Chamber and committees

We do not really want our discussion today to be about funding, but inevitably it comes up.

On the back of Mr Ruskell’s line of questioning, I will ask about the pivot by organisations that you talked about. We have heard lots of evidence that organisations felt that Covid reset their relationship with the funders for that time. They became trusted organisations when, all of a sudden, the restrictions on how the money could be used and which projects they could spend it on eased off, which gave the organisations an opportunity to use their own creativity to deliver, as you said, not only a cultural but a civic and wellbeing service to many communities.

The organisations are saying that they would like to continue to feel like that, but they are back to the funding cycle and what they would call a tick-box exercise. Has Creative Scotland reflected on that in relation to how it is asking people to bid for funding now and how it is assessing projects? Is there any opportunity for multiyear funding for some of the organisations that are trusted partners?

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2023 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take business in private. Are members content to take agenda item 3 in private?

Members: indicated agreement.

Some members of the committee visited a couple of cultural settings in Edinburgh, one of which was Wester Hailes Arts for Leisure and Education. You say that you are not working on an asset register, but the WHALE arts centre is obviously very much at the heart of its community. We heard that it is working with partner organisations to open up empty shop units in the area.

How can we get a picture of what is happening across Scotland if all the different strands of culture that are happening in communities are not being fed in to local authorities or Creative Scotland? Does Creative Scotland have enough awareness of community initiatives like that one?

It is worth pointing out that, as convener, I was with the Presiding Officer at the Nordic Council this year, and the committee has tried to engage—to look north as well as to Europe—post-Brexit.

A number of members have supplementary questions, I hope. I am conscious that Mr Ruskell has not come in yet. Do you want to come in now, Mark, or are you asking about a different topic?

Our third agenda item is an evidence session on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We are joined remotely by Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and, from the Scottish Government, Elliot Robertson, head of the EU secretariat; Chris Nicholson, solicitor and head of the constitutional reform and external affairs branch; and Greig Walker, retained EU law management programme lead. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement.

I will turn briefly to the discourse on international offices and missions and will direct my question to Professor Jackson. We prepared a consensual report on the reach of international offices that was very positive. In its submission, the British Council said that it would welcome more offices being opened around the world. The political discourse in the chamber is very difficult—there have been questions about the costs of offices and whether they are a waste of money, and there have been suggestions that they are pretend embassies. Mr Cleverly has intervened by writing to Mr Robertson, and Mr Robertson has asked him to withdraw any indication that those offices are being misused or that the Scottish Government should be curtailed in its use of them. You mentioned that that would almost be unheard of in Canada. Are there other examples of sub-state Governments being at odds with their national Government? Is that not unusual?

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

The UK Government has stated that

“The UK Government and the devolved Governments agree that where common frameworks are operating they are the right mechanism for discussing REUL reform in the areas they cover”

and that when

“using the powers in the Bill, we will use common frameworks to engage with the devolved Governments on decision-making across the UK.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2023; c 813.]

Do you agree with that statement, cabinet secretary?

The screen has frozen, so we will suspend the meeting briefly.

Under item 2, the committee will begin to take evidence as part of our inquiry into the Scottish Government’s national outcomes and indicators relating to international policy. We are delighted to be joined this morning by Professor Stephen Gethins, professor of practice in international relations at the University of St Andrews; Professor Juliet Kaarbo, professor of foreign policy at the University of Edinburgh; and Professor Peter Jackson, chair in global security at the University of Glasgow. Thank you all for your written submissions, which were very helpful.

On that note, we will move straight to questions from the committee. I will ask the first question. Professor Kaarbo, your submission suggests an emphasis on strategic narratives, statecraft and reputation. Could you elaborate on where Scotland is now and where the Scottish Government might take us in the near future?