Chamber and committees

You will be pleased to hear that my second question is much more focused. On the issue of cross-portfolio work, it would be interesting to hear a conversation take place between those on the culture side of things and those in education. Those in education are batting for more money for music tuition and have been asked to give it up to another portfolio. Things like that will go on, but they are difficult.

Please have faith that every single department will talk about the multiplier effect of what they do—education, health and housing will all do the same thing. I am not saying that what they say is not true; I am saying that they all make powerful arguments.

I genuinely do not know whether the sector has gone any distance towards doing things such as shared services in relation to personnel functions or wages, or even grant funding, applying for which can be very onerous and time consuming. Is there much joint working between different entities in the sector to try to bear down on those costs?

My question is a quick one. In the constant communication between Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government over the period to 3 September—when it was confirmed that funding had been reinstated—were you making the Scottish Government aware that you might have to close the fund? Was the Government aware of that before it happened?

The genesis of some of the issues that we have talked about was a decision by the national lottery. I am aware, as I am sure you are, of all the odium that Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government get, but I did not hear any fuss about the national lottery pulling its funding. I do not know whether there is any intention or campaign to try to get that funding reinstated; perhaps that is not possible.

I suppose that the committee’s job is to find out where the fire is and get through some of the smoke, but I find it quite difficult. For example, we heard earlier that the cultural sector is one of the fastest-growing sectors, but it is also in decline. It is quite hard to reconcile those two things in my mind.

My question builds on what Patrick Harvie said earlier. Maybe you already do this and I am just unaware of it, but would it be possible for the review to look at an expanded role for Creative Scotland whereby it would procure additional funding, whether that is commercial or private funding, sponsorship money from ethical sources or additional revenue streams, as Patrick Harvie mentioned, as well as the money that you get from the Government? There is a fourth possibility, which involves local government. In that way, one body would be going out and looking for that additional funding. Given that we are being told that the public finances can only get worse, it is surely time to expand the range of approaches. I know that that goes on anyway, but would a more focused approach be possible if it was vested in Creative Scotland’s remit?

Thanks for coming along today.

I have two questions. The first is really an observation, which I would like to get your views on. Last week, we had a similar evidence session, and it was described—probably by me—as a bit of a “doom loop”, and this week seems no different, to be honest.

On the one hand, at the root of all this is the question of resources. I understand that point. However, there seems to be something else going on, which is a lack of a shared understanding between the sector, the Government and Creative Scotland. I agree with the contributions that have been made—especially by Liam Sinclair—about Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. It is confusing. I probably disagree with the origin of that, but that is certainly true. The committee has seen confusing messages coming out, with one thing being said one day and then that being changed the next day.

I cannot speak for the committee, but I think that it would generally agree with the point about multiyear funding. I think that everybody wants that from Government, but the sector has a particular claim, given the precarious nature of many of the people who are active in it. I think that the committee would support that. There could also generally be a stronger case made to Government; I think that the committee would probably be keen to support that.

On the other hand, if it is the case the Government does not properly understand the need for that, I also do not think that there is a true understanding of the nature of the issues that the Government faces. Lori Anderson’s submission talks about lack of investment over a decade, standstill funding, the impacts of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, high inflation and the cost of living crisis. It also refers to 15 years of standstill funding. I am trying to think what might have happened 15 years ago, when standstill funding was started—but it is not mentioned here. There is also the fact that we are now into a new continued period of austerity.

In relation to multiyear funding, there is also the fact that the Government itself is now being asked to set its budget without knowing what it will get in terms of block grant, which is an absurd situation, and that, a couple of weeks ago, it had £160 million stripped out of its budget at 90 minutes’ notice.

There does not seem to be a shared understanding of the causes and effects. We are hearing about the effects—quite rightly—from the sector, but the better way to make the case is to understand the pressures on the other side and then to make a concerted case for multiyear funding.

Those are my views. I am interested in how you will come back on them, which I am sure you will.

Thank you for giving evidence today. We do not have a lot of time left, so what I am going to do is make a couple of comments, maybe a little bit provocatively, and members of the panel can respond.

Having sat through this last year, it seems to me that the doom loop has continued without much in the way of perceived improvement. I was struck by a comment that Anne Lyden made at the start of the meeting about the sector not being confident. I am not sure how the sector can become confident if the population is not confident. I think that things such as the cost of living and the effects of the pandemic are much more profound and long lasting than we perhaps give them credit for. We also saw riots in the country over the summer, so I am not sure that we have the confident, settled population that would mean that people would be more inclined to visit cultural institutions.

I note the point that Anne Lyden has just made about increased funding for the sector. It would be useful for me, as a member of the committee, to know where the best place is for the committee or individual members to put pressure in relation to that. I am struck by the fact that we have been in austerity for 14 years, which has reduced funding for public services across the board. We are now going into the 15th year, and we are told that this budget is going to be much worse and that there is a massive black hole. The Scottish Government has had a 40 per cent reduction in its capital budget this year.

Is it the case that, in your view, the Scottish Government is not apportioning the proper level of its budget to culture, or is there something else going on? Is it your view that local government is doing the same? Are local authorities not passing on proper proportions? It is simply the case that the scarcity of resources in local government is driving that, so it would be interesting to know where pressure should be applied.

In relation to the local government situation, we have heard a lot from Glasgow and we usually hear quite a bit from Edinburgh, usually in relation to the festivals. I represent an area that has no council-run museum within its entire boundary. There is a small museum in the village in which I live, but the area has not had a council-run museum for two decades. The cost of going to Edinburgh or Glasgow is prohibitive for people, and we have higher levels of poverty than Glasgow per capita. I would suggest that it is not really high on the list of priorities to see more funding go to Edinburgh or Glasgow if it is going to be at the expense of places where there is currently no funding.

Megan Gallacher made a very good point about the richness of the history that we have in our area. Perhaps the biggest cultural asset that we have in Clackmannanshire is the graveyard in Alloa, where Jameson of Jameson whiskey, Usher, Younger and all those people are buried, along with some incredibly important cultural figures. We have Dollar museum, which is a tiny museum, but we do not have a council-run museum.

In a situation of scarce resources, how relevant is it to discuss more money going to Glasgow and Edinburgh? I agree that it should, and I agree with the point that has been made that people perhaps do not appreciate the knock-on and multiplier effect of spending on culture, before we think about the beneficial, if you like, spiritual or mental benefits of it. However, I guarantee that, if you go to meetings of every committee of this Parliament, you will see people in front of them saying, “If people just realised the impact that this would have, they would spend a bit more on it.” The problem is that, as I think has been said, the money is not there in the first place.

Those are just some of my thoughts. It would be interesting to hear any comments from the panel.

Just on that point, would it not be more beneficial for something indigenous to Alloa or Ayrshire to happen, rather than having to rely on somebody else coming in?

I appreciate that it is a question of a national collection—there will be restricted access to that—but surely it would be more sustainable and beneficial if there were things across the country? I have been hearing about your mining exhibition. The first mine in Scotland was up in Brora in the Highlands—it was not in Ayrshire or Lancashire or anywhere else. I just think that we are missing a trick there. Richard Demarco has done some fantastic stuff in Alloa as well, but surely something that is more indigenous to that area would have a beneficial impact?

I understand the point that there is no prospect of an incoming UK Government looking again at Brexit. In fact, I think the Labour Party has now said that it will never return to the EU. However, I think that it is still incumbent on the Scottish Government to make as much progress as is possible, even though I can see that it will be at the margins.

I wonder about what is often called “soft power”. I remember being embraced physically once by a senior member of the Christian Democratic Union in Berlin, who said, “We like our Scottish friends”, and that they did not want us to leave them. I think that people have underestimated the extent to which personal affront was taken by people in the EU over the conduct over the Brexit agenda. That opens up an opportunity, if we can get the right relationships. It will not affect the processes, but having the right attitude from people—a positive view of Scotland—is very important. What are you able to do in that space to try to help things along?

We had a discussion earlier about the Irish way of dealing with such matters. Maybe this is a wee bit naive, but having observed the Irish for many years and the way in which they go about things, certainly in the EU but also globally, I have seen that they tend to work as team Ireland. They work in a very disciplined way, across parties and different tiers of government and elected representation. Different parties will pick a number of limited gains that they can achieve, and they tend not to make any enemies and not to get involved in some of the big bun fights in the EU. They have been very successful in doing that.

It would probably have to come at the end of a session, or at the start of a new session, but does the cabinet secretary think that there is any potential to have cross-party agreements on international representation that would take a team Scotland stance? I know that that will be complicated by the unresolved constitutional question, but it must still be possible to achieve that. If that were to be the case, it would probably need to be led by whoever was in government at the time. Is there any merit to pursuing such an approach?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You mentioned the evidence that the committee has heard during its inquiries. At various points we have heard about jobs being lost and businesses going bust, virtually overnight, or stopping exporting. In some cases businesses have been taken over by their now parent companies in other countries, including Germany. We have also been told by someone—I forget the name of the chap who gave evidence; I think that it was a guy from Northern Ireland—that the UK was becoming the most expensive place in the world to do business. Witnesses have told us that it is now easier to do business with North Korea than with EU countries.

Given all those impacts of Brexit, and what you said might happen in a couple of weeks’ time, when I think that most people would assume that we will be looking at a different UK Government, do you have a prepared list of asks for it? Things could be done—before you say it again, I know that they will only happen at the margins—that would improve the situation both for people in Scotland and for businesses. Whoever is elected, a fresh set of eyes will be coming on to the issue at Westminster, so have you a list of early demands and requests that you think could help to improve things in Scotland?

That was my last question, but it is just worth mentioning in passing that the best example of non-Governmental soft power that I can think of is what we are seeing just now with the tartan army in Germany. Scotland’s reputation is being hugely boosted by their conduct.