THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG

I hate to admit it, but I'm a sucker for those TV property makeover shows. You name it, I'll watch it because their appeal hinges on impending disaster. In fact, it's just like the house down the road from where I live where the builders are renovating. They've been at it now for over eighteen months, which beggars belief considering they had a house to start with.

Which got me thinking...

It's as good an analogy as it gets for Scottish Screen's doomed Fast Forward scheme. While fed-up Scottish filmmakers light a fire under the funeral pyre of the agency and while 'industry insiders' (usually code for SS feeding a line to the Scotsman) accuse those same filmmakers of squandering lottery funds on duds, what everyone seems to have forgotten is the total incompetence and bad juju surrounding Fast Forward. My point being - Scottish Screen and their partners, BBC and ContentFilm - unlike many a remortgaged producer - had a house to start with.

For months I've been keeping an eye on the FF scheme. The aim - to commission three feature films each co-funded to the tune of £1.2 million. In a blaze of expensive PR, Fast Forward was hailed as a great opportunity for emerging talent when announced in May 2004 at the Cannes Film Festival. Not surprisingly, local filmmakers got all excited - and why not? To not have to raise money for a film is like finding the proverbial suitcase full of used notes and reads like the plot of any Danny Boyle film you care to mention, eg. Shallow Grave/Trainspotting/Millions.

The original press release - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfilms/press/fastforwardrelease.shtml did raise hope among filmmakers, many of them friends of mine who applied in vain. Now, over two years down the line they - and I - would like to know what became of it all.

They had the moolah, but who was really providing? Not Content, according to a press release in May 26th 2004.

"Content International will handle international sales and UK distribution for a slate of three new feature films emerging from a low-budget production initiative backed by BBC and Scottish Screen. Fast Forward Features, to which ContentFilm has no upfront financial exposure, is focused on developing new Scottish talent. It aims to fully fund three low-budget features with a target budget of up to £1.2 million per film".

Of course Content wouldn't be exposed - because it was never going to happen. Those in the know may recall Content pulling a similar stunt in Ireland in 2002 by announcing a slate of 12 pictures in association with Rapid Films. Nothing came of that either. Meanwhile this left SS and BBC to fund the three pictures between them - a big bite out of a meagre Lottery pot.

The cast list of this sorry drama, long on names but short on credibility, reads as follows -

Frank McAveety - ex Scottish Culture Minister
Steve McIntyre - ex CEO, Scottish Screen
Alyson Hagan - ex stand-in CEO, Scottish Screen
Ray MacFarlane - current chair of Scottish Screen's board
Claire Chapman - ex Head of 'Talent and Creativity'
Carole Sheridan - ex Development, now Head of 'Talent and Creativity'
Barbara McKissick - ex Head of Drama, BBC Scotland, member of SS board
Nadine Marsh-Edwards - ex BBC drama producer
Laurence Gornall - ex ContentFilm, ex member of SS Lottery panel
Celia Stevenson - Head of Communications and 'Inward Investment'
Ken Hay - current CEO of Scottish Screen
David Thompson - Head of BBC Films
MacDonald and Rutter - PR company hired to launch FF
Portland - ContentFilm's PR company - ditto

Here, anybody might suppose, was a dream team - including a public body, a broadcaster, a sales and distribution company and the best PR money could buy. If anyone could make a film happen, surely they were the key enablers. So when did it all go wrong? Well, as recently as October last year, in a report to the DCMS, Scottish Screen was still claiming Fast Forward as a go-ahead project in a case study - 17 months after its initial launch and with Ken Hay already six months into the job as SS boss.

Which is strange, because by October last year Content had pulled the plug and the key players at the BBC had quit their jobs, leaving the project in limbo. Presumably this left only SS holding the baby, but with the climate at West George Street turning chilly against the very idea of film, it grew increasingly unlikely that the scheme would go ahead. There was also the vexing question of the films themselves - the shortlisted scripts had been chosen but to date - 26 months later - no overall winner has been selected, no doubt to the frustration of the hopeful filmmakers, especially the writers, for many of whom FF was their first foray into features and who knows, maybe their last.

Are there lessons to be learned? Yes, definitely. But who am I to dare offer an opinion to the collective expertise listed above? You'd think the troubles faced by the parties involved might have provided a wee bit more insight into the same problems faced by filmmakers at the bottom of the food chain. And though I'm sure the intention behind FF was admirable, maybe before embarking on the scheme SS should have consulted local filmmakers who had actually produced a film in the £1.2 million bracket - or less. But no. This seems to be the beginning and the end of the problems with the agency, who in their own lack of confidence and low opinion of the talent on their doorstep instead tuned in to the forked tongues of Content - looking for free films to punt - and the BBC - looking as always for cut-price TV filler.

Returning to the theme of DIY, in Scotland on Sunday, Alex Kapranos criticises Glasgow Council for allowing UPVC windows to be fitted in the Art Deco Baird Hall. As he says, 'they see creative people as the enemy'. I couldn't put it better myself. As I say, a plague on all their houses. Never mind a lick of Dulux - it's time for the wrecking ball.

BRITISH ACADEMY FILM AND TV TV TV TV TV AWARDS

If there was a prize for optimism, then surely BAFTA Scotland would win hands down.

The industry body is calling for entries for this year's awards ceremony, with categories for New Talent, Film, Telly and Interactive Media. Good for them. I just hope they find something to celebrate. It's nice to see students getting a shot at glory too, although you'd have thought the Scottish Students on Screen awards had already cornered the market in camcorder capers.

The film category might be tricky though. And the nominations are - Red Road, Red Road and Red Road. Unless David MacKenzie's Hallam Foe makes the September deadline - in which case we'll have two films in the running because I can't think of anything else that's been made here recently, unless you count Lassie and Greyfriar's Bobby or some other sub-Hollywood filler. How about Last King of Scotland? Well, it's got the word 'Scotland' in the title, but does a couple of days shoot here qualify? Can Twentieth Century Fox be arsed filling in the forms?

TV, no doubt will provide an embarrassment of riches so BAFTA Scotland will be spoilt for choice in this section. Which is odd, because if you check the forms on their website you'll find while the other two categories are being charged an entry fee for each category (of 15 and 20 quid) telly's exempt. Maybe BAFTA's hoping that TV tarts can sprinkle some Z-list glitter on the proceedings so doesn't want to scare them off by charging. Which strikes me as a wee bit unfair because of all the categories listed, surely telly's the only one that can afford to cough up. The students and filmmakers I know are already below the poverty line. I guess it all makes a dent in BAFTA's bar bill.

Last but definitely least - Interactive Media. Who cares? They've only got one award to bid for anyway and even that's a side door prize for telly. Instead of 15 quid, I'd charge them 150 to put the toerags off. Unless somebody's got a great shoot em up. That would get my vote...

STEELING SIGNS

Watching Scottish Television is a rare thing in the Smith house, so rare in fact that the channel seems to have had a wee makeover since my last visit. It's not like the company can't afford it, judging by their profits, but I'm not sure that their latest station ident is going to win them any fans in the Central Belt area - so my dad reminds me - especially anywhere close to the long-defunct Ravenscraig steel plant.

Now I wouldn't begin to guess how much the big blue S cost the company, or how many manhours the designers sweated over the concept, but if I were boss of logos at STV, I'd be looking for a refund because Big Blue S bears an uncanny resemblance to the old British Steel sign (see image on left) only not half as clever. At least the old BS logo had a kind of integrity about it, recalling the sturdy links of a chain, sadly a chain that was rattled and pulled by old Thatcher as she choked the industry (along with the miners) into submission.

STV's nice n' safe graphic says nothing about the kind of business it's in. It almost makes you nostalgic for their old Bertie Bassett creation, a piece of pure 80s post modern, sub-Memphis design kookery. Their daft trailer with people fondling a big plastic S, looks like they've taken part in a drunken student prank dismantling shop signage.

Now I know why they're called corporate image con-sultants. S for suckers, I say.

THE DEV-IL YOU KNOW

I'm surprised the staff at Scottish Screen can afford to spend so much time looking at this blog - around 25 visits yesterday alone. So I'll do my best today to offer some constructive advice to the beleaguered body.

First, I'm glad to see on the SS website that someone decided to remove the words 'latest product' from the Red Road banner. I know a lot of folk thought it was a weird way to plug a movie, like some kind of obscure machine tooling system.

Second, I saw the ad for 'development executives' - the telltale s meaning that not one, but two jobs are on offer. What's worrying though is the emphasis on television. The very first line of the first post speaks volumes about the status of film in West George Street -

This post will support the television sector in Scotland.

Please note - not film, but television. In the light of the open letter to Ken Hay and Jack McConnell, the consequences of which will, I predict, come home to roost in the very near future, you'd think the drafting of this advert might have been a tad more sensitive.

Still, it raises a very pertinent question - why should even more public money be spent on television? How much profit did SMG make last year? (46% rise in 2005 from £13.7 million to £20 million, according to The Scotsman) Have they suddenly abolished the licence fee? (up by 4.2% to £131 this April, with £13 billion revenue from 2000-05 - source - BBC) Does IWC, Endemol, Wall to Wall or Lion really need handouts from a cash-starved public sector agency?

It's hard enough for filmmakers, forced into handing over rights and working with broadcasters as a condition of funding, only to be beaten up by telly executives demanding that 'films' should be squeezed to fit TV agendas - that scripts be heavy on 'dramatic irony', appealing only to the lowest common denominator, made as stylistically adventurous as say, Weir's World, on half the budget. Oh, and they must be shot 14:9 and last no longer than 90 minutes. Or, if you're lucky enough to make one of those 300K 'feature-length' TV dramas, make sure the director hands over the deeds to their flat for the privilege of the 'opportunity', closer to the truth than we know.

The second development post is no better -

This post will support the television, games and interactive sector in Scotland.

Still no support for film. I've already done TV, but what about games? Why do they need support when they make megabucks? The margin for retail games is three times that of DVD and the sector and, like the music business, has survived very nicely without subsidy so far. As for interactive - can anyone tell me what this is? Ebay is interactive. My telly is interactive. Porn chatrooms are interactive. Again, these are private enterprises, supported elsewhere. Let Scottish Enterprise do the subsidising.

What saddens me is Scottish Screen's tacit hostility towards film while it hypocritically hijacks the kudos for Red Road. You can't do that on a cheapo opt-out shorts scheme. Looking at it objectively, it appears the agency has long had a clear agenda to remove film from its portfolio. By allowing broadcasters to dictate what a Scottish film is (not that they care, they just want cheap fodder) Scottish Screen is following, not leading and is not, as it claims, acting as an advocate for the screen industries of this country. Well, maybe only the small screens.

IT'S BEHIND YOU

If I was a guy, I'd have crystal balls.

As I predicted on June 6th (see Big Brother's Wee Bother) filmmakers have finally come out in protest over Ken Hay's plans to make himself and the entire film sector redundant by scrapping Scottish Screen and merging with the Scottish Arts Council. As agencies go, the SAC may be equally feckless but at least they've had more practice when it comes to self-preservation. And you don't need an MBA in Arts Admin to guess which of the two bodies will become the head, not the arse-end of the pantomime donkey that is Creative Scotland.

In an open letter to First Minister, Jack McConnell and Ken Hay, 45 'top' Scottish filmmakers have signed up to complain about the quango's demise. Nothing like a bit of solidarity, guys, even when you're two years too late and the government machine's already set on a collision course. To be fair to filmmakers though, Ken Hay failed to consult them, too busy bowing to bureaucracy and scraping to Holyrood high heid yins, forgetting the one part of his constituency - film - that justifies his salary. His tragic letter in today's Herald is positively Blairite in tone - but it doesn't wash. Hay was appointed to the post in April last year, ample time to assess the situation, consult with those keeping him in tenure and arrive at some solutions. Okay, he may well be justified in arguing the need for efficiencies in the way Scottish film operates, but his tardiness would never have been tolerated in the private sector.

But guess what? Scottish Screen isn't a private company. It may be accountable to government, but it doesn't have to answer to shareholders. Does the SAC worry about the profitability of poets or stained glass artists? The film business knows only too well that in order to survive you need to turn a buck. But when Scottish producers have to fight on several fronts - woeful lack of resource, London prejudice, Hollywood's cultural dominance - they need all the support they can get. Isn't it the case that for decades, various local theatre companies have had their overheads met, not to mention nice premises and large custom-liveried Mercedes vans to boot? Has any Scottish film company ever been so privileged? No. That's why they need a dedicated agency that understands the FILM business - not TV, who only ever looks out for itself. And not DIGITAL MEDIA. Ken Hay fails to make the distinction between the delivery mechanism and content, which is what ought to matter, not the box it comes in.

The fundamental problem is a total lack of trust. When a producer walks through the doors of West George Street, the first thing they're expected to do is hand over 100% of their rights in a project in exchange for a few paltry grand in development. They also need to fit together all the pieces of the finance puzzle before they can get past go. And, more recently, make their scripts 'upbeat'. Since the scrapping of the Seed Fund a couple of years ago, writers - a crucial part of the process - have nowhere to go, forced to write on spec. And they wonder why there's no good scripts in spite of a glut of screenwriting courses? Just who assesses these scripts? Amateurs, that's who, with little (okay, maybe one short) or no filmmaking experience, unknown individuals who've managed to make pals with some SS admin assistant. The TV execs, academics and media consultants and various committee-sitters who make up SS's panels and board don't know either. They don't know what film is. They're simply not qualified. The sad unspoken implication being - filmmakers, you're all shite, you're addicted to handouts and you moan all the time.

Which raises an important question, lost in the current brouhaha. Why wasn't the recent vacant post of 'Head of Talent and Creativity' advertised? Or was this a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Does anyone know why Carole Sheridan was so hastily appointed to a key public post when she had already quit her own job to work in the private sector? Is it legitimate for any publicly funded body to operate in this way? And even if it is, what incentive was Ms Sheridan given to suddenly entice her to turn down a job in order to step into Claire Chapman's shoes? No offence to Carole Sheridan, but is she really the best person to succeed La Chapman? On that score, I guess the cleaner could give them all a run for their money.

The trouble is, as it always is, we're not told who does the deciding - or why. Witness the (presumably) defunct Fast Forward scheme of two years ago, an exercise in futility, money spent by Scottish Screen but with absolutely no outcome. Perhaps Ken shouldn't be so quick to accuse filmmakers of inefficency and loss-making, and certainly not while he clings to wrong-headed notions of audience development and training at a cost of millions. The former has lately become the holy grail of all publicly funded cultural bodies - but what's to develop? How to find your way to the local Cineworld? Meanwhile the latter - training - remains a joke. As the open letter says - in Scotland it's about creating labour, not talent. It's making tea at Hammerhead, not doing a deal with Celluloid Dreams. How many people are currently attending the much-lauded Screen Academy? A single figure, where a bunch of students all aspire to be directors, producers and screenwriters. What hope of their ambitions being fulfilled when our most experienced filmmakers can't even raise even a low budget? And what exactly does Skillset (with its 50 million pot) do that justifies a regular cash injection from SS? Is this the price of shifting blame when it goes tits up?

For Ken Hay to say on the one hand - 'I'm right and I'm not moving' - and then to state that "Creative Scotland is a step into the unknown for all of us" is an abject admission of failure. If, after fifteen months in the job he doesn't know - unless he's not telling us - then what are we paying him for? Rather than write disgruntled letters to the rags, maybe it's time for filmmakers to ask a few pertinent questions under the Freedom of Information Act. Or, if the worst comes to the worst, perhaps every filmmaker in Scotland should withdraw their talent, as well as their labour by turning their back on Scottish Screen. Well, it's no more than they've done to us and let's face it, it's an easy option, given how 'unknown' the future is. Maybe then we'll see how long the agency can stay in business. Otherwise our leading producers and directors can shout all they like - the prospect of a Scottish film industry is behind all of us.

A FISHY TALE

Day 31 in the Big Sister house and Leanne’s in the bedroom…

Those of you (like my fans at Scottish Screen and the CIA, according to my stats) who think I spend too much time blogging might be surprised to learn that I’m writing a feature script. For months I’ve been doing the rounds of the city’s saunas and dancing venues talking to girls and punters about their lives. And while the tabs would have us believe these establishments are dens of debasement, where innocent young east European girls get exploited by the lorry load, it’s no more skanky or unethical than say, working for Standard Life, whose chairman also happens to head a brewery. Okay, the hours might be less sociable but at least the work’s better paid.

As one of the top stag party destinations in the UK, Edinburgh seems quite happy to play pimp to these premises. Since 1982 the city council has granted licences in exchange for a hefty cut in the form of local taxes. This makes good civic sense because saunas and clubs play their part in keeping antisocial behaviour off the streets. On that score, I think the city should invest in more public toilets – especially in this weather because the streets here hum like Something Fishy, the Broughton Street monger, at close of business. A new spin on Auld Reekie you might say.

Well, there’s two things that smell like fish and one of them’s fish. For the purposes of research I met up with Lenka (not her real name) who works out of a sauna a spit away from Lothian Road. Her story is she arrived here in February after being laid off at a baked goods factory in her Polish hometown. Tall and tawny blonde, she’s a lovely looking girl with a can-do attitude and could easily be mistaken for an attractive student. Her aim - to make money and improve her English. Lenka shares a flat with two other girls and in her spare time likes going to the gym and nail bars. She watches DVDs and shops at the supermarket. Just a nice, normal girl who happens to barter sex for cash.

Lenka’s shift begins around 6pm when she arrives at the shop. Depending on traffic, she’s often there until 4am, usually four nights a week, Thursday to Sunday being the busy time. Her co-workers include a nurse, a PhD student and a single mum – hardly your stereotypical hookers. While stories of exploitation are rife – of beatings, rapes, drugs and gangmasters withholding passports – they’re also sadly true. But not for a savvy girl like Lenka, who insists her sauna’s safe, certainly a lot safer than working on Leith Links or Salamander Street, an area where desperate girls work to feed their habit and put themselves at risk in more ways than one.

The punters are mostly harmless, Lenka tells me - lawyers, bus drivers, businessmen, tourists, divorced guys, sad men whose wives got ill or died. Some want to talk, some don’t. Thankfully though, the job’s not without some relief. The john who coughed out his false teeth mid-orgasm, for instance, or the 28-year-old stay-at-home virgin dragged in by his mother or the under-performing drunk groom-to-be who turned out to be wearing lingerie. Lenka’s seen it all.

When I tell her I’m writing a script she’s bemused. Why? It’s boring. It’s a job. It’s about the money, nothing else. Sounds like the film business, I tell her, but with fewer punters to tout to it takes longer to notice the pricks. She laughs. On a grand a week plus she can afford to. Good luck to her, I say, she earns it. Let's hope she gets a happy ending. Me, I just want to get to the end of the draft.

LENNY VS THE NEDS

"McDougal left over a hundred thousand pounds when he died," remarked McNab. "McDougal didn't leave that money," said McTavish, "he was taken from it."

This old stingy Scotsman joke reminded me of what's happening at the Glasgow Film Office ever since the neds - non executive delinquents - at Scottish Enterprise decided to cut their annual £80,000 handout for the GFO's Winter Working/New Directors scheme. But rather than keep stumm and be well behaved about it, the plucky GFO has responded with a refreshingly honest comeback, publicly accusing SE of financial mismanagement and telling the quango to 'overcome their institutional fear of creativity'. They also cheekily suggest SE should cancel their annual golf outing and reinstate the missing money.

Good for them. If only more agencies had their bottle, people like me would have no right to criticise the system. Over the years, Lenny Crooks, head of the GFO, has probably done more to champion local filmmaking than a dozen Scottish Screens. At least he backs genuine local talent, not just dodgy shell companies and rather than put producers through an inquisition for a measly few grand, he shows faith by delivering fast. No wonder Scottish Screen boss, Ken Hay wants to rein them in - Lenny and his crew have long been a thorn in the side of SS, by doing nothing more than getting it right.

And unlike other local film agencies, the GFO boasts a great website, taking pride in all the films they back, not just what the critics decide is flavour of the month. Whether or not you think Film City Glasgow is a dumb idea or not, at least it's better than the empty promises of various scammers who for years have talked about building a studio - or in Shir Shean's case - a golf course with a portakabin attached.

In the scheme of things - film especially - 80 grand is a pish amount of money, far less I reckon than what SE squanders on limos for their head honchos or part time board members' salaries. Shame on them. I wish GFO the very best of luck in getting it back - there's no better and deserving cause. Well, maybe apart from Glesga Ned http://www.glesganed.com/ - ropey but a good laugh.

BRING ME THE HEAD OF...

Just learned that rather than take up a post in Ireland, Scottish Screen's Head of Development, Carole Sheridan has moved into Claire Chapman's job as Head of Talent and Creativity. Funny, because when I looked up the who's who of the organisation last week, Ms Sheridan didn't merit a mention at all.

Is this good news? Probably. At least it won't take six months now to find a replacement for La Chapman - which would have been Mission Impossible anyway since nobody of any calibre or competence would have climbed on board an agency that's getting scrapped soon. Second, it's continuity for the favoured few already in development. Otherwise it will be business as usual - and they've still got to find a development person. For all of you filmmakers with a cracking script, come back in December.

If I were in Carole Sheridan's shoes, the first thing I'd do is change my job title back to Head of Production. Talent and Creativity's a meaningless term and vaguely insulting to all of us talented and creative people who can't get our phone calls returned. The other thing I'd do is once and for all lose the logo of the wee Cairn Terrier with it's arse pointing to us. Not only has it outlived its welcome, its 'I'm ignoring you' posture speaks volumes about what the agency thinks of us - plus, it's just naff, naff, naff.

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK

Some blogs it seems are just too controversial, too opinionated, too unfit for consumption by right-thinking and decent people. I'm proud FilmFlam's one of them.

This blog - parts of which have featured on the Netribution site since March - was dropped today without any prior warning from the site administrator, Nic Wistreich. Well, that's what happens when you give it away for free. It would never have happened to Julie Burchill.

I didn't think folk could be that touchy, especially over my last piece about toerag Ken Loach. Agree, disagree, whatever - the facts are unarguable - Loach has a monopoly on public subsidy but returns nothing to the collective kitty. But I don't think that's the problem Netribution had with my piece. Sure, the site administrator felt offended by my publicly pointing out the Loach item had been taken down from their front page without telling me - because it was 'vicious'. He even reinstated it after I argued the toss. He needn't have bothered. The grief I got from one particular respondent almost made me feel like I had my very own stalker, a feeling reinforced when the site put up a Loach interview by the same guy. All very Ken Loach fanclub.

My other guess for the hump-and-dump is the class issue. To come out and say 'Get your hands off my class' is provocative, asserting a position that challenges the consensus, like Missy Elliot did when she hijacked the term 'bitch' from her brothers. I wonder if 'Get your hands off my race' would have played just as badly.

So much for open source and the free and frank exchange of views and information. Healthy debate I like, so when I was first asked to contribute to Netribution, I thought, why not? It's a labour of love for its creator and a reliable source of film news. It deserves support. But not any longer when after delivering free content on a regular basis I find I'm shot down in flames because the site thinks I'm being vicious about St Ken. But Loach isn't bulletproof. No filmmaker should be. He robs the Lottery coffers repeatedly and his brand of filmmaking portrays ordinary people in dire circumstances as pitiable objects, as if somehow deserving of our sympathy. Personally I think it's patronising because it accords no respect to either his characters or the audience. In the end though - who cares? Loach will go on doing what he does regardless of what I or anybody else thinks.

As for Netribution, no hard feelings, guys. In a world where film websites are ten a penny, you do an okay job of keeping the site updated and so far you haven't turned it into a starfuck fest like Shooting People with their subscriptions and 'famous' patrons. It's just a great shame Netribution doesn't have the space for considered argument and tough opinion. But I do.

BIG BROTHER'S WEE BOTHER

Now I know how they feel on BB. After having my Loach piece evicted off the front page of Netribution (soon to be rebranded Kentribution) then having it reinstated, these days a girl needs to think twice about slagging off anyone or anything because even though I'm entitled to have a pop at the great and the good, it ain't worth the grief, let alone the sarky comments and catty insults. If I want abuse, I could always don a Celtic strip and parade up Broomloan Road during the Orange Walk.

Speaking of abuse, the pubs of Glasgow and Edinburgh may be smoke-free but lately they're filled with fuming film producers. Their problem? Two key players at Scottish Screen have went west. The heads of 'Talent and Creativity' (aye, right) and Development are offsky, one to take up a Film Council non-job in the States, the other to Ireland, leaving the agency - and any funding decisions - in limboland. Like an empty ATM on a Friday night, Scottish Screen is now in danger of a kicking because producers here are strange beasts, slow to rouse but capable of untold damage.

Their other problem? CEO Ken Hay's blueprint for the future, a plan that means more money for telly, a slush fund for Skillset but no dough for film, unless producers bring cast-iron deals to the table. Which makes me wonder, because if you already have the finance, a sales company and a distributor in place, then why trouble yourself with form-filling for an agency where no-one can make a decision? Going by track record, Scottish Screen takes at least six months to appoint staff, who usually need another six months to find out what their job is. Besides, with £2 million quid of Ken's paltry annual budget already spoken for, producers will be lucky to get a pat on the head and their train fare home.

They say if you want sympathy, look up the dictionary between shit and syphilis, But really, my heart goes to out to Ken Hay. Like Albert Speer poring over his doomed utopian models, Ken's looking lonelier by the day. Not only has he pissed off the regional film offices but he's been deaf to the noise of producers alert to the fact their gravy train will be derailed when Scottish Screen gets scrapped in 2008. In his zeal for demoting film and for appeasing his government masters what Ken seems to have forgotten is that the Lottery pot, snatched from the Scottish Arts Council in the late 90s, was ringfenced for film, not as a top-up for telly, not for pointless training schemes that turn wannabe directors into teamakers or for mobile phone virals and certainly not farting about on computers.

If Ken Hay's achieved anything, it's hammering round pegs into square holes. By batting for bureaucracy rather than backing the film business, he may think he's a shoe-in as top dog at Creative Scotland, but in a year or so when homegrown film output has dwindled to zero, questions may well be asked. After all, why spend over a million quid on audience development and marketing if our screens are blank and when the annual pot of development funding for the entire nation is a mere £150,000 - the same as it was in 1989. Like Tony Blair, doesn't Ken care about his lasting legacy - as the man who single-handedly dismantled film in Scotland? Producers, I suspect, won't take this lying down for much longer. Already miffed at not being consulted and having nothing better to do (because they sure ain't making movies) they're bound to kick up hell.

In the words of the song, I predict a riot. Or a small stushie at least. Who'll be next up for eviction, I wonder?