A well-known poet has spoken out against what he calls the "childish behavior" of people in the book world who wanted festivals to stop taking money from Baillie Gifford. He believes these actions were a "fake attack" on important literary events and a major supporter of the arts.

The poet suggested that the publishing industry should have supported the festivals more when they faced pressure to end their sponsorships with Baillie Gifford, an investment company. He thinks that a lack of national pride in Scotland is why these festivals were targeted.

He noted that some of the main people behind this campaign were new to Scotland and that their first significant contribution to culture was to damage things that others had spent years building. The Edinburgh International Book Festival was one of the first to be targeted because Baillie Gifford invests in companies involved with fossil fuels.

This led to some well-known figures, like Greta Thunberg, withdrawing from events, and many writers threatened to boycott the festival if it didn't cut ties with Baillie Gifford. The campaign then spread to other book festivals across Britain. As a result, festivals in Edinburgh, the Borders, and Wigtown ended their partnerships with the company.

The poet was among many Scottish writers who signed a letter calling these actions "backward" and "not well thought out." He also expressed concern that Scotland is becoming a place that focuses too much on identity politics, which he believes can divide people and give too much power to those in charge of administration. He feels that arts organizations should focus on promoting Scottish talent rather than defending what they see as the "correct" ideas.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this article. It reports on a poet's opinions and events that have already occurred, offering no steps or guidance for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the context of the Baillie Gifford sponsorship controversy, including the reasons for the initial targeting (fossil fuel investments) and the subsequent actions taken by festivals and individuals. It touches on the poet's perspective on national pride and identity politics in Scotland, offering a viewpoint on cultural dynamics. However, it does not delve deeply into the economic systems of investment companies, the history of arts funding, or the detailed mechanics of how such campaigns are organized or their broader societal impacts.

Personal Relevance: The article has limited personal relevance for most individuals. While it discusses issues related to arts funding, cultural events, and investment practices, it does not directly impact a reader's daily life, finances, safety, or immediate well-being. The topic is specific to the book festival world and the poet's commentary on it.

Public Service Function: This article does not serve a public service function. It reports on a dispute within the literary community and does not offer warnings, safety advice, emergency contacts, or practical tools for the public. It functions as a news report on a specific cultural debate.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice given in this article that needs to be assessed for practicality.

Long-Term Impact: The article does not offer advice or actions with lasting good effects. It reports on past events and a poet's opinions, which do not provide a framework for long-term personal planning or improvement.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is unlikely to have a significant positive or negative emotional or psychological impact on most readers. It presents a viewpoint on a cultural controversy without aiming to evoke strong emotions or provide coping mechanisms.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven words. The language is descriptive of a poet's statements and events, without resorting to sensationalism.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide more value. For instance, it could have offered resources for readers interested in learning more about ethical investment, the history of arts funding in Scotland, or how to engage in constructive cultural debates. A missed chance is the lack of information on how individuals can learn more about the companies involved in arts sponsorship or how to research the impact of investments on environmental issues. A normal person could find better information by researching organizations that advocate for ethical investments or by looking into the funding models of various arts festivals.

The poet's critique of the campaign against Baillie Gifford's sponsorship of literary festivals raises concerns about the potential impact on local communities and the fundamental bonds that hold them together.

The described actions, which led to the withdrawal of notable figures and the threat of boycotts, can be seen as a form of division and disruption within the literary and cultural sphere. This disruption has the potential to weaken the very fabric of community life, as cultural events and festivals often serve as important social gatherings that bring people together, fostering a sense of unity and shared identity.

When such events are targeted and threatened, it can create an atmosphere of uncertainty and division, potentially leading to a decline in community engagement and a loss of trust between various groups and individuals. This is particularly concerning when considering the role of these festivals in promoting Scottish talent and preserving cultural heritage, which are essential for the continuity and survival of a community's identity.

The poet's concern about the focus on identity politics and its potential to divide people is valid. Identity politics, when taken to an extreme, can shift the focus away from the collective responsibility of caring for one's kin and community, and towards individual or group interests that may not align with the broader survival needs of the people. This shift in focus can lead to a neglect of duties towards the vulnerable, such as children and elders, and a potential erosion of the social structures that support procreative families.

The described campaign, by targeting a major supporter of the arts, risks diminishing the resources available for cultural events and thus, the opportunities for community engagement and the celebration of local talent. This could have a long-term impact on the continuity of cultural practices and the transmission of values and traditions to future generations.

Furthermore, the poet's observation about the lack of national pride and the targeting of festivals by newcomers to Scotland highlights a potential breakdown in the trust and respect between different groups within the community. This breakdown can lead to a fracturing of social bonds and a loss of the collective sense of responsibility towards the land and its stewardship.

If these ideas and behaviors were to spread unchecked, the consequences could be dire. The erosion of community trust and the disruption of cultural events could lead to a decline in social cohesion and a weakening of the support structures that families rely on. This, in turn, could result in a diminished sense of duty towards one's kin and community, potentially leading to a decline in birth rates and a disruption of the intergenerational transfer of knowledge and skills, essential for the survival and continuity of the people.

The poet's call for a renewed focus on supporting local talent and festivals, and his concern about the potential for division, serves as a reminder of the importance of local kinship bonds and the need to protect and nurture them for the sake of the community's survival and the stewardship of its land.

The poet uses strong words like "childish behavior" and "fake attack" to describe people who wanted festivals to stop taking money from Baillie Gifford. This makes the poet's opponents seem silly and dishonest. It also helps the poet's side look better by making the other side seem bad.

The text suggests that a "lack of national pride in Scotland" is the reason festivals were targeted. This links the opposition to the festivals with a negative trait for Scots. It implies that being patriotic means supporting these festivals.

The poet calls the actions of those who wanted to end sponsorships "backward" and "not well thought out." These words make the opposition seem unintelligent and wrong. They are used to dismiss the reasons behind the campaign without explaining them fairly.

The text states that some people behind the campaign were "new to Scotland" and their "first significant contribution to culture was to damage things." This frames newcomers as destructive. It suggests they don't understand or respect what was already built, creating an "us vs. them" feeling.

The poet believes Scotland is focusing too much on "identity politics," which he says can "divide people." This frames a focus on certain social issues as harmful and divisive. It implies that focusing on these things takes away from what he thinks is important, like promoting Scottish talent.

The text expresses a strong sense of disappointment and frustration from the poet's perspective regarding the actions taken against book festivals. This emotion is evident when the poet calls the behavior "childish" and a "fake attack." The strength of this feeling is significant, as it colors the poet's entire viewpoint. The purpose of this emotion is to portray the poet as someone who sees the situation clearly and is dismayed by what he perceives as misguided actions. It aims to guide the reader's reaction by making them question the motives of those who targeted the festivals, potentially shifting their opinion towards the poet's viewpoint.

Another prominent emotion is pride, specifically a concern for the preservation of Scottish culture and its institutions. This is seen in the poet's suggestion that a lack of national pride in Scotland led to the targeting of festivals and his observation that newcomers to Scotland sought to "damage things that others had spent years building." This pride is presented as a deep-seated value, suggesting that the poet is defending something precious. It serves to build trust with readers who share similar feelings about national heritage, making them more receptive to his arguments. The emotion encourages a shared sense of responsibility for protecting cultural achievements.

The poet also conveys disapproval and concern about what he views as a negative trend in Scotland, specifically the focus on "identity politics." He describes these actions as "backward" and "not well thought out," and worries that such a focus can "divide people." This emotion is expressed with a notable intensity, as it touches upon a broader societal issue that the poet finds troubling. Its purpose is to warn the reader about the potential negative consequences of certain political approaches, aiming to change their opinion by highlighting perceived dangers. This concern is used to persuade by framing the poet as a thoughtful observer of societal trends who is offering a cautionary perspective.

The writer employs persuasive techniques by choosing emotionally charged words. Phrases like "childish behavior" and "fake attack" are not neutral descriptions; they are designed to evoke a negative reaction towards the actions being criticized. The repetition of the idea that the festivals were "damaged" by newcomers reinforces the poet's sense of grievance and the perceived unfairness of the situation. By framing the actions as a threat to established cultural events, the writer aims to create a sense of urgency and concern in the reader, making them more likely to agree with the poet's assessment. The poet's personal stance, presented as a reasoned argument against what he sees as destructive forces, is used to build credibility and encourage the reader to adopt his perspective on the matter.