|
This article first appeared on the British Theatre Guide Web site and is reproduces here by kind permission of the editor, Peter Lathan Despite a very different rhetoric, there is a depressing resemblance to the latest pronouncements of the Welsh Assembly in the Scottish culture minister's words which we report this week. On the positive side, there's the promise of an extra £20m a year for the arts from 2007, the promise of "cultural rights" for everyone in Scotland and a cutting back of "unnecessary bureaucracy". On the negative side, there's the merging of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen into a new body, Creative Scotland, which will have "the key task of developing talent and excellence in all branches of the arts, and the creative and screen industries", and the direct funding by the Executive of the "national companies". The temptation to my cynical mind is to place the cutting back of the oft-quoted "unnecessary bureaucracy" firmly on the negative side. It reminds me of of the play Close the Coalhouse Door in which we are told that, in the coal industry, rationalisation, regionalisation and all the other -isations all meant the same thing: "closing a few more pits." And am I being unfair in worrying that, in spite of the high-sounding "key task of developing talent and excellence in all branches of the arts, and the creative and screen industries", there is no mention of a strategic planning or even a funding role for Creative Scotland? And just what will the Executive's role be in this new super-organisation? Is the Executive following the WAG lead in trying to bring the arts under their control? And what about these "national companies" about which Patricia Ferguson said, ""Excellence will be rewarded. We plan to increase funding for the companies which qualify, beyond the level currently made available through the Scottish Arts Council"? Assuming that there is a funding role for SAC, will the Executive take out of SAC's budget the amount currently paid to the "national organisations", whatever they might be (although it is a fair bet that the newly established National Theatre of Scotland will be one), add to it the new £20m and leave the remnant to SAC to distribute to all those organisations which do not achieve "national organisation" status? And why does the Executive wish to fund them directly? Is it because it cannot countenance the idea of there being high-profile arts organisations which it does not directly control? And if that is the case, why should it want to control them anyway, unless to ensure that they follow its agenda? The Welsh Assembly is taking over the funding of the major national arts organisations in Wales. The Scottish Executive now proposes to do the same with their Scottish equivalents. One is forced to wonder how long it will be before the DCMS decides to get in on the act in England and directly fund the National, the RSC, the Royal Opera House, the Royal Ballet and so on? Labour is the dominant party in Cardiff, Edinburgh - and Westminster. Would I be a loony conspiracy theorist if I claimed to detect a trend here? One thing is certain: the Welsh Assembly Government led the way and now the Scottish Executive follows in centralising power and weakening (because they can't abandon it totally) the principle of arms-length arts funding. Is it too much of a leap to imagine that Westminster may go along the same route? When I first read Patricia Ferguson's speech to the Scottish Parliament, I was immensely reassured as the upbeat, positive tone was so different to the frankly mean-minded comments of Welsh culture minister Alun Pugh, but on reflection the substance is little different. And that is very worrying. |
| British Theatre Guide web site: www.britishtheatreguide.info/articles/220106.htm |
| Peter Lathan e-mail: |
Sunday, January 22, 2006 |
|
Other related news stories on the Theatre in Wales web site : |
Older news
stories have been carefully archived.
2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999