Remember 'The Curious Case of the Society of Authors and The SBT Code of Conduct?'
Here's what happened next (spoiler - nothing good).
In the above titled post written in November 2022, I detailed the Society of Authors’ seeming approval for the code of conduct imposed on authors by the Scottish Book Trust (SBT) in 2022, and the deep unhappiness and misgivings many of its 600 registered authors had about it (link at bottom of article). The issue was also raised in the speech given at the Society’s AGM in support of the resolution asking the Society to put in place a robust framework to protect free expression.
In response to this, the Society’s chief executive said: On Scottish Book Trust’s Code of Conduct, we don’t draft or approve other organisation’s codes. We were given a last-minute opportunity to comment. We think it is appropriate and inevitable that an organisation that provides funding for authors working with children has a safeguarding code. We checked that it did not overreach.
The following would suggest the process used to check that the SBT’s code ‘did not overreach’ was neither informed nor rigorous enough with regards to the best interests of authors.
As the Society is now intending a series of events to ‘debunk the narrative that SoA no longer stands for freedom of expression,’ the following correspondence proves it needs to do far more to win back the confidence of authors, to stop giving lip service about it and to rigorously combat the climate of censure authors are currently facing.
The distinguished award-winning poet and children’s author Magi Gibson and her husband, the writer and performer Ian Macpherson, are two of the many writers who’ve been working behind the scenes in trying to convince the SBT to rethink its dangerous compulsory code-of-conduct. Magi first wrote to the Society asking for help on the 11thNovember 2022. The Society’s response was less than satisfactory.
Here, in chronological order, is Magi’s email rebuttal, which she sent to the Society in December, details of the Society’s chief executive’s brush-off, and correspondence with the SBT. It’s a long read. The final paragraph shows the necessity of reading it in its entirety.
It's also worth noting that the SBT remains listed as a partner on the Society’s website under its dedicated Society of Authors in Scotland page.
I now hand over to Magi.
From Magi Gibson, writer
12h December 2022
To The Society of Authors,
I have now had time and space to read through the response of the Society of Authors to my email regarding the Scottish Book Trust’s 'updated' Code of Conduct. My response is detailed as I regard anything that affects the freedom of speech and expression of authors to be of the utmost importance to the health of both our democracy and our literature. I trust that the Society of Authors agrees.
In line with Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie, I also believe that authors are currently working within a 'culture of social censure', the likes of which I have not seen in decades of being a writer in the UK. I would argue strongly that the current Scottish Book Trust Code of Conduct contributes unnecessarily to that 'culture of social censure', which is certainly not in the best interests of authors, nor in keeping with the aims of the Society of Authors, and therefore should never have been granted the status of "reviewed by the Society of Authors".
MY EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND WITH SBT
Thank you for your explanation of how SBT operates. I have thirty years experience of being employed through the "Live Literature Register", both in its current incarnation, managed by Scottish Book Trust, and its previous incarnations when it was known as "Writers in Schools Scheme" and "Writers in Public Scheme". As an events organiser I have also since 1992 booked and hosted many authors through these schemes.
As an author and poet I've worked with and appeared at events the length and breadth of Scotland, from Shetland to the Western Isles, from Aberdeen to Peebles. I’ve also worked as a writer in every setting imaginable, from psychiatric units to pre-school, from prisons to libraries, from Women's Aid to Maggi Cancer Centres to refugees to prestigious book and literary festivals, including the Edinburgh Book Festival.
The Scottish Book Trust pays not only half the fees, as you state, but also all travel, accommodation and even subsistence while the author is away from home. This makes the Live Lit register by far the most attractive way for schools, libraries, small festivals etc. An author, particularly one on a low income, eg literary writers and poets, has huge financial and career pressures to be and remain on the Register. The partnership between the authors and the Scottish Book Trust therefore contains a massive imbalance of power; the duty of care not to abuse that power sits on the shoulders of the Scottish Book Trust.
I was one of the first SBT mentees, mentored by AL Kennedy; I later worked as a mentor on their New Writers' Bursary programme, piloted their Writers' Residencies in Schools programme, was one of their first Writing Champions and sat on a specialist panel for their sectarianism project. I know, from a writer's point of view, how the Live Literature register operates and should operate. I have also held one Royal Literary Fund Fellowship, three Scottish Arts Council Fellowships, and been Writer in Residence with the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow and Reader in Residence with Glasgow Women’s Library. In most of these posts, and as a literary event organiser, I also used the Live Literature Scheme to book and pay visiting authors.
MY EXPERIENCE IN EDUCATION
As you refer to issues around safe-guarding of children and vulnerable adults, I can reassure you that as a secondary school teacher who spent years specializing in working with vulnerable children/teens, I fully understand issues around safe-guarding.
THE SBT REQUEST TO THE SoA TO ‘LOOK OVER’ THE CODE OF CONDUCT
Thank you for giving the background to this. I appreciate this transparency and honesty.
In your email you say, ‘We were sent an advance copy of the new version with the following comment and given under a week to respond’ with a message from SBT saying “This has been signed off by our Senior Management Team who want me to make it clear that we are not looking for detailed feedback at this stage, however we do feel it’s important that you have a chance to take a look over this before it goes out. Society of Authors are an important partner for us, we value being able to work together on these issues and I realise this may impact on you if any of your members have questions about it.”
Can I respectfully ask why you did not question the short time frame and propose a longer one?
As a Scottish author who received the initial email re this new Code of Conduct, it seemed to come at a random time of year. Perhaps you could ask the SBT to cast light now as to why they offered such a short time frame? SBT has 600 authors on their Register who will be affected by this Code of Conduct yet they did not see fit to consult with the largest author organisation in the UK in advance of ‘signing off’?
Why were SoA not curious when the SBT sent the Code of Conduct to the main authors' union only once it was already 'signed off'?
SBT claims, ‘The SoA are an important partner for us, we value being able to work together on these issues’ – but surely these are empty words if SoA are neither ‘important’ nor ‘valued’ enough to be
· Approached before it was signed off by senior management
· Given an appropriate and reasonable response time
Yet they do anticipate your members might have issues. That in itself should surely have indicated a need for a deep dive into the detail and how it might affect authors?
Would it not have been better practice for SBT to ask if you could look it over and signal up anything you felt authors might feel was an inappropriate expectation, an unacceptable limitation, an over-authoritarian overreach for those you represent?
That is not asking the SoA to be involved in the writing, but to seek expert feedback/input ensuring authors’ voices are properly represented in a process that for many will impact their earning capacity and/or freedom of speech. Can the SoA please explain why they accepted these terms?
Why did the SoA not at the very least ask SBT for details of how/whether authors had been consulted in advance of being presented with this compulsory Code? If not, why not? Could that be done now?
SBT have stated in response to emails from concerned writers that an “Advisory Panel” had input to the framing of the Code of Conduct. Yet they are refusing to answer requests as to what the make up of that panel was. For example, were there any authors on the advisory panel at all? We simply do not know. This is neither good practice nor an organisation acting with transparency. Could the SoA now ask these questions on behalf of authors?
I find it very troubling that as the UK’s biggest author organisation – the de facto Trade Union for writers – you were presented with a fait accompli Code of Conduct affecting 600 authors in Scotland, given insufficient time to take a good look at it, and in any case, you were informed in advance they did not seek input from you. Under those restrictive conditions why look at it at all?
But look at it you say you did, which has led to the description “reviewed by the Society of Authors” being used by the SBT, more of which later.
COMPULSORY CODE OF CONDUCT WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR AUTHORS
Were you aware at the point of your ‘review’ of the Code of Conduct that authors would be threatened with removal from the Live Literature Register for failure to sign?
Are you aware that Live Literature is essentially the only register of writers in Scotland? It holds a monopoly position, and is the main conduit through which large amounts of government funding for literature is channeled for author visits, workshops, readings, mentorships etc. Surely this fact alone, given the non-negotiable compulsory signing requirement on authors, should give the Society of Authors cause to check it over carefully.
SIMPLY AN UPDATE TO THE 2018 VERSION?
From your email. "We therefore briefly read the Code noting that it was an update of the 2018 version." I do understand, as this is how SBT presented it, as it did to authors too, that you thought this before reading it. It is, however, not quite such a simple update. One major difference is that the previous Code of Conduct was solely for authors – a feature I would have expected SoA to see as highly desirable and to argue strongly in favour of retaining.
It should not need stating, but apparently does, that authors by the very dint of what they do have a specific need for Freedom of Speech and Expression protections in a way that those employed as admin staff, project managers, or those external organisations organizing SBT-funded events eg a school, a library a community group - do not.
The Code of Conduct needed and deserved appraisal through the lens of creative writers (or those whose sole purpose is to guard their interests) and not solely through the lens of running an organisation/charity. It may not be your usual practice to review Codes of Conduct, but as it affects 600 authors and their livelihoods, I’m surprised you did not appreciate how valuable good and thorough SoA oversight from an author’s perspective would be.
This failing to read and compare the two Codes and their accompanying policy documents has led to, rather than the lightest touch possible being used for regulation, a Code where the SBT indulges in a belt and braces lets-cover-everything-and anything-in-detail-that-might-be-inconvenient-for-us approach. This unnecessarily disadvantages writers by being damaging to their freedom of speech and expression.
COMPARATOR YOU PROVIDE
In your email you say that the compulsory SBT Code “is not that different in intent from the Commitment to Professional Behaviour in Publishing and seemed acceptable to us as a statement of intent.”
Can I ask - is this industry Code of Conduct compulsory or is it advisory? An advisory, aspirational Code is very much to be applauded. A compulsory code, which individuals MUST sign, takes us into a different realm.
If compulsory, and publishing professionals refuse to sign it, are they instantly penalised by being removed from the main web platform for sourcing UK publishing professionals with very real financial and career implications? As I have explained, the SBT operates a close-to-monopoly list of authors for a heavily government-subsidised funding stream. Authors removed from the Register will be seriously impacted.
I note that the Society of Authors' Code of Conduct for professionals is much more concise than the SBT Code and avoids both overreach and the negatively-pitched emotive and unstable language employed in the SBT Code of Conduct.
I am very surprised that you can provide this as a comparator and fail to see how reasonable - and light touch – it is compared to the SBT Code. It may, or indeed may not, be “different in intent” from the SBT Code, but when an author signs a contract (in this case the Code) they are legally bound, not by its intent, but by its contents.
In your email to me you quote this from the EDI Policy document of SBT, essentially the small print of the agreement that authors are being asked to sign up to.
• We oppose all forms of bigotry, including (but not limited to) ableism, sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, ageism, classism, xenophobia, language discrimination and intolerance to people of any religion or faith
Whereas the equivalent from the Book Industry Professionals’ Code you provide as comparator states:
We celebrate and actively promote diversity and inclusion in all its forms, including and not limited to the nine protected characteristics cited in The Equality Act 2010: age, disability, gender reassignment (including trans), marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
The SBT wording focuses on negative behaviours, while the other uses positive language.
The SBT Code, advertently or inadvertently, fosters an atmosphere of fear and impending punishment, the Book Industry Code is aspirational and truly positive in intent. One creates a ‘culture of censure’, the other, while setting out standards, does not.
Moreover, the Book Industry Code does not indulge in unnecessary overreach. An organisation that needs a healthy literature scene to prosper, and one that cared for the personal, professional and creative wellbeing of the authors would resist such a negative framing of their code. Authors should not have to be hapless victims in this scenario, which is why intervention from the Society of Authors is now urgently required.
Before we leave the Book Industry Professionals’ Code as comparator, I note that at the very start, before anything else, it states:
We in the books industry support creative expression and freedom of speech. However, our creative realm is also a professional one and we expect high standards of behaviour from everyone we encounter in the course of our work, including colleagues and customers.
We will protect the passion, imagination and creativity of everyone in the books industry. We will celebrate and promote diversity and inclusion so that all voices can be heard.
The 2018 SBT Code of Conduct did indeed state:
But the 2022 version drops this down to the only commitment to writers being “to develop our country’s writing talent”. The commitment that SBT champions the rights of authors and advocates for the value of their work has been dropped.
No commitment is made to protecting “the passion, imagination and creativity” of authors as the Book Industry Code does for its professionals. This slide by SBT towards downgrading the importance of authors and their creativity that is at the heart of ‘the value of their work’ is a very worrying development.
As Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie said just last week,
“No human endeavour requires freedom as much as creativity does. To create, one needs a kind of formless roving of the mind, to go nowhere and anywhere and everywhere. It is from that swell that art emerges.”
NO STATEMENT ON FREE SPEECH FROM SBT?
Many universities where they have introduced Codes of Conduct for academics have balanced their Code with a Statement on Free Speech. This is surely a reasonable request that the SoA could have made of the SBT CoC when reviewing it? It seems a serious omission. Perhaps you should do this now?
SCOTLAND’S HATE CRIME LAW
Scotland has a new Hate Crime Law coming into effect shortly – authors, playwrights and other creatives expressed genuine concern during the passing of the Bill over effects it might have on their freedom of speech and artistic expression.
So this SBT Code of Conduct, not designed for Authors, and without any safeguards for the author’s right to free speech contributes further to this oppressive Culture of Censure.
TERMS USED IN THE CODE
At the foot of the Publishers' Code of Conduct they provide helpful definitions of terms used in the Code. Clear definitions are missing from the SBT Code. For example:
Harassment is defined by the Crown Prosecution Service as ‘unwanted conduct ... which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual’.
Bullying is defined by ACAS as ‘offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient’.
Discrimination is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex’.
It is concerning that the extended list of –phobias and -isms in the SBT EDI Policy goes well beyond the scope of the Equality Act 2010 (erroneously called the Equalities Act 2010 in the SBT EDI document).
This extension seems, on the surface, to be inclusive. Yet one of the biggest issues in the UK today, misogyny, is omitted. Misogyny is not the same as sexism. In meaning and effect on both individual women targeted and women as a group, it is much closer to homophobia and transphobia. I am also surprised that there is no acknowledgement of Travelling People as an underrepresented demographic in the world of writing/publishing.
Now, to be clear, I am not suggesting that such a list of –isms and –phobias should be extended. What I am doing is both highlighting the pitfalls of creating such a list and illustrating how this use of negative language feeds the Climate of Censure and Fear of Wrongspeak facing authors.
The fear emanates from the unstable nature of terms like “bigot” and “transphobic” both of which are now in everyday use, not only on social media, but mainstream media too. (I can provide examples if you’d like). Both these terms are bandied about so much, indeed weaponised so constantly, that I would argue they have lost stable meaning. For example, speaking up in favour of single sex spaces will find the speaker labeled as both “bigot” and “transphobe”. (See responses on Social Media and in comments on mainstream media to articles about author JK Rowling opening a female only women’s centre). As will a refusal to repeat the mantra “Trans women are women”, a refusal protected under law as a legitimate belief. How does the author know whether or not holding these views, never mind saying them out loud, will not be breaking the SBT Code in terms of bigotry and transphobia? Clear definitions – and not circular ones – are urgently required.
In my original email to SBT in October 2022 to raise my concerns, I explained it like this:
The SBT Code of Conduct states you will not tolerate 'bigotry' and 'transphobia', and certainly in the mode in which these terms were used many years ago I would have agreed. But this is not many years ago, and you are using these terms as if there is still a safe, neutral application. Yet both these terms are weaponised day in, day out, not to achieve fairness and equality, but simply to damage someone - usually a woman - who has legitimate beliefs which are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Today, Sunday 9th November, this very issue - accusations of 'bigot' and 'transphobe' against women who speak up for women's rights - is covered in no less than four national publications, The Observer, The Times, Holyrood Magazine, and in the Mail a piece from Dame Jenni Murray.
I am deeply concerned that The SBT Code of Conduct as it currently stands discriminates against those writers, especially women, lesbians and gay men, who do not believe in gender identity theory.
Moreover, there is much in this Code of Conduct which I believe will have unintended and highly undesirable negative effects on how authors and poets in Scotland write and speak in public. How am I to know where yourpermitted line on my free expression lies? Is that to be assessed by those who feel I've caused them harm? How would JK Rowling, who is accused day in, day out of bigotry and transphobia fare under this Code of Conduct? Would she be able to sign it in good conscience? How would Sir Salman Rushdie be viewed through the lens of this Code? Think about it - plenty of people feel he's caused harm with his writing.
If this is not a Code of Conduct which the Scottish Book Trust could reasonably expect Rushdie and Rowling to sign, then why are SBT asking less high profile and less wealthy writers to sign under threat of removal from the Live Literature Register?
Writers, in order to fulfill their role, should be contrary, contradictory and able to let their imaginations roam to explore not only the light and the joy of being human, but also the shadows and dark sides.
Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie expressed it thus:
“Literature deeply matters and I believe literature is in peril because of social censure. If nothing changes, the next generation will read us and wonder, how did they manage to stop being human? How were they so lacking in contradiction and complexity? How did they banish all their shadows?”
and
“There are writers like Rushdie who want to write novels about sensitive subjects, but are held back by the specter of social censure. Publishers are wary of committing secular blasphemy. Literature is increasingly viewed through ideological rather than artistic lenses. Nothing demonstrates this better than the recent phenomenon of “sensitivity readers” in the world of publishing, people whose job it is to cleanse unpublished manuscripts of potentially offensive words.”
SBT CITING ‘REVIEWED BY SOA’ IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH AUTHORS – AND THE EFFECT OF THAT
Are you aware that SBT has been using the term “reviewed by SoA” in responses to authors unhappy with the Code? I would argue that a reasonable reading is that this is intended as reassurance that the Code has already been checked over and approved by the SoA BEFORE it was ‘signed off’. It is reasonable to conclude that “reviewed by he SoA” is intended as a stamp of approval and to halt the author from objecting further.
By admitting in your email that you had neither the time, nor grasped the need, to rigorously look into the SBT Code of Conduct you have cheapened the stamp of approval of the SoA, and damaged the trust that authors can put in you to represent them and argue authoritatively in their best interests.
COMPULSORY CODE OF CONDUCT AND “IN A STATUTORY SENSE”.
Marc Lambert CEO of SBT first responded to authors expressing concerns with an implication that having a compulsory Code of Conduct was a requirement “in a statutory sense” on the SBT. As there seems to be no statutory requirement on SBT or any charity to have a compulsory Code of Conduct, I can only see this as another manipulation. The statutory requirement would be for good governance and reasonable steps to ensure that. This sleight of language is not only disappointing, it betrays a lack of respect for authors.
I would remind you that the Industry Code of Conduct accepted by the SoA states
“We will recognise our influence and make a commitment to work together to prevent abuse of power…” and
“We will ensure that everyone in our industry is treated with dignity and respect so that individuals are supported and able to speak.”
In keeping with these commitments I trust that the Society of Authors will take this behaviour by the SBT CEO seriously?
SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN ARGUMENT
You say in your email, and the SBT too have argued, that the Code of Conduct is necessary for safeguarding purposes. As SBT themselves state authors under no circumstances should be left alone in a school or library etc with a group of children. The writer is not trained for, nor should they be expected to deal with, behaviour issues which may well arise. That is the job and responsibility of the teacher/professional/organisation in charge.
It is unsatisfactory that SBT are using this child/vulnerable adult angle to convince authors they need to sign, when in terms of best practice, authors on the Register who wish to work with children/teens or vulnerable adults should be required by SBT to have current Disclosure Scotland clearance.
It makes little sense as an argument to insist that all authors are compelled to sign a Code of Conduct because there are authors who wish to work with children/vulnerable adults but who do not want to obtain Disclosure Scotland approval.
MORALITY CLAUSE –v– COMPULSORY CODE OF CONDUCT
Morality Clauses with publishers - which the Society of Authors strongly advises authors to resist and not sign - and this restrictive Code of Conduct, with financial and professional penalties from the SBT – could you please explain the difference?
Your position on Morality Clauses and what authors should do is on record and unequivocal:
How can SoA have no issues with one and profess to oppose the other? In both cases refusal to sign leads to professional losses and negative impacts on the author.
Will SoA please give a comprehensive response to this question.
I note that in the case of Publishers’ Morality Clauses the SoA does not advise the author to sign first, on the reassurance that the Society of Authors will only become involved if and when a problem arises. Which you say is how you will deal with the SBT Code of Conduct.
SBT COMPULSORY CODE OF CONDUCT REACH INTO PRIVATE LIFE
I am deeply troubled by what appears to be a very contradictory statement in your email to me when you say,
“We are always concerned about overreach so considered the ambit of the Code. We were reassured by this statement which made it clear to us that SBT did not attempt to police behaviour outside SBT activities.
An affiliate’s conduct outside the ambit of Scottish Book Trust programme activities is normally a matter for the individual. Scottish Book Trust is not an adjudicatory body for such matters. However, when presented with clear and unambiguous evidence of serious public misconduct, we reserve the right to address that misconduct, even if not committed on Scottish Book Trust time,”
Please enlighten me. Surely this states explicitly “we reserve the right to address that misconduct, even if not committed on Scottish Book Trust time”? And that is indeed absolutely and unequivocally an “attempt to police behaviour outside SBT activities”.
To illustrate the difficulties with this reach into the private time of the author, one might look at some recent events in Scotland where individuals exercised the right to freely express political views, and wonder how a writer is to know when the SBT lines of acceptable behaviour have been crossed. Would any of these be enough to trigger serious public misconduct?
A young woman in Edinburgh holds up a blank piece of paper during the Queen’s lying in state in St Giles. The girl was followed by two policemen and harassed. Many people were offended by any kind of anti-monarchy protests.
Feminist Mary Gordon wrote feminist slogans in chalk on the small wall outside the Scottish Parliament. She was visited by two policemen.
Would attending a demo for Palestine (and possibly getting arrested) trigger an accusation of anti-semitism?
An experienced woman’s sector worker interrupted the speech of the First Minister to make political points on women’s rights. One view is that her actions and words were transphobic. Had she been an author on the Live Literature Register, would she be investigated for bringing the SBT into disrepute?
In these febrile times one person’s idea of “serious misconduct” may not be another’s. It would be foolish to deny that this uncertainty as to where the limits lie does not affect the freedom of speech and creative exploration of authors. And if the misconduct is really serious surely it should not be for the Scottish Book Trust to pursue and arbitrate, but a police and court matter.
You follow this up with this reference to part of an email where SBT CEO Mark Lambert – who, I remind you, has already manipulated authors to minimise objections.
“We understood the meaning of this in the way described by the Director, Marc Lambert in his letter of 31 August 2022:
As for serious public misconduct – it would need to be exactly that. Over the past period, only one writer has been removed from the directory, and that was for repeatedly and publicly expressing despicable ethno-nationalist views. In all other disputes referred to us no action has been taken, since the evidence provided merely demonstrated a private clash of views, and we are sensible enough to know this has nothing to do with us.”
Given that this over-reach into the private lives of authors is contained within the Code itself, from a legal perspective can the SoA please state if they would normally advise an author to sign an Agreement such as the Code of Practice on the basis of a current CEO giving reassurance not in the Code of Conduct, but in an email sent only to authors who’ve expressed concern? Here we are right back in Culture of Censure territory.
Again I note that you feel it is adequate that the Society of Authors offers to deal with issues around the SBT CoC as they arise. I also note that you uncritically accept the parameters as laid out by the Scottish Book Trust.
To be clear, I do not object to a Code of Conduct per se for writers working with the public. I have not had a successful 35+ year career of work-shopping and reading events in Scotland with many of our most marginalised people by not adhering to highly respectful and responsible behaviour.
The specific issues with this SBT Code of Conduct are
· its compulsory nature
· its serious and punitive penalty on authors for not signing
· its overreach into private life
· its negative language – use, for example, of ‘bigoted’ is particularly unhelpful as it is a word currently over-used and its meaning is, as a result, unstable. The lists of –phobias and –isms, all feed the damaging “Culture of Censure”. Use of ‘discriminatory’ without a proper definition
· its failure to make a statement on upholding Freedom of Speech for authors
· its lack of positive aspiration
· its over-authoritarian tone to writers in the initial email
· it feeds the “culture of censure” which is dangerous to both authors and the health of literature
As Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie says in her Reith Lecture on Freedom of Speech,
“There is something honest about an authoritarianism that recognises itself to be what it is. Such a system is easier to challenge because the battle lines are clear. But this new social censure demands consensus while being wilfully blind to its own tyranny. I think it portends the death of curiosity, the death of learning and the death of creativity.”
It is hugely disappointing that in your duty to protect and uphold the rights of authors you are opting for a reactive position when you had the opportunity to take a proactive position when first approached by Scottish Book Trust. This means that authors who refuse for principled reasons to be coerced into signing this current SBT Code, and any author who ends up being investigated, will be collateral damage before the SoA gets its boots on and engages meaningfully on behalf of authors with the SBT.
I would urge you to be proactive now on behalf of authors in Scotland. To consider seriously the many issues with both this Code of Conduct itself, and with how it is being implemented by the Scottish Book Trust, who themselves state in their EDI Policy that they have a “position of power within the industry”.
There is an abuse of power happening here, even though I want to believe that this is not what the Scottish Book Trust intended. And if it wasn’t, they would surely have addressed these issues raised by concerned authors when they became clear.
I urge those who care about a healthy creative environment for all authors – and for literature – to act now.
Yours sincerely,
Magi Gibson
What happened next:
On 14th December I received a reply from Nicola Solomon, Chief Executive of the Society of Authors stating she had read my letter with interest. She acknowledged I had made a lot of important points and said she would consider them with care and respond. She also said that she was “sorry to hear that SBT is suggesting that the SoA “reviewed” the agreement as a suggestion that we approved or endorsed it in some way” and said that she would write to them about that, and would get back to me in the new year. All of which I found heartening. Unfortunately Miss Solomon subsequently emailed to say that as I was not currently a member of the Society of Authors she would not be responding to me after all. Which I found hugely disappointing from an organisation one would hope cares deeply about the freedom of speech and artistic expression of authors. She did suggest that I correspond with the Scottish Book Trust direct, which, of course, it is obvious from my letter above I have already done, and she also said, “We have asked the SBT to confirm that they will not suggest that we approved or reviewed the Code. We have also offered to send them our members’ concerns on the Code and are meeting them to discuss our concerns.”
My correspondence with Marc Lambert CEO of Scottish Book Trust, prior to contacting the Society of Authors had been unsatisfactory, most especially so for an organisation priding themselves in transparency, accountability and good governance. When I emailed him for the second time, after he totally failed to address my concerns and to respond to specific questions I’d asked about the compulsory Code of Conduct, I received this abrupt reply:
This was after ONE previous query. It was clear that there was no meaningful discussion to be had with Marc Lambert. I have not followed up with the Chair of the Board, though
my husband, the comic novelist, Ian Macpherson did contact Andy Marchant. (Ian and I were both troubled to note that no contact details were given for direct and private communication with Mr Marchant.)
Mr Marchant’s response was as follows with my notes in bold italics:
Ian Macpherson macpherson.mail@gmail.com
8th December 2022
Dear Ian
Thank you for getting in touch. I have now been able to review your correspondence, and to make the necessary enquiries.
Code of Conduct
I have reviewed the guidance for independent charities issued by the relevant regulatory and funding bodies. The guidance I have looked at includes:
Ethical Standards in Public Life (Scotland) Act 2000; Equality Act 2010; Scottish Governance Code for the Third Sector (2018); The Charity Commission; OSCR; Creative Scotland, and in addition, the Scottish Government’s Guidance for charities and Trustees on safeguarding and protecting people.
This review has confirmed the operational necessity for Scottish Book Trust to have a code of conduct This is not in dispute, it is 1. The content/impact of his particular code that is being questioned as being of detriment to the free speech of writers, and 2. That it is compulsory rather than advisory and aspirational. Though if point1 were addressed point 2 would be less contentious and the duty it has to devise and operate one appropriate to its activities. Which suggests that a Code specific to authors would be an excellent idea. It also confirms that it is the duty of both the Board and staff at Scottish Book Trust to make sure that all the activities the charity engages in and facilitates across Scotland are covered by said code.
Our code of conduct was, as is appropriate, approved by our Chief Executive, and has been reviewed by our Board of Trustees. That, in my view, is a full and sufficient response regarding responsibility for the code. I would argue that when you are dealing with authors consultation with at least a cross-section of authors would ensure their concerns and interests are also heard before finalisation of a Code that affects them so much.
I understand you may be concerned about how our code relates to freedom of speech. It is perhaps worth reiterating what our Chief Executive has said on the matter. Our code is not in place to create limitations for authors. There may well be a gap between intention and effect. It is in place to set out our expected standards, focused on professionalism, respect and appropriate behaviour, by individuals while they are working with and delivering events for our affiliated programmes. 1. This can equally be done as it is in many other charities with an aspirational and advisory code to set standards. 2. The code mentions behaviour/conduct OUTSIDE of SBT events too. As Chair of the Board of Trustees, I can furthermore confirm what our Chief Executive has publicly stated, that Scottish Book Trust have no interest at all in policing authors. I’m sorry, but every organisation/government who polices authors no doubt says this or similar. The chilling effect is the same regardless of such statements.
Yours sincerely,
Andy Marchant
In response to Mr Marchant and SBT claiming “Our code is not in place to create limitations for authors. It is in place to set out our expected standards, focused on professionalism, respect and appropriate behaviour, by individuals while they are working with and delivering events for our affiliated programmes.” I would refer back to my letter to the Society of Authors. It is beyond disappointing that both the Scottish Book Trust and the Society of Authors fail to understand or acknowledge the current conditions that writers of principle are operating under, and that no matter how good their intention, there may be a dangerous gap between it and the end result for writers, especially poets and writers of literature who need to be free to voice difficult and unpopular truths.
As the Scottish Book Trust seems unwilling to listen to myself or my husband or the many other Scottish writers who may have signed the Code of Practice but have done so with reservations, I offer them once again the words of Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie:
“Literature deeply matters and I believe literature is in peril because of social censure. If nothing changes, the next generation will read us and wonder, how did they manage to stop being human? How were they so lacking in contradiction and complexity? How did they banish all their shadows?”
Final Note
My husband, Ian Macpherson and I were both struck off the Live Literature Database early in 2023, after a combined total of over 50 years of being registered. We were not formally informed by Scottish Book Trust that this had been executed.
Remember 'The Curious Case of the Society of Authors and The SBT Code of Conduct?'
Thanks. This was enlightening for me about this entire issue - one which I have followed loosely for about half a year or more
My reaction to it is this:
1. The Gibson/Macpherson statements seem well-founded. Shame on the SBT and the SoA.
2. The root of the issue is that this is a "union" whose source of funds is mainly provided by government. I assume that some revenues to these organizations ("charities" they seem to be referred to as) arrive from publishers' proceeds, but, for these purposes that is irrelevant I think.
When one depends on the largess of government, you are serfs asking for crumbs from the Lord of the estate. That is never a good place to be. For the life of me I cannot 'understand why a breakaway is not in order. In the age of the internet, publishing has many avenues to compete with monopolies.
Maybe a clean break is not deemed possible and maybe the distribution of books to schools and the like is also tightly controlled such that they won't go against the SBT and SoA.
Which suggests that your best approach is likely to be a move in Parliament. There is a structure that may be longstanding, but you are at its mercy unless you break it.
Just my thoughts. I'm probably ignorant to a lot of history, to say nothing of culture in the UK. Still ...