When all is said and done

Granted, Douglas Dunn's Faber Book of Twentieth Century Scottish

Poetry, source of a recent tiny earthquake, is no ordinary book.

Equally, our literary tribe specialises in small wars and large huffs

over matters arcane or childish (sometimes both). They can be relied

upon to find something to fight about.

Still, the reaction to Mr Dunn's inclusions and omissions seem to

suggest that there's life left in literature. For reasons good or ill,

people still seem to care. In the week of MacDiarmid's centenary that

should be accounted a hopeful sign.

I'm not so sure. Any anthology is, implicitly or explicitly, an

argument. The choice of poems or poets is as much of a statement of

values as any polemic. In that respect, Douglas Dunn's book is a subtle

instrument, sly as any scalpel.

Maurice Lindsay, for example, not so long ago produced his own

anthology (Modern Scottish Poetry -- An Anthology of the Scottish

Renaissance, 1925-1985) which included, among others, Douglas Dunn. Mr

Dunn, for his part, has chosen to exclude Mr Lindsay (and himself) from

the Faber book, prompting his fellow anthologist to mutter about

politics.

Others have made similar remarks. Alasdair Maclean (absent from the

Lindsay volume but present in the Faber) proclaims his disgust at Dunn's

''nationalism'' and instructs his agent to withhold his poems from

future editions. Ian Hamilton Finlay (excluded) sheds bitter tears on

behalf of others left out.

This is foolishness beyond belief. Dunn's volume is no political

tract. To believe that any book seeking to capture the essence of

Scotland's contribution to twentieth-century poetry -- and one with Hugh

MacDiarmid and Sorley MacLean at its heart -- could somehow avoid the

issue of nationhood is to evade reality.

All of this suggests that Mr Dunn may have been overgenerous in his

preface to his new volume when he wrote that ''Hectoring issues . . .

now appear to have been settled''. He meant the so-called ''language

question'' but he might as well have been talking about a literary

culture that remains, on the evidence of this ridiculous row, small,

small-minded and childishly insecure.

Still, Mr Dunn might have included just a couple of poems by George

Bruce in his book.

* THE Scottish Arts Council's annual survey of business sponsorship of

the arts always makes for fascinating reading. Year by the year the

principles on which the SAC was founded are ground down by ''economic

reality''.

On this occasion we discover (I quote the press release) that ''Arts

organisations in Scotland benefited from Government policies last year

in an important new way. The leading privatised public utility companies

are now the leading sponsors of the arts in Scotland . . .''

Such language should qualify the SAC for one of its own literature

awards. Not only does it seek to obscure the fact that total sponsorship

is actually declining in real terms but it also glorifies the tawdry

efforts by the unloved privatised companies to make themselves

acceptable.

The truth is that the arts have been rendered dependent on business.

Commerce, in turn, is now feeling the pinch. Thus the 30% decline in

funding from brewers and distillers, for example. When the going gets

tough, the arts get the elbow.

It is also worth noting that the sudden enthusiasm shown by privatised

firms for the arts has an interesting history. True, they gave #365,553

in 1991/92 compared with #194,693 in 1990/91. But in 1988/89 those same

firms contributed #304,074. This way for the swings and roundabouts . .

.

* PERHAPS the SAC can look forward to donations in years to come from

Rupert Murdoch's satellite station, BSkyB, that well-known patron of

high culture. Such is the tycoon's affection for Scotland, after all,

that he is promising 200 new jobs for Livingston.

This news has been greeted with delight in West Lothian. Locate in

Scotland has been ''assisting'' BSkyB with its plans and everything in

the garden is Technicolor.

No-one seems to have asked why Murdoch needs all these new workers.

But having bought up the rights to English football he plainly requires

platoons of workers to encourage people to pay through the nose for a

sport they once watched for free.

* THIS column has mentioned Edinburgh's traffic problems on more than

one occasion in the past. Suggested solutions have ranged from the loopy

to the inevitable.

A pilot ''tow-away'' scheme introduced last year by Lothian and

Borders Police was, for example, hard but fair. You didn't have to like

it but you could just about see the point, even after forking out #95 to

reclaim your car.

Now one hears that the scheme has proven to be highly profitable. The

police want to put it out to tender and rival bus companies are itching

to take over the contract..

Call me cynical, but all of this seems to have less to do with traffic

management than with yet another attempt to milk motorists.

Once again public services are being debased and distorted in an

effort to turn a profit. Once again, it is being done ''in the public

interest'' whether the public wants it or not. Just wait until they

start on water.