Scottish cultural policy

Despite the Scottish Parliament having the power to set cultural policy in Scotland since devolution, academics all too often continue to refer to UK cultural policy without due consideration for the degree to which cultural policy in Scotland may have taken a different path. Certainly, in the 15 years since devolution, a number of arguably divergent policy actions have occurred, not least the establishment of a peripatetic National Theatre of Scotland, the removal of an arm's length relationship between central government and the national companies, and the dissolution of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen in favour of a new type of cultural development body. It is also more than 10 years since the 2003 St Andrew's day speech by the then First Minister, Jack McConnell (2003), in which he committed to putting culture at the “core” of government because of his belief that Scotland “should make the development of our creative drive the next major enterprise for our society”. As such, this special edition of Cultural Trends, published on the eve of the Scottish Independence referendum, offers five research papers and two commentaries. These all discuss topics that, whilst common to anyone versed in the study of cultural policy, are considered here through the specific lens of a devolved nation with relative autonomy over the cultural policies that are chosen to be pursued. In doing so, it is hoped that readers are encouraged to reflect not only on what might be discerned as distinct about the Scottish case, but also about how “Scottish” cultural policy should be understood, and the degree to which it can be seen to have diverged from cultural policies elsewhere in the UK.

Despite only having been 15 years since devolution, there have been 10 ministers for culture and a number of significant public consultations on cultural policy issues. Bonnar's paper offers a timeline of these consultations and a reflection of the themes that have persisted across them. Informed by her personal involvement, she reflects upon the themes which have been addressed, which have been superceded and which have been repeatedly aired with little or no tangible progress. She concludes that while an increasingly clear expression of what culture means for Scotland may have emerged, there is still a lack of “coherent” cultural policy and a failure to formalise a high-level “commitment” to culture at a government level.

The initial post-devolution fervour that fostered this climate of constant consultation is perhaps indicative of the inevitable prominence that culture – in all its various definitions – gains at times of constitutional disruption. The relationship between culture and identity, both individual and collective, makes it an attractive area for new governments trying to solidify the collective sense of the society that they govern. In this regard, the promise offered by cultural policy is possibly even more important for a nation that finds itself within the structures of a larger state, and whose national identity is predicated upon the promotion of a civic, rather than ethnic, nationalism. Reflecting specifically on museum outreach projects in schools, Lloyd questions the extent to which cultural organisations can effectively be used as a tool for producing the sort of inclusive definitions of national identity that that those in government are keen to promote. She suggests that such policy interventions may have little real-world impact if the constructed identity on offer is perceived to have little resonance with how those to whom it is presented construct their own understanding of their nation. Her discussion questions the extent to which any nation's cultural policy should seek to celebrate and promote a constructed “national” cultural identity rather than supporting the heterogeneous cultural identities of the diversity of its citizens.

The subsequent two research papers are also concerned with what is and is not understood as being central to the cultural identity that Scottish cultural policy should seek to support. They offer stark reminders of the challenges facing cultural policy-makers on deciding what types of “culture” should be a priority for support as well as the extent to which cultural policy cannot simply be understood as the preserve of a single, named government department. Echoing Lloyd's consideration of the role that culture plays in the construction of national identity, and drawing a distinction between the arts of Scotland and the arts in Scotland, McKerrell tracks the growing policy commitment to traditional Scottish arts. He argues that traditional arts practice remains under-resourced and is dangerously reliant upon a narrow understanding of their value predicated solely upon their importance as “indigenous” and “authentic” cultural material. He suggests that traditional art forms should be recognised by policy-makers as providing a broader range of values and that an explicit “evidence-based” defence of these by those working in the sector is required in order to engender a more equitable cultural policy and distribution of state funds.

The issue of equitable support also informs Behr and Brennan's article which considers the case of popular music and its place within Scotland's cultural policy. Acknowledging that the status of popular music as both a cultural activity and creative industry has significantly shifted, they highlight the ambiguous and awkward position in which it continues to exist. Straddling various policy areas, and often falling between the remits of a number of non-departmental government agencies, Behr & Brennan argue that popular musicians remain faced with disjointed policies and – conversely to McKerrell's reading of the traditional arts – an over reliance on their perceived economic, rather than intrinsic, value to justify any state support. In concluding that the Scottish popular music sector will continue to face significant challenges because of the extent to which any “Scottish” cultural policy would be constrained by both international and transnational systems of power, they offer a reminder of the extent to which culture and cultural policy cannot be understood in a solely national context.

While both the previous papers highlight the economic potential of the art form they discuss, many of those working in the sector continue to question a cultural policy that is perceived as more concerned with the instrumental, and specifically economic, impact of cultural activity than the production and recognition of more subjective and situated values. Certainly a speech given by the Scottish minister with responsibility for culture, Hyslop (2013), was welcomed for the extent to which it distanced itself from that approach and promised to celebrate culture ‘in and of itself’. This type of expansive and egalitarian cultural policy rhetoric arguably evokes the aspiration for the different kind of cultural policy that was at the heart of McConnell's (2003) speech. However, the final paper published here encourages a consideration of the extent to which the scale of change required to turn this rhetoric into reality may not be possible given the existing power relationships within the production and implementation of cultural policy in Scotland. Examining the crisis that engulfed Creative Scotland in 2013, Stevenson argues that the discursive invocation of a homogenous “cultural community”, united in its dissatisfaction with the actions of Creative Scotland, functioned as a defensive action by those who currently enjoy the most power and influence over Scottish cultural policy. He also suggests that it simultaneously obscured the extent to which Creative Scotland and the organisations it funds are primarily tools of governance by which the Scottish Government seeks to strategically shape the production and dissemination of culture in Scotland. The role of central government is also addressed by Beattie in the first of two commentaries. Like Stevenson, he questions the capacity for Scottish cultural policy to deliver the sort of change envisioned in the consultations mapped by Bonnar. He argues that legislation would be needed but that this will never materialise so long as there remains a nervousness and reluctance amongst public policy-makers to intervene in culture in the ways that might be needed to address the inequities in levels of cultural provision that persist across Scotland.

This special issue of Cultural Trends concludes with a piece from Janet Archer, the new CEO charged with leading the “post-crisis” Creative Scotland. She argues for the value of a 10-year cultural plan and reflects on the power of policy to transform the environment that all those working in the cultural sector operate in, and the importance of shared ownership for real success to be achieved. In summary, the need for fundamental structural changes in the manner which cultural policy is actioned emerges as a theme of this special issue – one that should be prioritised by Scottish cultural policy-makers. Whilst the papers offered here are by no means exhaustive, read together they suggest that whilst the rhetoric of Scottish cultural policy post-devolution might have become increasingly divergent from that found elsewhere in the UK, arguably less progress has been made in operationalising this rhetoric. Little clarity has emerged as to how it might manifest itself in a future Scotland, irrespective of how independent that future Scotland may be.