Danger in bureaucratic approach that ignores grassroots Scottish culture

Published on Thursday 21 August 2008 22:35

Whether, as Gerry Hassan asserts (Debate & Opinion, 20 August), the SNP is now trying to implement a new Labour idea by establishing an all-in-one arts quango, Creative Scotland, remains to be seen. It is news to me that new Labour ever had a cultural policy for Scotland. There are obvious dangers in establishing centralised bureaucratic institutions on a formulaic basis. Such bodies may attract ambitious individuals with no creative ability. Creativity cannot be orchestrated.

Artistic creativity in Scotland is certainly associated with Scottish culture and we now have a Ministry for Culture which is part of a "culture directorate". Within this, there is a culture and Gaelic division. There is no mention of Scots in this context. While Gaelic was the ancient language of the Scottish kingdom, Scots was the state language before the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and deserves due recognition for this. Scots is an important feature of our cultural identity and without a common community identity, there is no justification for a Scottish Government at all.

Creativity in Scottish music, literature and drama derives from our cultural heritage, and it will be interesting to see how the "culture and Gaelic division" proposes to deal with a state of affairs in which Scots has been represented in public life for hundreds of years as a corrupt kind of English, which it is the purpose of Scottish "education" to correct. In Scotland, we have deliberately substituted deracination for education.

(DR) DAVID PURVES

Strathalmond Road

Edinburgh

On 20 August, I attended an event at Holyrood entitled "Who Pays the Piper?", purportedly discussing arts funding in Scotland. It was carelessly chaired by Cathie Peattie MSP, who allowed a small group of senior arts management representatives to pontificate to an audience made up largely of independent working artists. Although there were tiny slips of paper available (not handed out) for questions, none of those submitted by any of the actual artists present was selected; instead, they were cherry-picked for those from other administrators and focused on broadcasting issues.

In the foyer afterwards, I spoke with several well-known, highly qualified artists whose proposed questions were far more interesting and insightful than those selected. But these were largely critical of arts administration practices in Scotland.

The blatant manner in which the ideas of the artists who attended the event were ignored clearly proved the validity of their complaints.

Scotland would feel a tremendous loss if any of these artists were to leave for more supportive countries. But if all of those long-winded arts administrators were to depart these shores, I doubt if anyone would notice – or regret it.

ELLA MacPHAIL

Henderson Row

Edinburgh

As a professional piper who has been entirely self-supporting for 45 years, I optimistically attended the "Who Pays the Piper?" debate, assuming the views and experiences of folk like me might be heard, valued and respected. I and many others had pertinent questions, but not one piper – nor any other self-employed, freelance artist – was permitted to comment or ask a question.

We were made to sit silently while only those in full-time administrative posts were given the floor throughout the hour; the questions likewise were restricted to administrators.

This calls for a rescheduling of this appallingly unbalanced event, but one in which the paymasters listen to the pipers' views for a change.

JAMES MacDONALD REID

Glen Shira

Inveraray, Argyll