Lewis Hetherington’s The White Lightning and the Black Stag (2013)

The White Lightning and the Black Stag²²² is the last piece of the first set of Theatre Uncut plays devoted to Scottish independence referendum. Divided into two parts as the

‘interrogation scene’ and ‘a parable scene’, the play mainly touches upon issues such as the sense of belonging, national identity, Scottish independence and its possible consequences. To this end, the ‘interrogation scene’ triggers people to think about the nature of national identity and questions what makes a person ‘British’, ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ while the parable alludes to Scotland that was on the brink of building a ‘fairer’ and ‘better’ society with the forthcoming independence referendum.

The play starts with a portrayal of three unnamed characters in an interrogation room one of whom is interrogated about Scottish independence by the other two. The question interrogators ask at the very beginning of the play reveal that the interrogee was born in England but has been residing in Scotland. According to Güvenç this “may be reflecting Hetherington’s own position as someone born in England to a Scottish mother and who identifies Glasgow as his home” (378). This bears the question of national identity in etiher case since both Hetherington and the interogee in the play are ‘English’, ‘Scottish’ and

‘British’ at the same time. Being born in English makes the interogee a target of a set of questions that is supposed to reveal his/her competence to speak about independence:

-Do you sound Scottish?

-Depends on what you think Scottish sounds like.

-Why don’t you have a more confident voice? A more persuasive, sexier voice?

-Why don’t you talk more like someone who is grounded?

222 See Hetherington, Lewis. The White Lightning and the Black Stag, www.theatreuncut.com/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2013.

191

-Who is connected to the ground?

-Are you connected to the ground, the land underneath us? (2)

The interogee points out ambiguous nature of national identity as it depends on a variety of elements that can change from person to person. It is evident that the interogee developed Scottish identity through a sentiment, an emotional attachment to Scotland as a geographical place where (s)he has defined as ‘home’. At this point, the play raises the question if this emotional attachment suffices to have right to vote in one of the most historical referendum that will determine the future of the country or who should have right to vote.

With the increasing aggression of the interrogators the information-seeking questions of interrogative words such as ‘where’, ‘why’ and ‘who’ turn into ‘rhetorical questions’ which seek confirmation. For the interrogators, however, the interogee’s answers do not matter at all since they either frequently interrupt him or continue their questions irrespective of his answers:

-Don’t you think Borders set up divides?

-Don’t you think it would be better to have one single culture? One global identity that we can all embrace? Bonded together in the homogenising gloop of neoliberal capitalism we just could sit in our stylish designed homes and let everything come to us. [...]

-Don’t you think independence would be like an abyss? A big Black endless unknowable abyss? (4)

The aim of the questions is to nourish anxieties and worries related to independence rather than seeking opinions of a pro-independence supporter. To this end, a ‘negative’ and

192

‘separatist’ discourse of the Better Together campaign prevails over the questions of interrogators, and ‘independence’ is depicted as “a big Black endless unknowable abbys”

which divides the culture and borders (4). It is worth noting that as an early response to the referendum, the play is devoted to raising concern about the current political debates rather than leading the audience to one side in the referendum. From this standpoint, the ‘interrupted answers’ and ‘unanswered questions’ may be interpreted as Hetherington’s avoidance of

‘subjectivity’. For this reason, the answers and interpretations are left to the audience and the cross-examination is used as a way of provoking thinking and discussion about the notions of national identity and independence:

-Dou you think you are less or more Scottish than anyone else?

-Dou you think you’ll still like swimming in an independent Scotland? Dou you think you’ll still like the water streaming past you and holding your breath as you dive to bottom of the pool?

- Do you think you can be Scottish if you’re English?

-Do you think you can be Scottish if you’re Indian or Nigerian or French or Guetemalan or Korean or American or Japanese or Chinese or European?

-Do you think about things being different? (4)

The questions evoke ‘Moreno Questions’, a survey that was firstly conducted in the mid-1980s to figure out the relation between dual identities of being Scottish or British. The questions, thereby, mainly points out the problematic nature of identity by questioning whether the ‘place of birth’ or ‘the place of residence’ determines one’s national identity or gives an individual the right to vote on the forthcoming Scottish independence referendum.

Nevertheless, they are also used as a means of teasing Better Together campaign’s warnings

193

about ‘dramatic’ and ‘drastic’ changes that would ‘inevitably’ take place after independence.

This reaches an ‘absurd’ point with the question if the interogee will ‘still’ like swimming in an independent Scotland’ or “like the water streaming past him/her” (4). When the interogee, who cannot even find a chance to answer, is given an opportunity to speak (s)he tells a parable which partakes of an answer to all the questions asked to him/her.

The second part, in this respect, dwells upon a ‘parable’ that basically tells the story of an island splitting with a ‘white lightning’. On each divided pieces of the land a ‘Black Stag’

appears out of nowhere and plays determining role in the lives of the inhabitants. The story begins with the depiction of the island on which people having ‘similarities’ as well as

‘differences’ live together. One night a storm strikes the island and a lightning cracks the island into two. Half of the island drifted North East while the other half drifted South West and everything they built such as towers, monuments and institutions are ruined. Inhabitants of the divided parts, whom have already been scared of the storm, get panic with the unexpected appearance of a Black Stag. People on the South West immediately kill the Stag and drift into a state of chaos killing each other and die. On the other hand, on the North West they accept Stag as one of them, feed it and in return the Stag provides people with guidance.

When the time to heal the wounds of the storm and rebuild the island comes, they decide to change the “old awful system”, in which “some things had worked, but lots of things, like money and laws –were confusing and problematic” (6). Thus, they want to build a new system to “redistribute wealth” and “make sure all children are fed, educated and have a place to call home” (6). The interogee ends the parable stating that “all stories are made up by people who are living through them” (6). Thus, the statement is an indicative of his/her strong belief for Scotland to construct a better and fairer system by replacing the unjust old one after independence.