The final curtain?

Kenneth Roy

What is this organisation about?

Incensed by the rejection of his application for financial support for a new project, a well-known figure in the Scottish arts and media wrote to the chief executive of Creative Scotland, the successor to the Scottish Arts Council, and said that he intended to apply again – on a 'near-weekly basis' if necessary. He received the following email in reply:
     'I am sorry that you didn't find my answer convincing but perhaps you misunderstand that we will not be a funding body in the old sense of the Arts Council but a strategic body,. There will no no point in making multiple applications to us as we will be working more strategically with others agencies.'
     Well, the 'no no' is clear enough. What the rest means – well, your guess is as good as mine. Having attempted to parse and analyse this answer, having stared at in wonder, having marvelled that the chief executive of any public body could commit these words to paper, I am still no clearer what the chief executive of Creative Scotland is trying to say about his own organisation.
A strategic body? What's that when it's at home? 'Working more strategically with others agencies' – eh? 'Not a funding body in the old sense' – so would Andrew Dixon care to tell us what the new sense is?
     I have complained before about Creative Scotland's wretched £35,000 logo, about the colossal waste of public money on consultancy fees, about the exorbitant cost of the various soirees organised to launch it, and about its stunningly uninformative website. Someone who attended one of the soirees assured me that, when the chairman Sir Sandy Crombie was asked what Creative Scotland was all about, he replied that he wasn't sure since there hadn't been a board meeting yet, but that he had attended one or two pleasant events. I chose not to believe this. But, having received a copy of Mr Dixon's lamentable email, I now realise that, from this lot, anything's possible.
     The original recipient of the email, anxious for clarification, sent a further email to the chief executive of Creative Scotland:
     'So that I am clear – you will not be supporting individual artists?'
     There was no reply.

     The abject performance of Creative Scotland would be hilarious were it not so potentially disastrous for the arts in Scotland and for the thousands of creative people – some of the best people in this country – whose livelihoods depend on public funding of their work. It seems that the present Holyrood administration, intelligent and honourable in so many other ways, is content to surrender the arts, a central part of our national life, to inexcusable chaos.
     I will attempt, so far as I can, to deconstruct the various utterances of Creative Scotland. The statement of Andrew Dixon that his organisation is 'not a funding body in the old sense of the Arts Council' is in direct contradiction to the statement on his own website that 'Creative Scotland inherits the funding commitments and investment strands of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen'.
     How can two statements so hostile to each other be reconciled? In the absence of any explanation from Mr Dixon or Sir Sandy, we must examine the small print. 'During the transition period, applications for investment can be made along the previous SAC and Scottish Screen procedures, using the existing application details and guidelines'. The word 'investment' is suspect, and applications being made 'along previous procedures' is a strange use of English for which Creative Scotland is already noted. But perhaps a general meaning is just about discernible here. In plain English – we will carry on more or less as before for a year and then...
     Then –
     Then what, exactly?
     I have a suspicion. I think we are in the first stages of the privatisation of the arts in Scotland. Let Sir Sandy deny it. He is something of an expert on privatisation, having presided over the de-mutualisation of Standard Life, so he will know all about it. I challenge him to deny that, behind all the vague talk of strategies and partnerships, what is really on the agenda is privatisation by the back door.
     If Sir Sandy is unwilling, there is someone else on the non-executive board who is in an excellent position to explain what is going on. Her name is Ruth Wishart. Ms Wishart is a ubiquitous figure in the Scottish arts. She is chairman of the Dewar arts awards which are bankrolled by the Scottish government; she is a trustee of the National Galleries of Scotland; she now finds herself a founding member of the board of Creative Scotland. It is hard to miss her. But that is not the point. In her professional life she is a journalist with several high-profile platforms in the press and broadcasting. Perhaps she should use one of them to write or speak in support of the companies and artists who have been left in a state of uncertainty and insecurity.
     According to Creative Scotland's website, there was to have been a first meeting of the board in August, after which 'some key priorities' would be identified. I suppose we should not be in the least surprised that, well into September, Creative Scotland continues to refer to this meeting in the future tense. Yes, Sir Sandy, Mr Dixon et al believe it's still August.
     There is a minister with a responsibility for the arts in Scotland; presumably she is Creative Scotland's ultimate paymaster. Fiona Hyslop should exercise that responsibility by requiring Creative Scotland to clarify its purpose and policies, assuming they have any. Failing that, she has a responsibility to do so herself.