Filmhouse could be a reel global winner – Letters

A reader speaks up for modern, ‘unsympathetic’ architecture

The planned new Filmhouse building has been designed by award-winning Edinburgh based Richard Murphy Architects

Commenting of the proposed new Filmhouse, Colin J Oliver thinks that any new building should take account of the surrounding buildings and claims that Richard Murphy’s design does not do this (Letter, 2 July). However, as a former architect I think I know something about the quality of architecture.

In what way should any new building “take account” of itssurrounding buildings? Imitate them? Reinterpret them? Doing that would have stopped architectural development throughout all time. It could have stopped medieval cathedral development. In Liverpool there are two modern cathedrals. One, Anglican, built to Giles Gilbert Scott’s design between 1904 and 1978, reinterprets its medieval predecessors, looking to the past. The other, Roman Catholic, built to Frederick Gibberd’s design between 1962 and 1967, looks to the future and pays no respect to its surroundings. The latter is much the better design; it is innovative and striking.

Sensibly, the new Filmhouse design pays no attention to the dismal buildings with which Festival Square is surrounded and establishes a new high standard of modern design. It could become world famous. The architect is to be congratulated and his proposal should be approved.

Edinburgh’s innate conservativism should not stand in the way of progressive architecture.

Steuart Campbell, Dovecot Loan, Edinburgh

Move the monstrosity

Richard Murphy Architects apparently wants to place a bold and contrasting attention getter in a busy part of Edinburgh in order to put their stamp on the city and to market their own trade. The suggestion that Edinburgh should follow the example of Manchester to revive and modernise its inner core couldn’t be more off base. Edinburgh is not Manchester, never will be, nor should it try to be, and there’s already quite enough modernisation planted in Edinburgh’s inner city, much of which seriously conflicts with its surroundings. Edinburgh may well be in need of a new and expanded Filmhouse, but not smack in the centre of the already space-limited Festival Square.

Are the architects, Film Festival officials and the council so insensitive to the aesthetics of the inner city neighborhoods, more concerned with pursuing another modernisation disaster (such as the outrageously expensive and mostly unused tram fiasco)? How much use will this building get during the year when the Film Festival is not on?

Despite the claim that this will be a new “Festival Centre,” I’m guessing most Film Festival tourists won’t care much where it’s actually located.

So please, put this monstrosity somewhere else that is more compatible with its surroundings and that won’t spoil the pleasures of the existing inner city enjoyed by so many residents and tourists alike. Haven’t many of the existing Festival venues already vandalised much of the inner city during festival time? Many of us who love this city are wondering why we should regrettably make them permanent.

Peter Drysdale, Orchard Brae Avenue, Edinburgh

On the offence

Is political correctness going to stamp out all satire at the expense of religion in Scotland? No more Billy Connollys. No more Dave Allens. No more Life of Brian. The threat is there in the Hate Crime Bill which the SNP Government has placed before Parliament.

The Bill ignores the fact that someone isn’t a victim of a hate crime because their religious sentiments are hurt or offended. Many people found the jokes of Billy Connolly and Dave Allen ‘offensive’ but the law did not rush in to prosecute the offending comedians. Likewise with the film Life of Brian. The right to freedom of speech was considered more important than any injured feelings caused by the satire.

In England and Wales, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is the counterpart of the Hate Crimes Bill now at Holyrood. In that act there is a clear and unambiguous defence of free expression in relation to religion:

It says: “Nothing in this [legislation] shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

We need the same safeguard written into the Hate Crimes Bill. The law should concern itself with protecting people from hatred, threats and vilification, but it should not extend that into protecting ideas and beliefs. On the contrary, the law should uphold freedom of expression and the liberty to criticise and mock all sorts of ideas and beliefs. That freedom has been hard earned after centuries of censorship and repression. Surely we shall not cast it lightly aside in pursuit of some politically correct virtue-signalling?

Les Reid, Morton Street, Edinburgh

Bah, travel

The Covid virus was spread by world travel, and now the government, incredibly, seeks to encourage this again. As Pascal remarked in the year 1600: “Man’s greatest problem is his inability to stay at home.” Do we never learn anything?

Malcolm Parkin, Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood

State of play

I was disappointed to witness Jacob Rees-Mogg’s clear lack of understanding of the difference between a country, a district and a state. In his comments in the House of Commons on 2 July he referred to the UK as one country. The UK is not a country. The UK is a Sovereign State made up of four countries, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. It is a political construct developed over years through a series of personal and political unions, including the Act of Union between England and Scotland in 1707, primarily over English concerns that Scotland may take sides with the French. This did not result in the formation of one country but a union of countries and as we can see from the UK’s decision to leave the EU, membership of a union is not necessarily permanent.

Stuart Smith, Forvie Path, Bridge of Don

Obvious, really

Isn’t it amazing how nationalists are jumping up and down about the Prime Minister’s comment that there is not a border between England and Scotland? Surely it was obvious to anyone with a modicum of grey matter that he was referring to a border with infrastructure, in exactly the same way that there is not a border between England and Wales. If nationalists need to moan and whinge, at least find something worth moaning about. And I hope that Ms Forbes gets the extra money she has requested from the UK Treasury.

Jim Houston, Winton Gardens, Edinburgh

Not so special

On social media, Nicola Sturgeon has posted a UK coronavirus cases map and highlights the recent low Scottish rate at 0-5 per 100,000 population. Excellent news. In so doing, she ignores that large swathes of the rest of the UK (in areas totalling a population many times greater than Scotland) boast precisely the same low rate of infection. Her post attracts more than a few comments along the lines of “shut the Border and keep out the English”. Tragically, Covid-19 has resulted in shockingly high death rates north and south of the Border. Local lockdowns such as in Dumfries and Galloway, and Leicester have to be the optimal way forward rather than arbitrary division along a border the virus ignores.

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Spanish flew

I write with continuing disbelief at the ludicrous way that the Scottish Government are applying measures to control/eradicate the virus outbreak.

Invariably these measures are in the form of suggestions, not instructions. The whole scenario reeks of “too little too late!” Here in Spain, measures have been decided promptly, implemented immediately and rigorously enforced by ‘no nonsense’ policing.

No mask – no entry – no argument or Guardia Civil called.

Result – drastic quick reductions in cases and life getting back to normal.

Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon and company should take a leaf out of Spain’s book and stop the kid-gloves approach.

My flight back to Edinburgh in June was cancelled and I shall now hold off returning until the fog around the bottom of the Royal Mile clears!

Ronnie Speirs, Rosemount Drive, Uphall, West Lothian

Politics spreads

Am I alone in thinking that the Scottish Government’s daily Covid-19 update has gained a party-political content!

I understood that where there was a ‘party-political’ broadcast there were strict rules in place regarding the right of other parties to reply! I hear each day a purely political input that cannot be deemed information. Surely Parliament would be a more appropriate place to provide updates. These could be subject to scrutiny by other parties and the media.

James Watson, Randolph Crescent, Dunbar, East Lothian

A lot of hot air

In his letter against the climate change views of Charles Wardrop and Geoff Moore, Steuart Campbell quotes a recent Met Office report (Letters 2 July) The Met Office warned that the risk of days with sweltering 40C heat in the UK could rise significantly by the end of the century without action to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.

There is already a long list of failed climate predictions including: 1988: The Maldives will have sunk into the sea in 30 years’ time; 1970: a pending ice age as earth has been cooling since 1950, the temperature will be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000; 1970: By 2000 most of the world will be in famine; 1989: If we do not reverse global warming by 2000 “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels”; 2006: Al Gore said sea levels would rise 20 ft “in the very near future”.

Clark Cross, Springfield Road, Linlithgow

Write to The Scotsman

The Scotsman welcomes letters for publication – 300 words maximum – from all sides of public debate. Include date and page when referring to an article, avoid ‘Letters to the Editor’ in e-mail subject line. No attachments. We reserve the right to edit letters. No correspondence will be entered into. Send submissions, with full address and phone number, to: [email protected]

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

The dramatic events of 2020 are having a major impact on many of our advertisers – and consequently the revenue we receive. We are now more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription to support our journalism.

Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. Visit https://www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Joy Yates, Editorial Director