Over the past month the arts in Scotland have been embroiled in an increasingly heated argument about the way in which the cultural landscape of Scotland needs to be developed. The full blown scandal about the Scottish Opera funding – over who leaked what to whom – which shows little sign of abating, has generated massive political mileage but this should not be allowed to obscure the bigger issues. Everyone: politicians, artists and councils agree it is necessary to create a coherent, forward-thinking arts strategy, but how to agree on the priorities or parameters for this?
It all began with the unveiling of the Scottish Executive’s Cultural Policy Statement on the 22nd April, which outlined the remit for a new ‘Cultural Commission’. The Cultural Commission – to be headed up by the recently ex-chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, James Boyle – has been formed to look at every aspect of Scottish culture and cultural provision, and is structured to report on its findings in June 2005, after an interim report this October, with the potential for a Culture Bill in 2007. In essence, the Culture Commission has been established to facilitate ‘accessibility’ to the arts and to develop a sense of ‘cultural entitlement’ in all Scottish people. The idea of reshaping the Scottish cultural landscape can be traced back to First Minister Jack McConnell’s 2003 St Andrew’s Day speech where he outlined his ‘arts for all’ vision, and even compared it to ‘a new civic exercise on a par with health, housing and education.’ Big talk in any language and heady stuff for anyone used to a governmental attitude where the arts are simply periphery to wider public policy.
However, while it is widely acknowledged that the Scottish Executive is to be congratulated on recognising the need for a revised cultural policy under a devolved government, it is the way these changes are to be made that is unclear and under question. The cultural policy statement makes it clear that ‘a fundamental shift may be required in our cultural, political and administrative agencies to change the way they approach, and deliver, what they do.’ What does this mean, exactly? Frank McAveety, Culture Minister, welcomed the review as the start of ‘new era’ and reiterated that it is a ‘once-in-a-generation opportunity’ to ‘take stock, look again at our cultural infrastructure and ask if it is fit for purpose.’ He used terms like ‘best value’, referred to an ‘entitlement’ to ‘cultural activity’, but didn’t give any definition of the arts, nor refer to the struggle for excellence, or mention rewards for achievement. A clear political message was being sent, and that was that we’ll recognise the arts as an important component in public policy, but only if it delivers on our terms.
After the announcement about the Cultural Commission there were immediate signs that the Scottish Executive had made mistakes. Damningly, and for all their talk of inclusion, they had overlooked certain key ‘stakeholders’. Namely COSLA, a powerful and important association that represents 32 of Scotland’s local authorities. Taking into consideration that COSLA spend a reported £260 million on the arts, compared to the Scottish Executive’s approximate £40 million arts council grant, it was an embarrassing oversight. Clearly recognising his error Mr McAveety organised a last ditch meeting with COSLA representatives; but with just hours before the press announcement it was of no practical use. Then the – by all accounts – last minute decision to appoint James Boyle raised eyebrows. He’d already agreed to do a second term at the Scottish Arts Council and as Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish National Party’s culture spokeswoman, pointed out; there was ‘no reference to the normal procedures of public appointments’. However, as one insider quipped, ‘Who else would you have?’ Boyle was already known for his role in the successful shake-up of Radio 4; and with his intimate knowledge of the Scottish Arts Council, combined with an understanding of the dynamic between the Executive and Arts Council, his appointment can, at this point, only be seen as an advantage.
There is little chance that Boyle could have anticipated the massive criticism the Culture Policy Statement has since attracted. Author Ian Rankin led the charge in Holyrood Magazine in what was described by the Sunday Herald as ‘an excoriating attack’. Rankin called the plans ‘prescriptive’, compared the language to that used in Orwell’s classic 1984, and objected to the focus being entirely ‘on the consumer, rather than the creator’. With more value being placed on social-inclusion and accessibility, than art, the artist, or actual quality. The combination of this criticism hitting the press, and a volatile situation over the uncertain future of the Scottish Opera sparked a particular rage in the Scottish arts world. Many of Scotland’s arts world luminaries have united against the review and in an astonishing revolt fifty-five of them – artists, musicians, authors, poets, directors, critics and administrators – signed a open letter to Jack McConnell. In it they acknowledge the potential value in having a Cultural Commission, but argue that there is a ‘void’ instead of an arts strategy. They object to pressure from ministers to fulfil education and outreach roles and ask: ‘Are we really to expect that future generations are entitled only to the mediocre and that investment will only come if an agenda set by politicians is met?’
Of course the politicians hit back with McAveety vigorously defending the Executive’s policy, rejecting claims of anti-elitism, and reiterating his belief that the Opera is capable of producing quality productions within its set budget. The fact that the Opera (or any arts production) needs to be able to work within a budget is undeniable. However, it is how and who decides the amount of funding that is the million-dollar question. The Scottish Opera is already the most under-funded opera company in Britain and as Sam Galbraith, the former arts minister says, ‘We are chronically under-funding them, and if we want to stop it and not have crisis after crisis every year, we have got to adequately fund it.’ Then Jack McConnell clearly under attack, rushed in as saviour of the Scottish Opera by pledging them ‘up to’ £5 million in public money. However, published alongside his interview were details of the proposed bailout deal – all of which were supposed to be confidential and under negotiation. A furious Christopher Barron, the chief executive of Scottish Opera, said in a letter to his staff that the article was the result of a direct leak from the Scottish Executive ‘in which clearly the First Minister has been involved’. An accusation McConnell refutes. Be that as it may, rival politicians are now demanding code of conduct enquiries, explanations and generally making political hay while all of Scotland watch. Against this background of scandal and accusation it is easy to forget, or ignore, the arguments about dangerous gaps apparent in the culture policy statement, or why indeed the Scottish Opera had funding difficulties to start with.
The Scottish Executive has to face up to the fact that creating excellence costs money. A lot of it. Susan Galloway, a research fellow at the Centre for Cultural Policy Research at Glasgow University makes several interesting points in her article Scots Missing Out on the Big Picture. In a nutshell her point is clear, for all the ministerial spin, devolution has not yet been good for Scottish arts. The Scottish Opera example is an interesting one as it throws into sharp relief the differences of priority and expectation between each of the ‘stakeholders’. The Culture Committee has a vital role to play in negotiating these differences and seeing a way forward for Scottish arts as a whole.
For further information see www.scotsman.com; www.sundayherald.com; www.scotlandsunday.com.
