Readers' letters: If you want culture, be prepared to pay for it

Methinks Brian Ferguson doth protest too much (“Arts sector ‘facing years of decline’ amid fresh cutbacks”, Scotsman, August 14). Before I proceed, let me be clear. In 1958 I graduated from the Faculty of Arts at Glasgow University with Honours in English Language and Literature. So, I am not anti-culture or against the arts generally. I do not require to be reminded of their benefits to civilisation or the economy or individuals or tourism. When the country is in a healthy financial condition, governments may think it appropriate and beneficial to offer support to the arts.

However, when the opposite is true, as now, governments must focus on urgent priorities – feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the sick and the elderly, grow the economy. In the build-up to the Edinburgh Festival, Mr Ferguson has been going on about the problems facing Fringe performers, such as finding affordable accommodation and venues but, judging by the quantity of reviews in The Scotsman, many appear to have coped.

He has complained about broken promises of funding from the Scottish Government but many other expectant beneficiaries have similarly suffered.

Surely, when times are tough, the arts have to be treated like any other business. They must be expected at least to break even or make a profit from their own activities. After all, who are the main supporters of cultural events? From personal observations at theatres and concert halls, I would venture to suggest mainly middle- and upper-class sections of society – in other words, people who can afford to pay a little more for their tickets.

For some time to come, I fear the arts and culture will have to run on a self-financing basis as government resources will require to be utilised elsewhere. Some, inevitably, will not survive but others may emerge all the stronger from the experience. If you want culture, be prepared to pay the price for some years to come.

Bill Greenock, Netherlee. East Renfrewshire

Difficult decisions

Listening to Shona Robison repeatedly going on about the difficult financial decisions she needs to make (Scotsman, August 15) I was reminded of the 1980s satirical comedy Yes Minister in which Jim Hacker repeatedly portrays himself as willing to take tough decisions but in reality fails to do so.

Ms Robison has decided to follow Westminster’s lead and abolish the winter fuel payment for pensioners not on universal credit. Instead she wants to prioritise public sector pay deals with a speedy resolution to negotiations. In essence the optics show the SNP are willing to deliver inflation-busting public sector pay awards on demand but leave hundreds of thousands of Scottish pensioners struggling to heat their homes.

According to the IFS, UK public sector productivity in 2023 had fallen six per cent since pre-pandemic levels of 2019. Between 2022 and 2023 we might have expected some recovery but none was forthcoming. The Scottish Government’s own chief economist, Gary Gillespie, declared in May that public sector productivity has been “broadly flat in Scotland over the last two decades”. He went on to state that as well as being relatively larger, “the public sector in Scotland is also relatively better paid than the UK average”. After tax, he suggests an average of £1,500 per year more per employee.

Given that pay now accounts for over half of the Government’s resource budget Ms Robison needs to demonstrate she is getting best value by putting inflation-busting pay deals without productivity guarantees before pensioners facing whether to heat or eat.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Generous to a fault

The GERS figures for 2024 have just been published and they show that annual Scottish spending per person is £20,418, which is £2,417 higher than the £18,001 average for the UK as a whole. I would now hope to see a torrent of letters from SNP-supporting correspondents praising Westminster for its generosity towards Scotland – but I’m not holding my breath.

Barry Hughes, Edinburgh

Better and worse

Scottish Conservative MSP and leadership candidate Russell Findlay has claimed that the GERS 2023-24 figures “demonstrate yet again that Scotland is far better off within the United Kingdom”.

However, as Scotland’s apparent deficit, largely based on allocations of UK revenues and of UK costs to Scotland, has increased by about £5 billion, then GERS 2023-24 demonstrates yet again that Scotland has become far worse off within the United Kingdom.

E Campbell, Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire

GERS guesswork

The publication of the latest GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland) figures has triggered a now traditional feeding frenzy. A black hole in Scotland’s finances is heralded by unionist politicians as validating the continuation of the Union.

The killer phrase for me from the GERS report is: “The report is designed to allow users to understand and analyse Scotland’s fiscal position under different scenarios within the current constitutional framework.”

GERS is therefore a measure of the public finances under the current Union – hardly the greatest endorsement for how the economy has been managed on the UK’s watch. Indeed, major economic levers required to stimulate economic growth are still currently reserved to Westminster.

GERS is a set of figures, based on a measure of guesswork that indicate very little, except highlighting the negatives of the current Union. It has little bearing on the finances of an independent Scotland.

The point of independence is not to do everything in the same way as it has been done within the current constitutional framework, but to move away from this one-size-fits-all fiscal straitjacket to a tailored approach that prioritises stimulating economic growth.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Federal solution

Together with underfunded councils, we have both Holyrood and Westminster engaged in a competition to determine which of them is in the deeper financial black hole. It all makes me wonder if we are massively over-governed. To top it all, besides Holyrood, we have a surely redundant Scottish Office, no doubt sunk in its own financial black hole.

Up until recently, the clearest cure for over-government was independence, which now seems very much on the back burner, given the recent election result. The undoubted elephant in the room is Westminster, often described as being broken and behaving more and more as an English parliament.

A possible solution would be a Great British federation, its constituent members enjoying a well funded system of local government along with its equally affordable parliament, with joint cabinets meeting as required to determine national affairs. There will undoubtedly be better solutions, but we can all agreethat the status quo is unaffordable.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Green debts

Congratulations to David Alexander for his excellent article on the impact of the four-fold increase in the SNP’s £33 billion claim over decarbonisation costs for Scottish homesand buildings (Scotsman, 15 August).

Note that the implications of this forecast are that the SNP price of £150 billion for a Green Revolution will now escalate to £600 billion, yet there is nothing but a deafening silence over these debts.

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

Rolling stone

We now learn that Stonehenges’s “altar stone” came from north east Scotland and not Wales as originally thought (Scotsman, 15 August).

Presumably dyed-in-the-wool Scottish nationalists will blame the 1707 Treaty of Union/Westminster/the Tories/Keir Starmer, insist on the stone’s immediate return to Scotland, and cite the shocking removal as an unequivocal independence trigger.

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Scottish Borders

Sporting chance

While the headline of my August 13 letter “Olympic glory is less important than the health of the nation” may have suggested otherwise, I personally would like to see more funding go into sport, not less, certainly not none at all as Lorna Thorpe (Letters, August 14) appears to have mistakenly interpreted my words, and also see funding better aimed at greater participation in sport.

This approach, even within the context of “Team GB”, would not only help to improve “the overall health of the nation” but in the long run may also deliver more medals, especially if sportscotland can learn from some of the more relatively successful countries such as New Zealand (although generally lacking the numbers to build competitive Olympic teams).

Better and more equitable funding across a wide range of sports, though, will not be achieved if we simply indulge in over-the-top “triumphalism” as manifest in the BBC TV Olympics coverage

Where I would certainly agree with Lorna is that “whatever your background or nationality it requires immense hard work to achieve a call up for the national team, let alone win a medal” and all who laudably dedicate themselves to sport can inspire others not only to the glory of winning medals, but, perhaps more importantly for most who can only dream of Olympic sporting success, to lead healthier lives.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.