Peering into the smoke and mirrors that surrounded the rebirth of our parliament
JOHN Hume (Letters, March 8) tries his best to big-up the Scottish Parliament building with the usual tropes about “truths and untruths being published (and since recycled) to create a mythic fantasy”. There was, indeed, a mythic fantasy doing the rounds, but it was being peddled desperately by the project’s apologists. John Grindrod’s description of the building as a “Grand Designs nightmare” I would suggest is entirely accurate.
Mr Hume claims that “Donald Dewar’s aspiration was to create a building of such presence and status that it would embody the vision of an inclusive parliament, worthy of all of Scotland”. This rather overlooks the fact that (a) the majority of people in Scotland didn’t want it, and (b) Mr Dewar could not, constitutionally, operate alone. This was a collegiate decision which, under the doctrine of collective responsibility, was taken at Westminster by the UK Cabinet, making a mockery of the principle of devolution. The architect was chosen and the founding contracts let before the Holyrood parliament existed.
He also berates Mr Grindrod for “making much of escalating costs” as though such a matter is scarcely relevant. Square metre for square metre, this turned out to be one of the world’s most expensive buildings at that time, and despite being foisted on Scotland by Westminster, it became a charge on the Scottish assigned budget to the severe detriment of areas such as health and education. By way of a “non-mythic” comparison, Portcullis House, the MP’S office block at Westminster, cost £4,700 per square metre, and was paid for by all UK taxpayers. Holyrood, whose cost was met by Scottish taxpayers, came in at £6,686 per square metre.
As for Enric Miralles having a say in the choice of site, his own preference, by a long way, was for the the then-vacant western flank of Calton Hill, but that matter was not within his remit. I happen to know this because I had a long conversation with him on the subject some months before his tragic death.
There is much more to this tale of smoke and mirrors concerning such matters as the letting of the original contract, not to mention the role of the BBC in commissioning a slanted documentary from the production company of a member of the designer selection panel, Kirsty Wark, and the vaudevillian farrago known as the Fraser Inquiry, which concluded in the usual way that no-one was to blame for anything.
David J Black (author, All the First Minister’s Men: The Truth Behind Holyrood), Edinburgh.
REGARDING the discussion on the design of the Scottish Parliament building, I was reminded of a conversation in Sicily many years ago.
Patiently waiting for the Monreal Cathedral in Palermo to open after the usual extended midday break, so we could view the magnificent golden mosaics, we whiled away the time by sharing a bench and chatting to two young Spanish men. It turned out that they were architectural students from Barcelona.
I mentioned that a Spanish architect had just won the design competition for Holyrood. “Ah, Miralles, smiled one. He is not an architect. He is a dreamer.” Isobel Mcewan, Skelmorlie.