Arts world tells politicians to back off

THE arts world’s loss of trust in the Executive brought calls yesterday for a return to the kind of arm’s-length policy seen before ministers set out to make their mark on the sector.

Rising public complaints from leading figures about the Executive’s decisions on Scottish Opera and its handling of the arts overall underline the costs of a weakened Scottish Arts Council.

The council has fared poorly in the wake of devolution. It has been the target of bitter complaints by the arts community on the one hand, and denigrated as a pre-devolution dinosaur by politicians on the other.

Reform of the organisation, still seen as a hangover from Scottish Office days, has been a constant theme of cultural strategies, statements and political gossip. With the looming departure of the chairman, James Boyle, to take the helm of the new "culture commission", its future and leadership faces a further period of uncertainty.

Dr Donald Smith, director of the Netherbow Storytelling Centre in Edinburgh, said yesterday: "I do feel at the moment somebody needs to speak up for the arts council.

"There is a need for a strong middle line between the politicians and the artists working in their garrets, a buffer zone," said Dr Smith, an influential figure on the Scottish arts scene and a key player, most recently, in the National Theatre of Scotland.

"There is a need for a sort of ambassador, a middle player that is trusted by the cultural sector and is able to create a dialogue."

A Scottish arts council has existed in one form or another for decades, but the SAC was established in its current incarnation by Royal Charter in 1994, when it was devolved to the Scottish Office by a Conservative government that sought to strengthen the Scottish administration without embracing devolution.

The council enjoyed a cosy relationship with the Scottish Office that lingered on into the early devolution days, it is said, particularly under the then culture minister, Sam Galbraith, and his deputy, Rhona Brankin. Both were rated as signed-up supporters of the arts.

But what began to emerge was a stronger sense among ministers that they wished to set their stamp on the arts - with targets, benchmarks, and the sense that the arts were working for the government.

Arts council funding was increasingly earmarked for the Executive’s own projects - such as school music education and the National Theatre of Scotland. It appeared to embrace rather than question the government’s agenda, losing its place as a protagonist for the arts, challenging or pressing the government if necessary.

The council remains perennially unpopular with many in the arts world - though defended by others. It provokes views as divisive as do the rows over Scottish Opera’s funding and management. But it was suggested yesterday that the council may have lost its role as intermediary.

The former chairman, Magnus Linklater, said yesterday: "I’ve always thought that the arts council’s role is to be a buffer state between the arts and the government, to stand up for the arts sector where necessary on the one hand, but to ensure that the government is getting value for money on the other."

His successor, Mr Boyle, once famously described the Executive’s arts funding as "crackers". But from there, his own championing of the arts cause - certainly in any confrontations with the Executive - appeared to have moved increasingly behind the scenes.

It was under Ms Brankin that the Executive in 1999 launched a year-long consultation that led to the publication of the "National Cultural Strategy" in August 2000.

The 68-page document entitled Creating our Future: Minding our Past contained "strategic objectives" broken up into "key priorities".

Three years before Jack McConnell’s keynote arts address on St Andrew’s Day, it had addressed many of the same themes: education and "access". It also called for all public support for arts and culture to be audited in terms of social benefits, including "social inclusion".

While many in the arts world support these goals, they fear being taken over by them.

Eddie Jackson, the chairman of the Scottish Federation of Theatres, said yesterday that the new Scottish Parliament was seen, at first, as too slow to embrace culture.

"They did too little, too slowly," he said. "The whole arts sector has been demoralised by the treatment of the arts, because there is a general recognition within Scotland and world-wide that a vibrant arts sector is a valuable asset for any country."

Mr McConnell’s November speech was a good starting point, he said. "But they should have had an action plan that hit the street running immediately after that."

Instead, six months later came a culture commission that will push the timetable for any real changes back two or three years.

Dr Smith said yesterday: "At the moment the arts council is not confident about its funding, its role has to some extent been undermined. The Scottish Executive, far from being hands off, is very hands on."