Tag: Scotland

Categories
Arts

The rare case of a seemingly justified sequel

RENTON (Ewan McGregor), SPUD (Ewen Bremner), SICK BOY (Jonny Lee Miller) BEGBIE (Robert Carlyle)

The trailer for the T2:Trainspotting sequel has fans and critics jumping for joy

Heroin consumption is a bleak topic. One would be pressed to find a single positive aspect of opioid consumption, as it is known to destroy lives and relationships. That’s what makes Trainspotting (1996) such a memorable film—it explores the topic of heroin addiction with a weirdly realistic sense of humour. The characters realize the futility of their habit and make fun of each other’s horrible life choices. However, the movie is still a sincere story of the void created by drugs. The film has developed a cult following due to its great script and highly-effective editing.

It is worth mentioning the film only lasts 90 minutes and concludes with an open-ended scene. This abrupt ending leaves the viewer wanting more, and rightly so. The movie was based on a then-unfinished series of books written by Scottish writer Irvine Welsh.  The book’s sequel, Porno, was published in 2002—almost a decade after the first installment. The cinematic sequel to Trainspotting will be loosely based on this second book and will explore the unorthodox topic of porn-addiction and vices.

However, Trainspotting was released 20 years ago, which makes its scheduled January 2017 sequel seem unnecessary for those who haven’t seen the original. According to Mohamad Hassan Bassal, a film studies student at Concordia, the movie industry is filled with reboots and remakes which often come much too late for them to be justified. For instance, Alice Through the Looking Glass, the sequel to the blockbuster hit Alice in Wonderland, proved to be a massive box office and critique failure, one of the reasons being the film was released six years after the original. This delay hurt the film’s ticket sales and the sequel seemed unjustified by fans and critics who found the film devoid of the charm of the first movie. Therefore, it is understandable for fans of Trainspotting to be weary of the upcoming sequel only being a cheap attempt at using nostalgia to lure people into the theater.

Despite these negative speculations, the trailer for T2: Trainspotting, which was released last week, has considerably increased interest in the story’s continuation. The trailer showcases the original cast, including big names such as Ewan McGregor, whose role in Trainspotting catapulted him to Hollywood stardom. The trailer does not reveal specific plot points but instead proves to have kept the overall feel of the original. The famous “choose life” speech, which has been endlessly quoted by cinema fans, is given a modern spin as the narrator tells the audience to “choose Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and hope that someone, somewhere cares.”

The trailer is full of little nods to fans of the original, as it uses locations and songs from the first film. As the film has not been released yet, only time will tell if producer Danny Boyle will be able to capture lightning in a bottle for the second time.

Categories
Opinions

Sovereigntists need to stop crying over someone else’s choice

“Jean Chretien spoke to the UK government about separation in the days leading up to the Scottish Referendum. (Tourisme Mauricie/Flickr)”

It’s a Scotland for Scotland, and not for you.

Bernard Landry, the former Parti Québécois (PQ) premier, said the message from the Scottish referendum ‘is not all that negative’ for Quebec separatists because ‘practically half’ of Scottish voters chose independence.”

This statement, published in the National Post on Sept. 19, shows a bizarre trend in how we view the separatist debate in Quebec. Both sides of the issue have been living vicariously through the Scottish independence debate. As a result, the foreign movement has been invaded by politicians from Quebec’s past, even though they have no right to be there.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who led the anti-separation forces in Quebec’s 1995 referendum, acted as advisor to United Kingdom officials on their campaign. On the other side of the debate, according to the CBC, low-profile meetings were held last year between Scottish independence leader Alex Salmond and Quebec Premier Pauline Marois.

“Jean Chretien spoke to the UK government about separation in the days leading up to the Scottish Referendum. (Tourisme Mauricie/Flickr)”

Although from the point of view of the UK and Scottish leaders it makes sense to bring in the experience of someone who has lived through a similar situation, it still seems odd. When the Quebec referendums happened in 1980 and 1995, neither side asked officials from another country for advice. Perhaps there was no one who could advise on such a vote, but there were many countries from the former USSR who could have advised on how to self-govern.

The reason, perhaps, that no outside opinions were asked is the longstanding view that Canada and Quebec are unique. Both have a unique history, culture and relationship with one another that no other nation could speak to. It is odd, then, that although it was felt that no one could advise them, they now stand ready to give advice. The logic may be that Scotland in its current form is like Quebec.

There are many similarities between the populations in terms of their economic prosperity. According to their respective governments, Quebec currently has a population of 8 million, while Scotland is home to 5.5 million. Similarly, the gross domestic product (GDP) of Quebec in 2010 was $300 billion, while Scotland sported a GDP of $216 billion US.

But this is where the similarities end. It is perhaps easy to lose sight of the fact that Quebec is a province within Canada, while Scotland is its own country within the UK. As such, Scotland has legal, educational and public systems independent from the UK. Although these are in place in Quebec too, they are still within the larger Canadian systems. This makes Scotland an already half-formed independent nation.

Furthermore, conflating the two populations negates hundreds of years of history unique to each. Any Quebec historian would understand the deep ramifications of the quiet revolution, or the fundamental language inequality which led to the first sovereignty campaign, neither of which happened across the pond.

Indeed, Scotland has its own reasons for wanting separation from the UK. Comparing the two situations takes away from that.

Perhaps the biggest irony is that as Québecois, we pride ourselves on the shared heritage and culture that make us truly special, yet through meddling and comparing ourselves to Scotland we send the opposite message to the world.

We are special…. Just like them.

Categories
Opinions

A parliament for Scotland to call its own

A British take on the case for Scottish independence

As the date of the referendum on Scottish independence looms, the polls suggest that support for the No vote has narrowed to 48 per cent, while the Yes vote trails with 42 per cent; a marked improvement from the 32 per cent the Yes camp were polling this time last year. At the least now, the Yes campaign appears to have attracted sufficient support to be able to force the issue of another referendum within a generation. Perhaps in November of this year we will be drawing comparisons between the 49 per cent of Scots in 2014 and the 49 per cent of Quebecers in 1995.

The opposing camps, Better Together and Yes Scotland, have both sought to define the debate in their own terms. The Yes campaign romanticizes and waxes lyrical about  patriotic nationalism and self-determination; the No campaign scare-mongers and refuses to fathom a competitive post-independence Scotland. It is a polarized debate in which the old stalwarts of union square are up against nationalistic upstarts. This opposition is typical of an independence debate, yet the Scottish case also has its own particularities that Catalans or Quebecers may not relate to.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, as its name suggests, a synergy. A less-than-united kingdom would find it difficult to have its voice heard on the international stage. But perhaps the era of Britain’s having its voice heard, which spanned much of the last five centuries, must end. The big difference between the Yes and No camps, I believe, is that Westminster politicians like Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown would rather see themselves as part of a bigger whole than as part of a nation of a mere six million people. A modest self-rule, for them, would mean that Scots would never have their voices heard on the global stage.

The Yes campaign’s would-be remedy to this dilemma is membership in the European Union. This, however, leads to another debate: surely Spain would exercise its veto of Scotland’s membership for fear of creating a precedent that Catalan or Basque nationalists could use to their advantage. An independent Scotland in the European Union would also be able to pursue popular policies which are blocked in the Westminster Parliament, such as not renewing Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent Trident, nationalizing the North Sea oil reserve, stimulating the public sector, plugging the gaps in the welfare state, along with ceasing privatization of the National Health Service.

Many Scots have their greatest grievance with both under-representation and misrepresentation in politics. Of the 59 parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, only one returned as a member of the Conservative Party, which leads the two-party governing Westminster coalition that is pursuing policies in Scotland that, frankly, few Scots voted for. Your man on the street, however, may not know whether Scotland returns 59 or 259 Members of Parliament to Westminster   ̶  he simply does not want to be governed by a Parliament 500 miles away from his own.

Therefore, I urge anyone reading this article who has the right to vote in the referendum next month to rid themselves of the fear of the unknown and realize self-determination by voting YES. Surely Scotland ought to be ruled from Edinburgh: you would not want to be asking yourself “what if?” in twenty years, as many Quebecers now do, would you?

Categories
Opinions

Independence throes but independent woes

Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon speaks about the benefits of independence earlier this year. Photo from the Scottish Government (Flickr).

The key difference between Quebec and Scotland’s bids for statehood

Quebecers are intimately acquainted with referendums. The word was on everybody’s lips during the last provincial election, and now, it’s back – but not for us.

For better or for worse, it seems like independence has a date with someone else this time around. On Sept. 18, Scots will head to the polls to possibly undo over 300 years of shared history with England, and the threat of a Not-So-United Kingdom looms over the Western world.

As one of the few Western independence movements, Quebec separatists have obviously taken great interest in the situation across the pond. While she was in office, Pauline Marois even visited Scotland to discuss the similarities between their two movements. However, she was noticeably shafted by her Scottish contemporaries.

Some were surprised, but we shouldn’t have been. Because Marois was making the same mistake that thousands of Quebecers and analysts are making: they’re assuming that the cases of Scotland and Quebec are the same, when they could be anything but.

Let’s look beyond the mutual disdain they each have for the English. Why does Quebec want independence? It comes down to culture, and the fact that Quebec’s is distinct from the rest of Canada. The obvious example here is language, which has shaped the Quebec identity since its genesis. Because of this, Quebec has grown and shaped itself independently from the rest of Canada. We can see this in the legislation that attempts to protect the French language, such as Bill 101, and the culture that comes with it, such as the attempted Charter of Quebec Values.

Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon speaks about the benefits of independence earlier this year. Photo from the Scottish Government (Flickr).

The point here is that Quebec’s quest for independence is a very emotional one. It is entrenched in ideas of culture and identity. Critics often point to the pragmatic parts of Quebec independence – such as currency, economy and Quebec-Canada relations – as its weakest arguments for being an independent state.

Scotland, however, is the opposite. Yes, there are portions of the independence movement that touch on cultural differences, but it is argued in the scope of politics. Why? Because the crux of the Scottish independence argument is representation.  Or rather, the lack of it.

Scotland works similarly to Quebec: they elect MPs who go to the national parliament, but there is also a parliament in Edinburgh, which controls regional matters such as health, education, and social work. The pro-independence Government of Scotland believes that those powers and decisions “have been good for Scotland”. The problem lies higher, in the Westminster Parliament.

The Westminster Parliament has 650 MPs. However, only 59 of those MPs are from Scotland. According to the Scottish government, this means that “policies are imposed on Scotland even when they have been opposed by our elected Westminster MPs”. Thus, affairs like welfare, taxes and foreign policy have often been in conflict with what Scotland’s MPs actually voted for.

What this has created is a feeling of disdain for Westminster. Even if Scotland elects MPs of all the same camp, it is likely that Westminster will go the other way simply due to how outnumbered they are. The Scottish government sums it up as a choice “between two futures: taking control in Scotland of our own affairs, or remaining under the control of Westminster”.

Compare this to Quebec, who is second only to Ontario in the amount of seats it holds in the House of Commons. In the 2011 federal election, the NDP won 59 of Quebec’s 75 seats. Quebec basically single-handedly created the official opposition. In contrast to the Scotland situation, one cannot argue that Quebec is under-represented in federal politics.

The Scottish referendum – regardless of its outcome – should be used as an opportunity for Quebec to examine its own ideals. But similar goals don’t make similar circumstances. Scotland is not Quebec, and Quebec is not Scotland. And the faster we understand that, the better our future will be.

Categories
Opinions

A fresh side of politics with your sweet 16

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan
Graphic by Jennifer Kwan

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois has been inspired by the decision of First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond to lower the voting age to 16-years-old for the next Scottish referendum in 2014.

Although it was not a part of the party’s platform during the 2012 election, Marois and the Parti Québécois have indicated that they are in favour of following suit.

The only reason I believe Marois is not completely against lowering the voting age to 16 is for one particular reason; she is trying to get the youth’s vote. Marois seems to have many tricks up her sleeve and trying to change the voting age in order to benefit her own party in the next election is one of them.

There is no issue with the voting age, so why change it? At 16 years of age, most teenagers have definitely not acquired enough knowledge to decide what is best for our province. Not every 16-year-old is uneducated and ignorant in regards to Quebec politics, or politics in general, but a strong majority of this demographic will not take these privileges as seriously as they should be taken.

To me, simply possessing some form of driving privileges at the age of 16, especially in Quebec, is too young. A significant amount of accidents occur because of teenagers and young adults. Statistics Canada reports “about 80% of speeders involved in a fatal crash were under the age of 45, and half of those speeders were aged 16-24 years.”

Last year, Argentina lowered the voting age from 18 to 16. and they are not alone Other places in the world like Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua currently have the voting age at 16. East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, Seychelles and Sudan give the right to vote at the age of 17.

Marois had planned on discussing the voting age with Alex Salmond in Edinburgh, however, in an interview with The Globe and Mail, Marois stated that “Scotland is different. Quebec is different.”

If Marois realizes that Scotland and Quebec are so different, why is she all of a sudden so adamant about having the voting age lowered? It is very hard to take a law or a strategy that is used in one country, apply it elsewhere and hope for the same results.

Marois told The Toronto Star that “The Parti Québécois wants to change politics,” but the thing she doesn’t understand is that change is not needed in this case.

Marois might also be targeting teenagers for their support because many don’t have an extensive background knowledge of Quebec politics aside from what they are taught in class, which can be biased. Another factor is the traditional sovereignty movement, which seems to be growing stronger with young people.

If we are going to give 16-year-olds the privileges of an adult, it needs to be very carefully thought out, and other rules that currently apply to 18-year-olds need to be restructured as well. Come on, Pauline. Why the hassle, if not for your own personal interests? Frankly, I see it as an enormous waste of time and money and a misguided attempt to win over young voters. If 18 is good enough for the rest of Canada, it’s good enough for us.

Exit mobile version