Following on from Tim Cornwell's piece in the Scotsman last week, several Historic Scotland insiders have taken to the pages of the paper to present diametrically opposed opinions on the organisation and its role.
First up, Raymond Young, visiting professor to the Department of Architecture at the University of Strathclyde and a non-executive director of Historic Scotland since March 2007. He argues that the organisation has changed for the better since he joined the board:
The 2007 agency was a series of silos with no sense of being a corporate body or of political reality. It was dominated by a few individuals who saw the agency in terms of a personal fiefdom, rather than as a corporate public body. And it was not even doing critical parts of its job well – for example the maintenance of the properties in its care, since the conservation group – both the professionals and the site staff – were ignored.
He is also steadfast in his support of Historic Scotland chief executive Ruth Parsons:
I have worked alongside the chief executive, Ruth Parsons, for about three years. I find her management style supportive and engaging and she is very well regarded in the sector. She has the support of many current and former employees and the criticisms of her are not only very unfair but also an attack on the approach developed by the agency, with the support of the board, to identify a strategic and affordable approach to the conservation of our built heritage.
Young is robustly answered by Gordon Barclay (his book Farmers, Temples and Tombs (Making of Scotland) is rather good), who was head of policy for Historic Scotland between 2006-2009:
In the past, a balance in decision-making was maintained between HS being an integral part of Scottish Government (and therefore under direct ministerial control), and the professional staff’s conservation advice... Now, it seems the departure of many senior professional staff can only have reduced the experience and knowledge necessary to argue what at times can be difficult and complex cases.
The serious point he raises, and the one that has been mentioned in this blog (here and here), is that the politicisation of heritage is a very bad idea and until it regains independent and informed external scrutiny Historic Scotland can neither be credible nor be fit for purpose. Barclay writes:
While the old balance between political decision-making and professional advice held, Historic Scotland’s status as an executive agency was acceptable.
But what is the use of a conservation system that can routinely be overturned by the application of political influence?
Comments