Plenary, 25 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, October 25, 2001

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

National Cultural Strategy

We now come to the debate on motion S1M-2354, in the name of Allan Wilson, on the national cultural strategy, one year on, and two amendments to that motion.

I hope that the following words by Tolstoy will prove a fitting way to open this debate on a motion which, I believe, should command approval and unite members across the chamber:

"All art has this characteristic—it unites people".

I am delighted to announce the publication of our first report on the implementation of the national cultural strategy. The strategy, launched in August 2000, covers a wide-ranging agenda and provides a comprehensive framework of action to underpin the development of Scotland's cultural life over the four years following its publication.

The strategy was driven by the Executive's vision of a vigorous and diverse cultural life for Scotland as a country that is confident in its identity, keenly aware and proud of its heritage and eager to see its cultural life develop and flourish in the 21st century.

As the motion shows, we have three key purposes in calling this debate. First, we are launching the report, which fulfils the commitment in the strategy to tell Parliament annually about progress towards its implementation. Secondly, we want to give members the opportunity to discuss their aspirations for further action to drive the agenda on to its next stage. The third important reason for having the debate is to acknowledge and congratulate success and to exhort people to greater effort.

I was delighted to assume responsibility for this portfolio and I acknowledge the hard work, enthusiasm and commitment of my predecessor, Rhona Brankin. I remain enthused by the challenges and opportunities that the strategy presents for Scotland's present and future cultural development. I hope to convey that enthusiasm today, tomorrow and hereafter.

It is also critical that I acknowledge the long list of partners who have a key role to play in making our shared hopes for Scottish culture a reality. The report mentions a host of agencies, individuals and organisations that have contributed. Although much has been done, there is still more to do. The report describes action at the strategic level, but we should never forget that underpinning that action is the colossal contribution of countless artists, performers, writers, curators and many others who provide the work that inspires us and adds greatly to our quality of life.

The Scottish arts scene continues to deliver shining examples of success, such as the triumph of "Gagarin Way" at this year's Edinburgh international festival; world-leading exhibitions at our national galleries, including "Rembrandt's Women" and the exhibition of our own Scottish colourists; "Daddy's Girl", which picked up the top short film prize at Cannes; and Scottish Opera's highly acclaimed Ring cycle. We thank all those who are responsible for showing us what can result when they

"ascend
The brightest heaven of invention".

We are rightly proud of Scotland's traditional culture. I am gratified that the excellent traditional music and tourism initiative that was launched by visitscotland and the Scottish Arts Council has, since 1998, successfully promoted traditional music to our visitors, making their experience of Scotland so much richer.

We have a vision for how our national cultural strategy can make a real difference to people's lives. Its four strategic objectives challenge us all. They are to promote creativity; to celebrate Scotland's cultural heritage; to realise culture's potential contribution to enhancing people's quality of life; and to assure an effective national support framework for culture. Those important challenges embrace activity of many kinds, from the exhilaration of the world stage to an exciting and life-enhancing range of local community initiatives.

So what has been achieved since August 2000? Today's report lists achievements right across the cultural agenda, of which I shall mention just a few. There was a record increase in the resources allocated to the arts and sport in last November's spending review. That means that, for example, in April, National Museums of Scotland was able to abolish entrance charges to the main national collections. The increase also gave valuable support to the drive to encourage excellence in the traditional arts and to support and attract major events to Scotland. Additional funding is being provided for a £3 million strategic change fund for non-national museums. With the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we have set up a joint working group to consider how local authorities can best strengthen their contribution to the strategy, and we have provided £250,000 for an audit of the collections and services in our museums and galleries. I was pleased to launch the audit last April and I can announce that the Scottish Museums Council is publishing an interim report today.

There is much more that I could mention, such as the setting-up of the new literature forum for writers and publishers; the Scottish Museums Council's guidelines for promoting social justice, which encourage the sector to promote active citizenship, lifelong learning and social inclusion; and the welcome boost—by a further £1 million—in our support this year for Gaelic education and broadcasting.

I am also delighted to announce that I have secured additional resources of £3.5 million from the overall underspend in the Executive, which is to be allocated to a range of priority needs across all areas of my portfolio—the arts, sports and heritage. Those additional resources, which are for this year only, will ensure that sportscotland can increase its programme of necessary repair and maintenance work at the three national sports centres; will provide some relief against income lost by properties that are managed by Historic Scotland as a result of foot-and-mouth disease; and will ensure that we are better placed to respond to the needs of local museums and galleries and to undertake new work in key areas of the arts that are of central importance to the themes of the cultural strategy and social inclusion.

So, what are we focusing on in year two? I shall identify the Executive's special priorities for the next stages. We have a priority to celebrate excellence—the excellence of our home-grown cultural products—and we can be justly proud of the best that we have to offer from Scotland's traditional and continuing cultural output. That is why we are developing a programme of events to celebrate the outstanding and enduring legacy of Robert Burns and his place in Scottish and world culture.

The minister's commendable commitment to Burns, which he has taken as far afield as Atlanta, is most welcome. Does he agree that, within the arts establishment—the so-called luvvies—there is an unwillingness to embrace Burns and give him his proper place in Scottish culture? What will the minister do to ensure that that place is assured in Scotland as well as outwith Scotland?

I pay tribute to the member's record of commitment to the cause of the promotion of Robert Burns. It gratifies me to say that, since I made my announcement, I have come across no one who has in any way tried to talk down the importance of Burns as a cultural icon or of exploiting his international renown for economic development and tourism. I hope to promote those elements in the months and years ahead as we allocate additional resources to the planned programme of events.

Glasgow's flair for realising the cultural and social benefits of its time as European city of culture in 1990 is widely considered as a glowing example and other European cities have sought to emulate it. The Executive applauds the new confidence and determination that have inspired Highland Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the local enterprise network and their partners to seek to develop a Highland bid for designation as European capital of culture in 2008. We are pleased to offer the partnership our support towards the costs of preparing the bid, to the extent of £50,000, both this year and next. In mounting its bid, I am sure that the local partnership will seek to reflect the rich diversity of Highland culture and will engage the widest possible range of local and national organisations and agencies as contributors.

We have a priority to advance social justice across Scotland—that is a key priority of the Administration. I want local arts and sporting initiatives to meet local needs and to assist local employment. Matthew Arnold said:

"The men of culture are the true apostles of equality."

Those men—and women—are uniquely equipped to assist in the regeneration of our local communities.

We also have a priority to promote our creative industries, to boost future economic prosperity and to extend lifelong learning. Scotland has a wealth of talented people and it is critical to the strategy to combine those creative attributes with enterprise skills. As Brecht said in "The Caucasian Chalk Circle":

"Mixing one's wines may be a mistake, but old and new wisdom mix admirably."

Our review of Scottish Screen will seek ways in which to maximise the contribution of the creative industries and we must ensure that key agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Arts Council work together to make that happen.

The more culturally astute members will have recognised that my speech so far has been liberally littered with literary references.

Say that again.

That is easy for you to say.

I am delighted to announce today that we will provide funding this year to develop a writers factory. This exciting new writing initiative takes its inspiration from the golden age that we are currently experiencing in Scotland, with writers from Ian Rankin to John Burnside and from Douglas Dunn to Ian Pattison, by way of Liz Lochhead. Scottish literature has a fine pedigree, rooted in our wonderful story-telling tradition. The principles of that tradition will be taken forward with the versatility required in this post-modern age. The project will be initiated by the Scottish Arts Council and will involve Scottish theatre, broadcasters, the universities and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. I am sure that Parliament will welcome that announcement.

We are committed to developing a cultural co-ordinators initiative in Scottish schools.

"Beauty surrounds us,
but usually we need to be walking
in a garden to know it".

Those words, from "Story Water" by the Islamic poet Rumi, remind us that we need exposure to beauty and art. Education systems fail our young people if they fail to acquaint them with those delights, which also introduce our children to new cultures and combat ignorance and prejudice.

We want more people to experience the full richness and variety of Scottish culture and it gives me particular pleasure to announce that we will fund the development of two initiatives to contribute to social inclusion in the arts. Aspects that have impressed me greatly are the encouragement of public art in disadvantaged areas and audience development initiatives that find innovative ways of bringing people into contact with the arts. Examples are seen in the work of organisations such as Art in Partnership and the Audience Business. We want to discuss with the Scottish Arts Council putting further work in the hands of those organisations. I am certain also that public access to cultural experience will be promoted to greater effect by the Centre for Contemporary Arts in Glasgow's Sauchiehall Street. The CCA reopens today following an £11 million investment.

The joint implementation group, which is under my leadership, will drive future action on the national cultural strategy, including the implementation of the projects for which I have announced additional funding today. The group's approach will be highly inclusive. I expect its core membership to engage, consult and involve other organisations and practitioner bodies whose role will be important in implementing our shared goals.

Will the minister give way?

I am sorry; I am concluding.

I am proud of what has been accomplished this year. This time next year, I expect to report progress in all the priority areas that I have mentioned.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the first report on the implementation of the National Cultural Strategy; notes the progress that has been made in the key priorities of the strategy and the actions that are proposed for further implementation; recognises the vital contribution of many agencies, individuals and bodies to ensuring that Scotland's cultural life matches the aspirations of all Scotland's people; believes in particular that culture has a vital role to play in delivering social justice throughout Scotland, in our schools, in lifelong learning and in the further development of our tourism industry, and therefore urges all relevant agencies, individuals and bodies to work effectively together in partnership to ensure that the potential of Scotland's cultural life is fully realised at home and proudly promoted abroad, further encouraging the continuing pursuit and celebration of excellence and the widening of opportunities to participate in the development of Scotland's cultural life.

I welcome some of the announcements that the minister has made, although I am disappointed at the lack of other announcements, to which I shall come shortly.

To support the bid by Inverness to become the city of culture is sensible. Glasgow was highly successful as city of culture, although not much of it rubbed off on Mr McAveety. Let us hope that more of it will rub off on the people of Inverness. If they succeed in the bid, they are likely to have a highly successful year.

I also welcome the commitment to the writers factory. To start investing in Scottish writers and Scottish literature is sensible. There has been substantial underinvestment in that area. I hope that investment in Scottish writers will also mean investment in Scottish publishers. There is no doubt that Scottish publishers are underachieving, but that there is great talent in the sector.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the first annual report on the strategy. I would welcome it more had the report been made available at the same time as the motion was lodged. The motion celebrates the contents of the document, even though there is not much to celebrate in it—I will come on to that—but unfortunately the report was available only at 20 minutes to 11 this morning. That is 18 hours after amendments to the motion were required to be submitted. It is clearly impossible to accept a motion from the minister that welcomes the contents of a document that none of us has seen.

I give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I do not think that the situation was a deliberate slight on the Parliament. It was the type of incompetence in the Scottish Executive to which one has become used, but it should not happen again.

Having the report in one's possession is more dispiriting than not having it in one's possession. The name of only one creative artist appears in the report and it is not Allan Wilson, who wrote the introduction; the name Robert Burns occurs twice in the report. Nothing is wrong with that—I too am a member of the Burns Federation and support the promotion of Burns—but if in the whole of the Scottish cultural strategy and the report on its first year, there is room for the name of only one creative artist, and he is mentioned twice, at the least we must say that something may not be right with the strategy.

The reality is that there are strong doubts, reservations and disappointments throughout the cultural communities in Scotland with regard to the national cultural strategy. The existence of the progress report does not in any way diminish those doubts, reservations and disappointments.

The basic flaw in the Executive's policy lies with the original cultural strategy. At least the cultural strategy documents have come down in size—that is something to be said for the annual report. The problem is that the faults of the original strategy and the way in which it was put together damage fatally any possibility of having a visionary and sensible cultural policy.

The strategy document is not a document of vision. It is a management and micro-management document for the arts in Scotland. It has unfortunately been distilled into a micro-management document about aims and objectives for a cultural strategy, which means little. The document is sprinkled with words such as "will", "might" and "possible". It says little about what has happened.

Let us consider the original strategy document. It contains 64 key objectives. My colleague Irene McGugan asked 64 parliamentary questions about each one of those objectives in the late spring, only to be told by the minister that he would report today on what progress had been made.

Will the member give way?

In one moment. The reality is that three of the 64 objectives have been met in part. My disappointment about one of the three objectives on that very small list of what has been achieved is that the minister has not mentioned what will happen with the national theatre. Does he wish to intervene to tell me about his response to the request from the Scottish Arts Council for additional theatre funding? If the minister wishes to say something about that, I shall sit down.

As ever, I am happy to respond to that invitation—I never miss an opportunity.

If the member is familiar with the terms of the representations that the Scottish Arts Council made to us, he will know that I have responded to a number of them in the announcement that I made today. As I reported to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee only this week, ensuring that our present theatre infrastructure is maintained and making progress on the national theatre raises a number of important and interlinked questions. I shall discuss the detailed arrangements with the Scottish Arts Council in the next few days. As the First Minister has said, it is a question of watch this space.

Even I would not go so far as to call the deputy minister a space.

It is extremely important that the Scottish theatre community knows what is likely to happen with requests for moneys equivalent in a sense to the Boyden money south of the border and with the national theatre. I reiterate the point that I made to the minister on Tuesday. The Scottish Arts Council has called the establishment of a national theatre and the funding of Scottish theatres a "virtuous circle" and has said that one will not flourish without investment in the other, but it is not an either/or. I have confirmed with Scottish theatre communities today that they are not looking for an either/or; they are looking for across-the-board investment.

I do want to be accused of being entirely negative in the debate.

Go on.

Mr Tosh is indicating that it is unlikely that I would be entirely negative anyway and I accept that generous intervention.

It would be tempting simply to point out the failings of the documents—and there are many—but the minister is keen to ensure that cultural matters flourish in Scotland. I do not think that he has the tools with which to do the job—he certainly does not have the tools in terms of the cultural strategy—but there are indications of areas that might benefit from the attention of the Executive.

Before I come to those, it is quite obvious—in the light of amendment S1M-2354.2—that nothing will be forthcoming from the Conservative party that will assist the dialogue. The dialogue on such matters will have to be between the Scottish National Party and the Executive. It is absolute economic and cultural illiteracy to argue that state subsidy for the arts should always be resisted. Mr Monteith's amendment is termed in such a nonsensical way that it does not bear debate.

Let me come to the important issues that require action. Over the past 12 months, the major stushies in the arts world in Scotland have been about direct funding of the arts and, in particular, a previous minister's penchant for supporting Scottish Opera not simply by attending its performances, but by handing it cheques.

The national companies are in a different position from many other clients of the Scottish Arts Council. We should debate whether funding to the national companies should be direct, not channelled through the Scottish Arts Council, which would refocus the Arts Council on a much wider range of clients and on the propagation of creativity and energy within the arts. Cathy Peattie and I have debated that in private and we disagree on it.

There should be a debate about the Arts Council—it is not enough for it to review itself. There should be a debate about whether, in the 21st century, it is the best way of distributing money to the arts in Scotland. The arm's-length principle that arises from gentlemen sipping sherry in Oxbridge common rooms and exchanging grants is outmoded. There needs to be more direct engagement. The Government does not need to be involved in that, but there are better ways to administer the system. We could examine some of the European models, for example academies and involving working artists in developing other artists.

Developing creativity throughout Scotland needs to be considered, because the present structure is bureaucratic and difficult to access. There are ways of ensuring that the structure works more enthusiastically. I have referred to theatrical issues. There are issues in literature and publishing, which I am glad the minister is beginning to tackle. There are touring issues—a lack of money for Scottish companies to tour abroad concerns every Scottish artist. There are museums issues—the funding of museums is crucial and I look forward to reading the interim report. There are the issues surrounding the national companies and the management of such companies, in particular Scottish Ballet, which has been appallingly mismanaged in recent months.

All those issues need to be carefully addressed, but the biggest overall need, and the place from which we should start this debate, relates to how we excite and release the creative energy of everybody in Scotland. That is the purpose of a cultural strategy. The Executive's document does not give us any sense that there is any energy and excitement.

I was impressed with the minister's list of quotations—I compliment him on them. I think that the most important one for the Executive's document comes from the poet Roger McGough. He said:

"I have read your manifesto with great interest, but can find nothing in it about singing."

That is the reality of the Executive's arts documents: there is a lot of management, but no culture in them at all.

I move amendment S1M-2354.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"regrets that the report is not available to MSPs or the public until 25 October 2001; notes that of the 64 strategic objectives, key priorities and supporting actions in the National Cultural Strategy document Creating our Future: Minding our Past, very few appear to have been progressed significantly; continues to express concern that the Scottish Executive's present cultural policy, as expressed in its National Cultural Strategy, lacks coherence and vision, has failed to engage the support and enthusiasm of the Scottish community in general, and the arts communities in particular, and is unlikely to help fulfil the potential of Scotland at home and abroad or to widen opportunities or assist in delivering social justice; observes that funding crises and other operational difficulties continue to be the daily norm for most publicly subsidised arts bodies, museums and others within the arts and heritage sector, despite the Scottish Executive's relentless self-congratulation about its own actions, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to reconsider its policy and to begin to deliver on some of its promises, including a properly funded National Theatre within a clear and reasonable time-frame based upon a better supported theatre sector in Scotland."

On the last couple of occasions on which I have addressed the chamber in response to an Executive motion, I have been able not only to support the Executive, but to speak to an amendment that added to the motion and that was, to the surprise of many, accepted by the Executive.

It will no doubt please many members to hear that, on this occasion, I cannot support the Executive motion. The Conservatives not only question the progress made on the Executive's cultural strategy, but fundamentally question the strategy itself. As I have said previously, Scotland's culture belongs to the people, not to a Government minister or agency and, no matter how long the arm separating the two, that is the reason for our lodging our amendment.

We do not believe that audiences are clamouring for seats in the Traverse, the Playhouse or the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall because of the cultural strategy. Artists have not read the document and become enthused and inspired to create work—be it in the visual, performing or dramatic arts. It is therefore justifiable to have an amendment to point out the weaknesses in the cultural strategy in its present form.

I will follow Mr Monteith's theme of the failure of public investment in the arts. Does he welcome my announcement of public investment in audience development, which approaches from the market perspective the funding problems of a number of theatre and national companies?

I believe that the minister and Mr Russell both misinterpret the point that I am emphasising. I will hopefully be helpful in explaining the subtlety of my argument. I am saying that it is justifiable for the state to be involved in culture, in as much as it should preserve what we hold dear and what shapes us. Together with independent bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland, the state should help preserve our natural environment, our archaeological sites, our archives and such national treasures and artefacts as give us not only a valuable identity, but a source from which to draw. The state should help with the production and presentation of our literary, visual and performance arts.

We do not dispute that. We are concerned, however, to ensure that having a cultural strategy does not mean having a wish list or a checklist to determine what that culture is. That would be the road to ruin. We believe that culture is owned by the people and that it is for the people to develop that culture, for good or ill.

The end of the Tory amendment reads:

"and expresses confidence that Scots culture will continue to flourish without the intervention of the state as it has since 1707."

I would be interested to hear a definition of "intervention" from Mr Monteith. If the funding that comes from the state was taken away from Eden Court Theatre or from Grey Coast Theatre, for example, those theatres would die.

Again, I need to help with an explanation of our amendment, as Mr Stone and a number of other members are having some difficulty with it. If we are to have a culture that is owned by the people, that will not be determined by the funding of the state, but by the genius of the people who bring forward that culture. I will move on and, from the rest of my speech, the member will understand the point that I am making.

The state, through its other activities, particularly in education, may also enable individuals and groups to learn about Scottish and other cultures. It can, for instance, through the expansion of music tuition in schools, allow greater participation in, and appreciation of, classical and contemporary music. But to prepare a wish list, as the Executive has done, is to flirt with the idea that it can pick and choose what our culture should be, make that culture happen and, by necessity, pick cultural winners and losers.

Will the member give way?

No, I must carry on. I have taken a number of interventions.

You have about two minutes, Mr Monteith.

If colleagues do not accept that line of thought, let me take them back. Did not Sam Galbraith pick Scottish Opera for special help not just once, but twice, without debate in the chamber or elsewhere? Will the Deputy Minister for Sport, the Arts and Culture consider what is happening with the proposals to change Scottish Ballet's output, contrary to the wishes of its audience and performers? Will he depart from his cultural strategy without the merest consultation if that change is to happen?

If colleagues require further evidence, I ask them to consider the members who have been appointed to the cultural strategy implementation group. They are all the usual suspects. They are all from public bodies and not one person is from the voluntary arts. There is not one artist. Until the Executive involves the voluntary sector and the private sector, which provides a great deal of our art and culture, I will take a poor view of our cultural strategy. If culture is to be truly democratic, it should, as George Davie argues, be chosen by the Scottish people through their actions and interactions, and through the choices that they make.

Among the many plays and performances that I attended at this year's Edinburgh International Festival, the two most notable were Gregory Burke's "Gagarin Way" and Ian Heggie's "Wiping My Mother's Arse". Last year, there was also Ian Heggie's "King of Scotland" and Liz Lochhead's "Medea". Whether those plays are staged by publicly subsidised theatre or written by publicly subsidised writers, they cannot be seen as the fruit of the cultural strategy, nor will any such excellent plays that those writers and Scottish actors perform in the future. Indeed, plays such as "King of Scotland" show how art is often a reaction to our political culture, rather than a reflection of it. It is individual genius, and the creative response to emotion, tragic events, the injustices of life and, indeed, social injustice, that shape our culture for good or bad.

I will close by addressing the issue of the Scottish national theatre company. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee voiced its support for a national theatre company. The Executive gave its support and announced £2 million over two years to facilitate the national theatre's introduction. By the way, that could have been done without the cultural strategy. Miraculously, the Federation of Scottish Theatre has reached a consensus among competing Scottish theatres for a national company, based on the model of the Edinburgh International Festival, that will commission work from existing theatres. That brought an about-turn from the Scottish Arts Council, which was previously opposed to such a company. A working group was set up, and its detailed report has been delivered.

We have a problem, however. The Federation of Scottish Theatre and the Scottish Arts Council now say that existing theatres need additional funding, which is the point that the minister addressed. Let me make it plain that the view of Conservative members is that we have gone too far in building considerable consensus around a national theatre company for it to be sacrificed now. If the Executive is able to make additional funds available for theatre, I will support that, but if the question is one or the other—and that is what some people are saying is the choice that the minister faces—he should press on with the national theatre company and must, under no circumstances, use the money that he has already set aside to give additional help to existing theatres.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer—

It had better be quick.

Sadly, the cultural strategy is nothing other than gesture politics. It is an example of performance art, and a bad one at that.

I move amendment S1M-2354.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"but regrets that the Strategy has failed to evoke any substantial response from the people of Scotland who are the ultimate and only source of Scottish culture; notes that the most recent achievements of Scottish culture such as the dramas "Gagarin Way" and "Wiping My Mother's Arse" owed nothing whatsoever to the Cultural Strategy, and expresses confidence that Scots culture will continue to flourish without the intervention of the state as it has since 1707."

I had not intended to get into the quoting business, but Shelley said:

"Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."

Allan Wilson certainly is a legislator, but I remember a poem that he delivered on poetry day, and I can tell members that he is definitely not a poet.

I rise to welcome the report on the progress of the cultural strategy, but I say to Allan Wilson that, to be honest, it is difficult to know whether I welcome the contents of the report, because I did not see it until midday.

When I was thinking about what I wanted to say in the debate, I was unable to refer to the details that the minister has now given us. I welcome the announcements that he made about Inverness, the writers factory and the additional money from end-year flexibility. However, because I did not have the report in front in me, I decided to look around the area that I represent to see what is happening there.

I see good things happening. Support is being given to local silver bands, which have received grants for uniforms, instruments and improvements to facilities. There has also been support for local theatre groups. In both cases, youngsters and adults are being provided with education and recreation in a way that benefits both them and the community.

On a larger scale, I see the development of facilities such as the Eastgate arts centre in Peebles, which will encourage local participation in cultural activity and which will benefit theatre groups. The centre will offer venues for visiting companies so that high-quality productions can be put on in the Borders in a way that was not previously possible. It will make possible events that will draw tourists and visitors to our area and will create a virtuous circle that will help the economy. A small recording theatre has also been developed in the Borders, which is a new departure.

The region stages local events, such as the music festival on both sides of the Tweed, the Innerleithen music festival and jazz festivals. It is not all high-brow stuff, although Opera for All visits the Borders. When it comes to fostering excellence, there has been support for individual artists, such as Savourna Stevenson, under the SAC's creative Scotland awards.

On the basis of my observations and of what the minister has said today, I believe that progress is being made.

I join the member in celebrating the things that are happening in his constituency in the Scottish Borders. However, we need to ask whether those things would have happened without the national cultural strategy, whether they were happening anyway, and whether far more would be possible with a much more creatively focused set of proposals than these.

If we look around the public gallery, we will see that this occasion, on which we are debating Scotland's cultural strategy, has not pulled in the Scottish artistic and cultural community so that it might engage with us. The only member of that community whom I see in the gallery is Mr Michael Fry, who may be having a pleasant time after his long lunch. I congratulate him on the launch of his new book today. We are not engaging people like that, because many of the things to which Ian Jenkins referred would have happened without the cultural strategy.

Thank you for that speech. I do not disagree entirely with what Michael Russell has said. The strategy is important because it creates a climate. We must work together to create a climate in which the arts can be fostered and kick-started. The cultural strategy is not the whole context in which we do that. A number of strands are being drawn together, and I hope that they will produce good things. I am not convinced that all those things would have happened without the strategy.

In the short time available to me, I would like to make one or two other points. I welcome the work that has been announced with the social inclusion partnerships. That will enable us to get to the right places and to provide access to the arts. I want the cultural co-ordinators in schools to get in on the ground, to start to produce results and to disseminate good practice. I believe that they have a worthwhile function and should be rolled out across the country. Like Brian Monteith, I want us to move more formally towards providing free music tuition in schools. Music tuition at an early stage can lay the foundations for lasting enhancement of the lives of individuals and those around them.

I celebrate the decision to remove charges from the national museums. That is a big step, not just a symbolic act, which will break down a barrier to inclusion. I await with interest the result of the museums audit, which will be an important document. How it is progressed will be very important for the culture of the nation.

I am pleased that the minister will seek to build on the potential of Robert Burns as a catalyst for cultural tourism. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee wants to consider the important role of cultural tourism, not just in attracting tourists, but in sustaining our traditional and other cultures. Michael Russell talked about a virtuous circle; cultural tourism would form another virtuous circle if we could get it to work properly.

The motion mentions "the celebration of excellence". Excellence comes into many of our discussions, especially those on the national companies and on the role of the Scottish Arts Council. Throughout the country, audiences are becoming more discriminating. They recognise and embrace excellence and increasingly they will not settle for less. For that reason, I want to place on record my support for the national companies in their quest for excellence and their wish to raise standards to an international level. We can discuss funding, but the companies must have and achieve that aim if they are to be worth keeping.

That subject leads me to the national theatre. I agree with the statements that were made; we should not have an either/or situation. The creation of a national theatre on the pattern that has been suggested would give an aspirational quality to our lively and vigorous theatre community.

I want to consider some next steps for the cultural strategy. The document mentions major events. Perhaps on the cultural side we lack high-profile events such as the Ryder cup and the European football championships. I hope that the minister will recognise that the opening of the new Scottish Parliament building will be a hugely important moment in the cultural life of Scotland. I hope that the building will be special, as it has an important purpose. In that moment we can draw together examples of excellence in the art and culture of Scotland. I hope that the minister will consider a way in which we can have examples of visual art, sculpture, music, theatre and creative writing to make that occasion memorable in the life of the nation and turn it into a major art and cultural event and an international festival.

We now move to open debate. Four minutes is the maximum for speeches, but a couple of around three minutes would be helpful.

People's culture is the cement of communities. It is our past, our future, our voice and our traditions and it enriches our lives and communities. It must be nurtured, valued and celebrated. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Parliament should put so much importance on culture.

The document, "Creating our Future: Minding our Past" lays out a number of objectives. I welcome it as a good start, but many members are concerned that the strategy is too wide and that it will be difficult to monitor its progress.

I welcome, therefore, the first annual report, although—like others—I have not read it yet. However, I hope that the cultural strategy will produce reports over the years that will allow the strategy to evolve and develop. I welcome the minister's invitation to discuss aspirations for further action to drive us to the next stage.

I will pick up on one or two points that I think are important. The first concerns cultural tourism. We should be proud—rightly—of our traditional arts, which have grown from an indigenous culture in Scotland. Our music is enjoyed all over the world. We should build on the traditional music and tourism initiative of visitscotland and the Scottish Arts Council.

Supporting our traditional arts is vital. I particularly highlight the work of those committed volunteers who organise festivals throughout Scotland in the summer, with a mixture of workshops to encourage people's participation in the arts and education for young people. Those festivals also act as a showcase for many of our wonderful performers.

I also praise the work of those who work with young people in the fèis movement and of people such as Sheena Wellington and Nancy Nicolson, who take traditional arts—music, storytelling, song and dance—into our schools.

We should acknowledge also the key role that Scottish local authorities play in the arts, adult education, writing, community education, performing arts, libraries, museums and sport. They are key partners and we forget sometimes the role that they play.

Over the summer I visited Plockton, which has a school of excellence working alongside a local comprehensive school. It was wonderful to see the commitment of the co-ordinator, Dougie Pintock, and the sheer enthusiasm and talent of the young people. That is an excellent example both of what can be done by nurturing our culture and of what young people can achieve from the arts by building their confidence and using their skills. I urge the minister, as others have, to ensure that music tuition is available in all our schools.

Like others, I support the development of a national theatre. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee has received presentations about that. I am keen to ensure that that national theatre takes nothing away from local and community arts and that it enriches community arts. That is vital. Community arts can develop future artists and are vital. I ask the minister to consider that in the development of a national theatre.

Arts promote social justice. They can be used at community level to encourage participation and active citizenship. They are a good way for people to find their voice. It is positive to be involved in such work. When the Arts Council is reviewed, I would like a refocusing to ensure that work and money reaches grass roots. Monitoring should be conducted to ensure that that happens.

I ask the minister to consider representation from the music industry and from Voluntary Arts Scotland on the joint implementation group. That is vital. As far as I am aware, the group does not have such representation.

I look forward to the possibility of being involved in the development of the cultural strategy, and, as Michael Russell said, to having an opportunity to debate our cultural strategy in more detail.

I must declare a registered interest again this afternoon, as I am an associate member of the Library Association and I will concentrate on the library content of the national cultural strategy.

I will begin by quoting to the minister from one of his glossy documents on the national cultural strategy:

"The roles of the public sector include giving direct support to a framework of agencies, institutions and services".

The National Library of Scotland's budget this year is £9.23 million. That is a 78 per cent cut since the 1998-99 budget. There has been a cut of more than £2 million. How is that declining sum compatible with some of the key priorities in the first annual report?

I warn the minister that, unlike everyone else who has spoken, I have read the first annual report since 12 o'clock. I refer him to key priority 3.2, on developing

"wider opportunities for cultural access".

The report says that the Executive will:

"Progressively improve access to museum, gallery and library collections for all groups".

Cutting the National Library of Scotland's budget by £2 million does not provide extra access to that library. I also refer the minister to key priority 2.2, under which the Executive says that it will:

"Support the National Library of Scotland … in its aim to become a ‘hybrid library' … to meet the demands on a modern library of national and international importance".

I will give an example of how the minister has failed miserably. At the beginning of October, it was announced that the Scottish science library and the Scottish business information service would close as soon as practicably possible, as a direct result of the cuts in funding to the National Library of Scotland.

The Scottish science library's Causewayside building was opened in 1989 to international acclaim and the library has continued to receive international acclaim for its work. Last year, the library received 8,500 personal visits. Last year, the Scottish science library and the Scottish business information service received nearly 17,000 inquiries. Those services meet the key priorities of the minister's national cultural strategy. They also meet priorities in other Executive strategies—the science strategy, the enterprise strategy, the digital Scotland strategy and the knowledge management strategy. You name it, the Scottish science library meets the Executive's requirements. Those services cannot be provided by anyone else.

One principle in the national cultural strategy is that

"Decisions about public funding of culture should be informed by valid and reliable evidence and based upon clearly understood criteria."

The minister must agree that 8,500 personal visits last year and more than 17,000 inquiries are reliable evidence that the Scottish science library is necessary and delivers its work efficiently. Will the minister give us a commitment today that, in line with the key priorities and principles that are set out in the document, the Scottish science library and the Scottish business information service will not close through lack of funds?

In common with the minister, culture has become something of a speciality of mine. However, I should add the slight proviso that I normally tackle agriculture.

First of all, I want to say a few words about Allan Wilson's speech. I also want to ask him a question that he may—or may not—want to answer. It is becoming increasingly obvious that his speeches to the Parliament have become works of art in their own right—today's speech must be commended. If he is writing his speeches himself, he is one of Scotland's premier authors. If not, he might wish to inform us later who is doing so.

While I will be disagreeing with the motion, I have to agree with one or two things that the minister said. He said that Scotland's culture is vigorous and diverse and that description could not be more accurate. Scotland is as culturally diverse as it is geographically diverse. For that reason, we must be careful about how we interpret culture and how we apply the principles that are contained in the document. In common with other members, I have not had time to read it.

Because Scotland is so diverse, it is essential that we think about how we support culture across the country as a whole. Where Governments seek to take a lead with a strategy document it is clear that the strategy will be coloured by the views of the Executive or Government that supported it in the first place. That is why the Conservatives believe that culture should always be a bottom-up event rather than a top-down one. There is always the danger that the strategy is used to reverse that.

I agree with a criticism made by Mike Russell, that the strategy is too concerned with management and micro-management. The analogy that I would make is that in the strategy we cannot see the wood for the trees. Because of the detailed nature of the way that it covers certain issues, it is essential for us to understand that the strategy is so focused and targeted that it might miss unknown cultural diversity that is waiting to explode in a new area of Scotland. That said, I should repeat that I have not read it all.

I am trying to be brief, but the minister might like to consider one further issue. It was covered, to a limited extent, in a reply that the minister gave to a question earlier today. I want to raise the issue of the place of broadcasting and its underpinning of culture across large areas of Scotland where populations are rather more sparse and the opportunity to mix and generate new aspects of culture can be more limited.

There are those who may be trying to spread scare stories about the ability of Scottish broadcasters to continue to foster local issues and priorities. Many of those stories focus on news and current affairs. We should never forget that broadcasting plays a key role in the support of culture. Should local broadcasting be threatened, local culture is in its own way threatened. As I said earlier, I believe that those scare stories have been spread unjustifiably. Will the minister consider the role of broadcasting in supporting Scottish culture in future and what might be done to encourage that aspect of cultural support?

We are a little short of time and I encourage members to keep their speeches to between three and four minutes from now on.

Thank you for that guidance, Presiding Officer.

I welcome what the minister has said this afternoon. I recognise that the document is a work in progress and that, over the next few years, many things in it will need to be developed and fleshed out. I welcome the fact that Mr Russell has returned to the chamber to listen carefully and see how the erudition and learning of the city of Glasgow can impact on a citizen such as me—a poor humble man from the backwoods of Springburn.

I want to comment on two areas. The first is how culture in its broadest sense can redefine and change institutions and organisations in any part of our country. The second is popular music, which has not so far featured in any real sense in the statement or the strategy. Popular music should be included, as it can make a genuine difference.

If anyone had said, 20 years ago, that by the beginning of this century Glasgow would be redefining itself through cultural tourism, investment and activity, they would have been sent away for treatment for a considerable period. Labour visionaries such as Jean McFadden and Pat Lally—we do not often hear their names together in this context—committed Glasgow City Council to cultural expenditure when other parts of Scotland were reducing theirs, because they recognised the significance of culture to the city and to its confidence and redefinition. They helped to redefine, re-image and regenerate the city.

One of the key debates I remember in local government was whether we should charge for local galleries and museums. There was a passionate defence of a non-charging policy, not because it was popular—as it no doubt would have been—but because in social terms it was right that people who had already paid for access to collections should have free access to them. It is tremendous that, in the first couple of years of the Parliament, we have abolished charging for entry to some of our national museums and galleries.

Glasgow also developed the effective use of cultural activity to tackle social exclusion. Members of all parties have identified the importance of that. I welcome the fact that Mike Russell has returned. He said that we should not be curmudgeonly. I would hate to caricature Mike as the new Provost Pawkie of Irvine, but in his curmudgeonly speech he criticised much of the central thrust of the document. I notice that he did not rise to the challenge of the minister, who included six quotations in his speech. Mike is a young man who has still to learn the craft of public debate. We look forward to that.

Our use of popular music is important—I hope that the minister can take that on board over the next year or so. I am a member of the Scottish Parliament's cross-party group on popular music. It is not about the state trying to run popular music as an industry, which is what Brian Monteith implied. It defies logic that Iain Duncan Smith could come up with a tune—other than military band music—that would be of interest to people. The importance of popular music lies in the confidence issue. I am talking about building a definition of Scotland through international bands such as Travis or Texas, and international promoters.

It is tragic that this week Scotland lost one of its international promoters, Stuart Clumpas of DF Concerts. I extend an offer to Mike Russell to get away from an obsession with 16th and 17th century choral music and to visit, for the first time in his life, King Tuts Wah Wah Hut on St Vincent Street in Glasgow. Stuart Clumpas was a pioneering figure in the development of T in the Park. He has moved on for a variety of reasons, one of which is the failure, in his opinion, of other folk to share his can-do philosophy, which was about trying to deliver a dynamic change that reflects the popular culture of this country.

Unlike Brian Monteith, I do not think that the cultural strategy is performance art. It strikes me that we are in the prologue for a story that, hopefully, we will be able to tell in future—a story that lasts a long time. That is the nature of the debate that has been generated on the national cultural strategy.

I am pleased to take part in the debate and to respond to a welcome document on the national cultural strategy.

What do we accept, promote or even claim to be Scottish culture? As individuals, we have been conditioned to accept and encourage the traditions, customs and culture in our respective communities, which—I am pleased to say—have been sustained and nurtured over many years, in spite of 19th century Government attempts to oppress and destroy our proud heritage.

I am delighted to support the aims and objectives in the national cultural strategy document. I hope that those initiatives and aspirations will be properly resourced, so that we can retain and sustain a diverse and proud national identity.

It will be no surprise to anyone in the chamber to hear that I have a particular interest in promoting the heritage of Gaeldom through its language, its music and its history. I do that in co-operation with our Celtic neighbours. A lot has happened. Much remains to be done and we must progress with diligence, commitment and sincerity.

The foundation of any culture or heritage is rooted in the language. Gaeldom's historical background stems from the language. Its culture and traditions have survived through the daily use of the language. Gaelic is a precious jewel in the heart and soul of Scotland.

I concur entirely with what John Farquhar Munro has just said and I commend him for those remarks. Will he reflect on the fact that although page 10 of the progress report says that

"Gaelic-medium education is a cornerstone"

of the Executive's support for Gaelic, the Deputy Minister for Sport, the Arts and Culture and the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs admitted at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on Tuesday that the allocation for Gaelic-medium education is not set to rise for any of the next three years? In other words, with inflation, it will actually fall. I do not think that John Farquhar Munro or I would regard that as support for the cornerstone, would we?

I thank Michael Russell for that intervention. I agree entirely with his sentiments about Gaelic-medium education. That is a campaign that is continuing. Although what he said about three years hence disappoints me, I have aspirations that might accelerate that programme.

We must ensure that Gaelic is given a place among the national priorities of the Scottish Parliament and that Gaelic is afforded a secure and equal status to English, particularly in our education system. Gaelic-medium education should be available at all stages of children's learning years, wherever it is requested on their behalf.

The national cultural strategy should attempt to make parents aware of the advantages of Gaelic-medium education. The trail is not at all smooth. Teachers are scarce, teaching resources are scarce, money is scarce and, unfortunately, there is a lack of courage and commitment to Gaelic. If it is to be successful, the national cultural strategy must attempt to counter those endemic problems and attempt to build bridges between this Parliament and the Gaelic organisations.

We have Gaelic signage in the Parliament: "Pàrlamaid na h-Alba" on the door, "Doras a' Phobaill" next door, and "Seòmraichean Comataidh" down the road. However, that is tokenism and makes a museum piece of us unless the language is spoken and used.

Language is the most important element in any society. Where we have a strong, vibrant language, culture and heritage will develop and follow.

Two members have indicated that they want to speak. I will be able to accommodate them if they limit their speeches to three minutes.

In his opening speech, the minister mentioned exposure to beauty. I wonder whether he was influenced by having that vision of male beauty, Frank McAveety, sitting so close behind him.

Alex Johnstone talked about a bottom-up strategy. I wonder whether it was such a bottom-up strategy that influenced the name of the drama that is mentioned in the Tory amendment.

Several members have welcomed the cultural strategy, but they have also said that they have not read it. I find that somewhat perplexing. However, I have looked at it. The aim of key priority 2.2 is, apparently,

"To conserve, present and promote interest in and knowledge of Scotland's history and cultural heritage",

but does anyone actually believe that? Despite the gobbledegook of the Executive's glossy report, we all know that even basic Scottish history remains untaught in Scottish schools. A nation of inventors, medical pioneers, explorers, economists—

What is he talking about?

I am talking about Scotland's contribution to world civilisation. I have two children at school and I can assure Mr Stone that they are not taught Scottish history and culture.

When will Scotland be taught about its flourishing medieval Baltic trade? When will Scots children be taught about the tobacco lords or about the contribution of the Scottish cotton and sugar trades, warts and all? When will they be taught about the development of political economy, geology and conservation? Will Scottish children ever be taught across the board about the Scottish enlightenment? Scottish children must know where we are from before they can know where we are going.

Many children grow up in depressed parts of Scotland and do not know that 120 years ago Scotland was the richest nation per capita on earth. They think that we are a wee, backward country on the edge of Europe that has never contributed anything to the world. We have contributed much and still have much to offer.

Will the member give way?

I have only three minutes, otherwise I would give way.

Under successive unionist Governments, Scotland has slipped from first to 20th position in the world economy. In economic terms, we are now more like Arbroath than Celtic, which Frank McAveety would no doubt like us to be. If Scotland is ever to reach its full cultural and economic potential, it must be taught everything about its culture. Perhaps certain unionist politicians do not want Scotland to reach its full economic and cultural potential because it might then be realised that Scotland can best be served by being an independent state.

To digress somewhat, I want to mention Glasgow museums, about which there was a members' business debate not long ago. Glasgow's museums are much more popular with the public than are Edinburgh's museums, but they are clearly discriminated against in terms of funding. Glasgow's museums—such as the Burrell collection—are of national importance. I hope that the minister will explain why they are discriminated against and what he intends to do about giving Glasgow its fair share of resources for its museums.

I commend the Executive for having a cultural strategy, which has given the Parliament a focus for debate and action. We would not be having this debate if there were no strategy.

I want to record in the Official Report my support for Allan Wilson and the launch of the popular music strategy at the Arches at the beginning of the year. The launch was in my constituency but, unfortunately, I could not attend it. Allan Wilson got a lot of street cred for the launch. The Arches is one of Glasgow's trendiest venues.

I want to speak in my capacity as convener of the cross-party group on contemporary music and to develop a theme that Frank McAveety has mentioned. The cross-party group has been a successful forum for bringing together politicians and industry experts. Again I want to record in the Official Report my thanks to my colleagues Ken Macintosh, Frank McAveety and Lloyd Quinan, who have convened sub-groups to enable work to go ahead. Frank McAveety convened the group on live music and Ken Macintosh convened the group on broadcasting. Tom Coyle said that I should tell Frank McAveety that his is the final group that has to meet.

When we set up the group, support grew among an amazingly wide group of people. It was said that we would never get the three big music promoters in a room at the same time for discussions—that we did so was historic. We have brought together musicians, song writers, educationists, small record labels and IT companies. The meetings are dynamic and supported by the Scottish Arts Council and Regular Music, for example. In its first year, the forum has been successful.

A year ago, I spoke about my disappointment that popular music did not get a mention in the strategy document despite the fact that I and other MSPs made a fairly substantial submission on behalf of industry activists. It is more disturbing that there are no industry experts on the joint implementation group. That makes us a wee bit suspicious that we are not wanted in the main stream of the strategy.

I have skimmed through the annual report. I note that it exists—which is progress—but the minister should say why there is no industry expert on the joint implementation group.

I do not have much time left, so I want to address why popular music is central to the strategy. Ensuring that our definition of culture is in the main stream of the strategy is a key to social inclusion. Popular music involves many people of all ages and classes. It will do more for social inclusion if it is central to what we mean by culture. People may prefer live music, playing music or collecting music—that is an obsessional pastime for someone I know—but music is an expression of individuality. For some people, it is their only experience of creativity.

For thousands of young Scots who ardently follow their musical tastes, popular music is part of a policy that can attract them—and it can be a stabilising influence. Furthermore, for artists involved in the industry, this is not just about Texas or Travis and other big bands; it is about the right of smaller artists to contribute their creativity and to make a modest living out of it. That is why we must consider the big picture and the small picture.

I know that the minister has made an informal offer to come along to the group. We would welcome his attendance. We know that he is committed to it, but we would like to address how the issue can become part of the mainstream strategy.

As the first member to wind up the debate, I make the following point: the Scottish Parliament does some things very well. I believe that the current debate is one of those things. It contrasts with the unfortunate episode that took place earlier today. We should be proud of the way we conduct ourselves. For that reason, I say to Mike Russell that I enjoyed his speech. It was characteristically good stuff. I do not agree with the points that he made, but I do like the probing way in which he examined the exact meaning of the strategy document. I see it as a kind of irregular audit, which is a good thing. It makes sense to do that.

The minister has announced good news, which I shall touch on in a moment, but my earlier question about the Conservative party's amendment still stands. Brian Monteith has explained privately to me that I misunderstand what he is saying apropos the Eden Court Theatre and Grey Coast Theatre. I accept that in the gracious manner in which it was offered. I still think that there is some confusion in the wording of the amendment. However, we will let that lie; now is not the time for partisan politics.

I associate myself with Fiona McLeod's remarks about the National Library of Scotland, which is a distinct problem. We are rapidly going electronic, but not everyone is able to do so and there is still a place for real books on real shelves. I think that that is what Fiona McLeod was driving at.

The minister has talked about the abolition of entrance charges, which is a good thing and it has been widely welcomed throughout Scotland. He also talked about the writers factory and the extra £3.5 million. He has talked about a subject close to my heart—Inverness as European city of culture. One criticism of the debate is that, apart from John Farquhar Munro, I have not heard as much as I would have liked about diversity.

I had a problem with the debate about the Scots language that took place some months ago. It failed to recognise that the Caithness dialect, or the east Sutherland dialect, is fundamentally different from the Scots language as it is spoken in Lanark, Peebles or Glasgow. We must build on what we already have, but we must remember that the bricks are different. I make the same plea that I made a year ago—let us not forget that Scotland is a diamond but the facets are different. If we lose individual diversity, we will be losing something very special. The matter is more complicated than Scots versus Gaelic. It is about the different forms of Scots as spoken in different parts of Scotland.

Finally—this will come as no surprise—I associate myself strongly with Ian Jenkins's comments on the new Scottish Parliament building. As members know, I am passionate about that truly wonderful building, which I believe is, in itself, a statement about art and culture that this generation can be proud of and for which people will thank us in many years to come. I know that I will be proved right about that and I am glad that I am gradually bringing all my friends round to my point of view.

I commend the motion to the chamber.

I start with the good news: I welcome the minister's support for Inverness's bid to become the European city of culture. As an Invernessian, I am sure that the citizens of Scotland's newest city will look forward to displaying their wares to the rest of Europe. Sadly, I cannot give a more general welcome to the rest of the minister's speech or to the strategy report.

Frank McAveety and Pauline McNeill referred to popular music. Every Sunday afternoon throughout the year, hundreds of thousands of Scots tune into Radio 1 to listen to the top 40 show. That is real popular culture. The pop chart represents perfectly the desires of the music-listening population. The ranking of records is not done by a committee of ministers, civil servants or quango appointees and not a penny of taxpayers money is spent. The ranking is done entirely on the basis of record sales, so the chart reflects what is popular.

As we know from the many nostalgia programmes such as "I Love 1985" that use popular music as the backdrop, which are watched by sad people such as me who are trying to recreate their youth, popular music becomes the culture of the day. We do not need a culture strategy to create popular culture. Real culture comes from the grass roots up; it is not dictated top-down by Governments.

I will give an example from closer to home. The biggest cultural event in Scotland in terms of ticket sales is the Edinburgh military tattoo. It attracts tens of thousands of visitors to Edinburgh and Scotland every summer. This year, every ticket for the entire run was sold before the first show commenced. I say to Ian Jenkins that there is no finer example of cultural tourism than the tattoo. Visitors and locals alike pack the castle esplanade—underneath the union jack, which flutters proudly above the castle—to watch an unsurpassed display of Scottish and international culture. The tattoo reflects our military past, our imperial past and Scotland's role in the empire, which is also celebrated today with the publication of a new book, "The Scottish Empire", by my good friend Michael Fry. The tattoo also brings aspects of international culture to a Scottish audience. It does all that without a penny of subsidy and without the need for a culture strategy from ministers.

The amendment lodged by Brian Monteith notes that the Scottish people are the only source of Scottish culture—not politicians, civil servants, or so-called experts.

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

Forgive me, I am short of time and have been told to be as quick as possible.

It is about Michael Fry.

I am sorry, but I have no time to take an intervention.

Mr Monteith's tastes are somewhat more expansive than mine. I do not remember seeing any of the productions to which he refers in his motion. I am sure that my mother is pleased to hear that. Scottish culture, in whatever form, has thrived and will continue to thrive without culture strategies.

The problem with the document—as Kenny Gibson said—is that it contains no initiatives to promote Scottish history in schools. It misses what should be the only role of Government in relation to culture: the preservation and promotion of our historical traditions, records and artistic achievements, which might otherwise be lost to the world. I say to John Farquhar Munro that that includes Gaelic culture.

Governments should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the arts.

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

Forgive me. I will not take an intervention due to time constraints.

Governments should not be picking winners and losers. That is the business of the market, whether it affects the pop music charts or the tattoo. That is why the Executive's strategy is flawed and why Scottish culture will flourish regardless of what the Executive does.

There has been no evidence of progress on the majority of the key pledges and this report confirms that there is no evidence of progress in the majority of key priority areas.

Today, we are discussing an outline of what various agencies are doing in certain sectors. They are initiatives that they would for the most part have undertaken anyway. There is little evidence of strategic thinking or commitment from the Executive. What we need is commitment and action; what we have got is a joint implementation group, which met for the first time a year after the launch of the strategy; press coverage from all over Scotland about industrial museums closing; and a lack of support for companies such as Theatre Babel, which produced performances of the highest quality.

Grass-roots theatre, music and the arts are struggling to survive while the Executive produces glossy documents full of non-actionable pledges.

I am especially disappointed that the minister did not feel able to make a funding announcement about Scottish theatre today. Some companies face a critical situation: they are not able to plan even for next season's performances. This debate was surely the most appropriate time to make an announcement, unless the minister had very good reasons for not wanting the issue to be examined today.

In his summing up, I would like the minister to explain the implications of key priority area 4.3:

"The SAC is reviewing the potential integration of Lottery and voted funds".

Are we to be reassured when we read on page 5 that

"Ministers are reviewing networking opportunities for creative dialogue with the cultural sectors including the possible role of high-level fora such as lecture series and showcase debates bringing together key players from Scotland and beyond"?

I do not think so.

Ian Jenkins mentioned one area where I feel there has been real lack of progress. The £750,000 cultural champions for schools pilot project seems to be caught between the education and culture departments and nothing has yet been achieved. The minister told us this week that he does not like the term "champions" and has replaced it with "co-ordinators", but many in the arts education sector disagree. What started off as a title that had some sense of passionate engagement with the arts has been finessed into an administrative function.

The SNP was opposed to the idea when it was first proposed on the basis that ideally there should be scope for creativity and flexibility in the implementation of any policy interface between culture and education. That would allow schools and authorities to reflect local situations where, for example, there is already good practice in partnership working by teachers, art officers, musicians and traditional arts workers or where schools have encouraged and invited artists and companies to contribute to the curriculum. I wonder whether the minister is even aware of the work of arts education officers across Scotland.

Cultural distinctions have played a major role in keeping Scotland alive as a nation for many centuries and much more needs to be done to foster not only our distinctive culture but the aspects that join us to an international world. A good example that was eloquently outlined by John Farquhar Munro and mentioned by Jamie Stone is language. It is a fact that other small European countries such as Finland support their languages and culture much better than does Scotland. The one language enterprise that was heralded by the Executive in its strategy document was an institute for the languages of Scotland, but the minister has said:

"The Executive … has no funding available to support such a centre."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 April 2001; Vol 11, p 373.]

Not even the fact that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has now been ratified seems to make any difference to that attitude. I happen to have documents outlining details of the application of that charter from Hungary, Finland, Croatia, the Netherlands and Liechtenstein. Even Liechtenstein, where there are no minority languages, has managed to produce a document outlining its stance and circumstances. Allan Wilson is on record as stating that the Executive does not consider any action necessary to comply with the charter in respect of the Scots language.

The SNP believes that a viable arts policy for Scotland must be based on diversity, minimum bureaucracy, sustained levels of investment, the development of excellence, wide access, encouragement of creativity and a transparent and accountable funding structure. Does the Executive believe the same?

We want to encourage the Executive to engage in meaningful debate and discussion about the arts and culture in Scotland instead of offering self-congratulatory statements that achieve nothing and profoundly disappoint the cultural sectors across the country.

As I am aware of the pressures on time, I will try to restrict my speech as much as I can to the time available.

Picasso said:

"Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."

Today's debate has been anything but dry or dusty; in fact, it has been highly cultured.

Some members would like to see more action, more rapid implementation and even more funding devoted to the arts in Scotland than the £3.5 million extra that I announced today. My colleagues made many of those comments, and I understand their concerns, but the report sets out a raft of actions that have already been taken or are at the planning stage. I make no apologies for the fact that there is still work to do. Much has been done but there is more to do.

The strategy sets out a framework extending over four years. We have just completed year one. I therefore say to colleagues such as Frank McAveety and Pauline McNeill, who have sounded notes of impatience, that they would do well to remember the words of Horace:

"To have begun is half the job".

We have made a start on incorporating contemporary music into our strategy and I look forward to developing that work with colleagues.

The arts have fared well in recent funding settlements. The 2000 spending review was a record for the arts and sport. There will always be winners and losers, but what matters is the fact that the available funding is not allocated arbitrarily. The Scottish Arts Council will look carefully at all applications for funding that are made to it against the framework of the national cultural strategy and, where it is possible, true excellence will be rewarded.

I say to Mike Russell and his colleagues that it is no mistake that the strategy is couched in general terms. Culture is not a single project or even a set of projects. It was the objective of the strategy to get away from that perception. Many aspects of Scottish life are contributing in some way to this agenda, and people and organisations are investing in all those areas.

I welcome the fact that Murdo Fraser does not support what I said earlier—that is a bonus. I say to Brian Monteith that money is not everything. When Thor Hansen opined that culture is something that cannot be bought and cannot be imported or produced at will, he meant that culture is not a commodity, but something organic that evolves from a nation's traditions and its experience of daily living. That is absolutely right.

The minister says that culture is not something that can be reported. How does that square with 36 pages of graphs and details of the report in the document? Have we just wasted the past hour and a half just as the minister has wasted the past year?

Before the minister responds, I ask for order in the chamber. The background noise is becoming fairly loud.

The quotation, with which Mike Russell is obviously not familiar, says that culture is something that cannot be imported—not reported.

It is equally important that resources that are devoted to culture are channelled correctly. Fiona McLeod mentioned the reduction in the budget of the National Library of Scotland, as reported. That reduction reflects the end of a period of capital building spend. Running costs for the library are actually on the increase. However, I share her concern. We must recognise the fact that the science library and the business service are not the only providers in Scotland, but part of a wider network.

I am sorry, but I have very little time. I shall meet the director of the National Library of Scotland next week to develop our plans.

I also look to the social inclusion partnerships to exploit the regenerative potential when planning their local strategies. Culture should not be an optional extra in social inclusion partnership areas; it is too important for that. In response to requests from colleagues, I shall visit more social inclusion partnership projects over the coming year to see exactly how the arts and sport are helping to tackle exclusion and disadvantage.

If I have been disappointed by anything in the debate—with the honourable exception of the previous speech—it has been the lack of reference to the key role of local authorities. We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to explore the potential contribution that local authorities can make. We cannot overstress how critical that contribution will be. I plan to meet local authorities to continue to discuss it.

Several members mentioned Scottish Ballet. I have full confidence that the board of Scottish Ballet, in discussion with the Scottish Arts Council, will make the correct decisions for the future of the company. Ballet in Scotland is enjoying a resurgence. The Scottish Arts Council is developing an integrated dance strategy and audiences for dance are on the increase and showing real and growing interest in contemporary programmes. There are also excellent training facilities and new initiatives are to be found throughout the country, including Dance Base in Edinburgh, Scottish Dance Theatre at Dundee Rep, the Scottish School of Contemporary Dance at Dundee College, New Moves in Glasgow and City Moves in Aberdeen. I am heartened to learn of dance companies extending outreach programmes to our schools and I look forward to Scottish Ballet continuing to make a contribution to the cultural life of Scotland.

Points were made about the joint implementation group. We want industry and voluntary arts bodies to participate. The group will take a highly inclusive approach and industry and voluntary arts bodies will be invited to share in the discussions. I have met representatives of those groups in that regard.

I thank Alex Johnstone for his kind words about my speech. Like all great works, it is the result of collaboration. Members will know that I always like to conclude on a positive note, whereas we have heard mean, negative and narrow-minded contributions from members of the Opposition, Alex Johnstone excluded. To uplift our spirits, therefore, I will quote from a Taoist proverb. For the benefit of Alex Johnstone, I will say that that is a Chinese religion.

"Unobscure your eyes and the result is sight. Unobscure your heart and the result is joy".

I say to our Tory and nationalist opponents that they should unobscure their eyes and embrace the Executive's vision. If they unobscure their cold hearts, the result will be cultural bliss.