Sir, I can’t for the life of me understand the outpouring of anger and human emotion because a theatre is closing down in St Andrews.
I’m afraid it’s no different from my part of the Kingdom where businesses close down weekly and jobs are lost.
The Byre Theatre has been subsidised for years between council funding and Lottery grants (big sums of money I may add).
The questions to be asked is: was it due to mismanagement, or failing to put bums on seats?
If the latter, all I would say is I am a regular patron of the Rothes Halls and the Adam Smith Centre where they put on excellent entertainment for all ages.
Maybe they should have looked west for some guidance to see what the paying public want.
All you ever saw in the Byre Theatre on a regular basis was “arty farty” produce.
They should have been a bit more considerate towards the weekend spenders who are the 18 to 30-year-olds, looking for good live music.
If there was a live band at the Rothes Halls and a recital of William Shakespeare at the Byre Theatre, I know which would be the busiest.
But, there again, that’s only my opinion but true.
Thomas Bryce. 126 Kirke Park, Methilhill, Leven.
Arts should be self-financing
Sir, Why should the so-called arts be subsidised? If people wanted them they would be self-financing. Why should a minority of opera lovers, etc, expect the rest of us to pay for their entertainment?
If a theatre is empty the management is not producing what the public want. Bums on seats pay for the running of the theatre, subsidising empty theatres by putting on shows that no one but a minority want to see is economic suicide.
Four hundred years ago Shakespeare was entertainment for the London masses but these days how many people go to a Shakespeare play just to be seen and not really to see the play?
John George Phimister. 63 St Clair Street, Kirkcaldy.
University could help theatre
Sir, Recent articles in the press on the shock closure of the Byre Theatre in St Andrews ignored a significant factor both in the closure of this cultural asset and in its possible resurgence.
The University of St Andrews seems to have taken very little interest in the development and the success of the main cultural asset of the town. Apart from a puny contribution at the time of the major refurbishment of the theatre, I am not aware of any involvement at a senior management level with the Byre Theatre.
Various members of the university, of course, have contributed to the Byre Theatre, but in a personal capacity. If the university interpreted its mission statement more in line with its 600-year history and in a less strictly commercial way, I am sure it could find ways and means to help resurrect the Byre Theatre.
A very simple solution would be a mere re-allocation of the subsidy that the university currently provides to the Church of Scotland by funding fully its Chaplaincy (no such subsidy is extended to any other church or religious group). For the last three years the university has funded this Church of Scotland venture to the tune of £407,405.11.
Would it be too much to ask the university to put the Church of Scotland on par with other religions, remove this outrageous subsidy, and use some of it to enrich the cultural life of all its students and staff as well as of the whole population of St Andrews by saving the Byre Theatre?
Surely such an enlightened policy would contribute to the celebration of its 600th anniversary at least as much as its recent ventures into the purchase of paper mills and the development of wind farms.
Dr Manfredi La Manna. Reader in Economics, University of St Andrews.
Laughing all way to booths
Sir, The Scottish and proposed Irish windfarms must have the Westminster Conservative government laughing all the way to the election booths, for there are no Tory votes in Ireland and few in Scotland.
Despite the blizzard of pro-renewable statistics from our energy ministers, all Scottish renewables together produce little over 4% of the UK’s total electricity demand. To meet the EU’s proposed renewables quota we need many times our existing number of onshore wind- farms; offshore being simply too expensive.
The Scottish Government is evidently willing to sacrifice the Scottish landscape to wind power and keep the growing English anti-wind lobby happy. Futhermore, some southern owners of Scottish shooting estates will even benefit from the subsidies.
Stephen Grieve. 60 Nethergate, Crail.
A “must see”
Sir, Congratulations for the clever juxtaposition of Dudley Treffry’s delightful article about Bob Servant and George K McMillan’s scornful view of the programme (January 28).
I knew nothing about Bob Servant until I read Mr McMillan’s letter and I have to say that it made me want to view it. Once I digested Dudley Treffry’s excellent piece of writing my mind was made up. I must give it a go.
My thanks to Mr McMillan for the information that the show is screened on BBC4 on Wednesdays.
Magnus Wylie. 14 Gannochy Walk, Perth.
Will be involved
Sir The announcement that a “few hundred” British troops are to be deployed to Mali on the understanding “they will not be involved” in operations, requires, in my opinion, closer inspection. This is not how the insurgents will see it. If British troops are attacked they will be obliged to defend themselves; ie – become involved.
A T Geddie. 68 Carleton Avenue, Glenrothes.