Port, Policy, and Provocation: An Insight into STAUCA

The number of times I’ve written, “I entered with a sense of trepidation,” to introduce an Events review for the Saint is countless. Clichéd, I know, but this time I truly did have a bit of a pit in my stomach. The St Andrews Unionist and Conservative Association, or STAUCA, is one of the most controversial societies at the University. Members are perhaps most commonly encountered at Aikman’s following one of their boozy Port and Policy debates. The premise is simple: intellectual debate on political and abstract topics, punctuated by the downing of much port. Read: descent into garbled and severely intoxicated arguments. In a Saint article from April, the then chief whip and now chairman George Smedley was quoted as saying that in being “conscientious of what the society looks like on paper,” they steer away from controversial debate topics — not quite the case this week.

STAUCA’s aim is, according to their official statement, to “foster a sense of Conservative-aligned right-wing thought”, while being “in many ways a friend group”. Not all attendees are Conservatives themselves, contributing nonetheless to the discussions each week. I am not the usual audience for an event such as Port and Policy either. Yes, I’ve inevitably got to know some of the Conservatives this semester by living in Sallies, many of whom sit on both committees. They’re great chat at dinner, although I’ve firmly stuck to the old ‘never talk politics’ adage. STAUCA aim to create political cross-engagement, “holding a joint debate with Labour each term, as well as attending the political mixer during freshers week each year”.

Instagram drama surrounded their third motion, ‘TH supports railways as the superior type of autism.’ Many, including the Scottish Independence Society, took issue with this, with other commentators criticising it as a form of caricature or ridicule. I was informed that STAUCA had invited the society to join the debate, an offer which was refused. Some STAUCA members, with whom I sometimes find myself sitting at Sallies lunch, also refuted the claim that the motion caused offence, since they themselves have many autistic members. 

I entered Port and Policy with my extremely leftie companion, and I was greeted with firm handshakes of welcome by members of the committee. The event title didn’t lie: greetings were swiftly followed by plastic cups of port. At first, as an infrequent port drinker, I was a little disappointed by how little I was given. However, I also did not realise the sheer potency of even a sip, and my journalistic practice accidentally went out the window slightly, realising I was a little tipsy. Inevitably, the crowd was a sea of Barbour jackets, a great majority of them male, but it had the feel of a tight friend group, with everyone from the audience addressed by name. 

The debate was divided into three motions: TH would leave the ECHR, TH would join Reform UK, and the final, revised motion became TH supports railways as the superior special interest. Supposedly, the first of any debate is current affairs related, the second a little more abstract, and the third more ‘fun’. It’s interesting to note that the more liberal side won twice — both in the vote to leave the ECHR and join Reform UK. After the speakers had made their arguments, the floor opened to everyone, with several questions and witty firsthand experiences shared. One cited how Nigel Farage had visited his school in a double-decker campaign bus, driving it around to the delight of the fourteen-year-old schoolboys following in tow. Another spoke of his resentment when Farage refused to take a picture with him on account of the fact that he wanted to hold up a pint of ale.

Reporting was made slightly challenging by the fact that there was a strict no-phones policy, which I was personally reminded of multiple times. However, this policy didn’t stop one eager fresher next to me from googling everything anyone said, whether out of ignorance or gathering evidence to make a point when the floor opened to the crowd.

The debates are not necessarily reflective of the political opinions of members. Once the committee has finalised the week’s topics, STAUCA members can sign up to speak for or against the motion. However, as slots don’t always fill up, committee members often have to step in and advocate for things they don’t believe in. Members will sometimes put themselves forward for a deliberate ‘devil’s advocate’ role as debate practice. Personal opinions do often bleed through in asides during the speeches.

Now for the ‘train autism’ debate, the part everyone’s really curious about. I have to preface that on the STAUCA Instagram, any trace of the original title has been deleted and replaced with ‘special interest.’ This was largely upheld during the debate itself, but the more port that went down, the less the self-censorship remained strong. A throng of likely-fresher-boys stood up and proclaimed themselves ‘former autists.’ The general use of ‘special interest’ rather than ‘autism’ went out the window when it was remarked that the Scottish Independence folk hadn’t turned up.

The Instagram drama over the debate could have been avoided, as the speakers both claimed not to be autistic and were in fact debating their hobbies. Their actual discussion was a source of universal drunken humour. Tom Rosas argued for birdwatching with passionate wit, complete with impressions, and a speech so long that by the end of the time limit, he was only a third through. Robert Rayner made a good effort to persuade us of his obsession with trains — the linearity of their tracks, and the first-class prospect of a crisp G&T in transit. After this, the audience comments ranged from herons nesting outside bedroom windows to video game obsessions and bird flu.

Regarding the railways motion, STAUCA themselves noted that “perhaps the wording could have originally been slighter clearer that it wasn’t a medical-related motion — but as you saw, the debate that resulted was nonetheless highly engaging and enjoyable.” They stressed that, “it was disappointing to have such attention focused against us in such a way, given it’s been in a month where we’ve raised over £1250 for Ukraine, and over £900 for Movember.” 

I had to cover my ears and ‘lalala’ when the audience was called to throw off their Oxford brogues because they were ‘gay’. It made me wonder if I, myself, should have been more gutsy when it comes to standing up to this language. However, as David Attenborough lets nature run its course – often to gruesome effect – I upheld my journalistic neutrality, for better or worse.

Port and Policy was objectively a great event. There was a fantastic sense of community, scarily powerful port, and largely intellectual debate. The society is also not as hardline as it seems – various STAUCA members themselves admitted it was more of a glorified drinking society than a political party. It was lamented that more people couldn’t come to events like Port and Policy to see the reality of STAUCA, but it’s understandable that opposition may have felt alienated by their advertising. The random throwing-about of words like ‘autistic’ and ‘gay’ in these circles clearly isn’t seen to be harmful, and is rather a manifestation of the language of probably all-boys, probably private education. At the same time, these are people clearly well-trained in rhetoric and otherwise extremely articulate, so you wonder if they could think of better descriptors than ones which disparage others.

In truly democratic fashion, I’ll let STAUCA have the last word: “Ultimately, regardless of what’s been said or done, there will always be a certain willingness to bash Tories.”

Photo provided by STAUCA