopoly on morality, for all of them have good apples as well bad ones. And, let's be honest: who wouldn't at least try to take advantage of the fact that they have friends in high places? That's been going on since time immemorial.

     But again, we are talking about a political party that been quite sanctimonious in placing itself on a pedestal as a paragon of clean politics free of cronyism, dubious expense claims, breaching the public trust, and other characteristics of big bad “Westminster.” In the process, it won 56 Commons seats and almost won the referendum at least partly based on this message of them being the “good” politics that was only available in Scotland, and the other “Westminster parties” being the “bad” politics that was un-Scottish.

     Now it seems that the SNP has a few things in its own house it must attend to, and that it has more than its fair share of cronyism and other behavior that many people find reprehensible in politics. This may not be enough to bring down the SNP overnight, but if the current issues continue to persist, and/or if more problems like Thomson or T in the Park arise, the party may well find itself in the same position as the “Westminster parties” it so routinely criticizes for just such behavior.

     At the very least, it exposes their empty rhetoric and takes some of the shine off of their popular, carefully-crafted, focus group tested, and made-for-media image. The mask is beginning to slip.