Official Report 250KB pdf
Our next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01304, in the name of Màiri McAllan, on growing Scotland’s creative economy. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
14:53
I am pleased to open this debate on growing Scotland’s creative economy and recognise the extraordinary contribution that our culture and creative sectors make to Scotland and to our international reputation.
Our creative economy is among our greatest national strengths. It is found in our theatres and concert halls, in our museums, galleries and libraries, in our festivals, screen sector, music industry, games developers, publishers, designers and creative technology businesses and in the work of thousands of artists and entrepreneurs across the country. It is also found in our community centres, our green spaces and—for anyone whose family is like mine and whose family gatherings inevitably turn into everybody being encouraged to do a song or a wee turn—our homes.
In total, the creative industries contribute £5.4 billion to the Scottish economy, support 7,000 to 8,000 jobs and generate £4.3 billion in exports. Culture and the sectors that underpin it create jobs, attract investment, develop skills, support innovation and project Scotland’s talent and our values to the world. That is why I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to consider the importance of culture and creativity, and how we can harness those strengths to support sustainable economic growth and opportunity in our country.
I noticed that, in the long list that the cabinet secretary has just gone through, she did not mention the national companies, which do tremendous good work on behalf of Scotland and are ambassadors. She will know that the companies were very concerned that the funding settlement that they received from her predecessor did not reflect the overall uplift in the culture budget. Will she rectify that?
Murdo Fraser is absolutely right to highlight the importance of our national performing companies, which do a wonderful job across Scotland and in touring. I will be glad to engage with them as part of the budget negotiations that the Government will undertake shortly. I will also be glad to speak to Murdo Fraser about that.
With companies such as our national performing companies, our culture sector has a strong economic foundation. When we talk about economic growth, we often talk about infrastructure, technology, manufacturing, financial services and more. That is absolutely right, but I believe that culture and creativity belong at the heart of that conversation. The creative industries are increasingly recognised as drivers of productivity and innovation, and it is worth noting that they have grown at four times the pace of the rest of the economy in recent years.
We are so well placed to seize the opportunity that that presents. We have world-class institutions: national museums and libraries; the national performing companies, which Murdo Fraser mentioned; and venues and organisations up and down our country. We have globally recognised festivals, a thriving screen sector and a globally respected reputation for artistic excellence. We have creative businesses that are exporting Scottish talent and ideas right across the world. Most importantly, we have talent in every corner of our country.
However, that success cannot be taken for granted. Creative careers continue to be characterised by insecurity for too many people. Organisations face pressures. Freelancers and artists often find it difficult to begin and to sustain a long-term career. Opportunities remain unevenly distributed, particularly for people from backgrounds that remain underrepresented in the sector. If we are serious about growth, which the Government and the Parliament are, we must ensure that creative opportunity is open to everyone.
That is why we are taking action. Last year, Creative Scotland announced more than £200 million in multiyear funding and, in doing so, provided an increase in funding and greater stability. We have made the choice to increase support because we recognise that investment in culture is not just expenditure but an investment in people, jobs and skills, and businesses and communities. Indeed, I believe that it is investment in what makes us human—in human connection—which is so needed now in a world that is digitised and disputatious.
Our strong cultural sector is attracting visitors and investment in talent, supporting regeneration and strengthening the economy. One of the first areas that I want to highlight in that regard is screen. Over recent years, Scotland has established itself as a highly attractive location for film and television production. Scottish stories, talent, locations and voice are reaching global audiences on an unprecedented scale, but we know that there is more potential to unlock. That is why our programme for government commits to setting up an independent Screen Scotland that is strong, focused and ambitious—a national screen body that can attract investment and support domestic production.
Connected to screen, our public service broadcasters play a key role in the sector, and it is crucial that they fulfil their obligations to audiences in Scotland. However, Scotland is currently being shortchanged. BBC expenditure in Scotland is equivalent to only 88 per cent of what is raised from licence fee payers in Scotland. I believe that it is vital that, as a public broadcaster that is paid for by the people of Scotland, the BBC should invest back into our communities and should be seen to do so, ensuring that, when people turn on their screens or their radio, they can see and hear their lives, in all their diversity, excellence and challenge, reflected back at them.
We must reflect on the coverage of moments of national interest such as Glasgow’s Commonwealth games, which were held in July but were not widely covered on the BBC. We have to question whether that is acceptable.
In every conversation that I have, I am advocating for creative professionals up and down the country to have their programming produced and represented by our national broadcaster.
I wish to draw attention to the importance of broadcasting in Gaelic and Scots, and point out a disparity. This year, MG Alba received £25 million—£15 million from the Scottish Government and £10 million from BBC Scotland. By way of comparison, Welsh-language broadcasting received £98 million from the United Kingdom Government allocation of the licence fee and a further £22 million from the BBC. That disparity is totally unacceptable. As the Parliament of Scotland, we should raise our voices in calling for change.
Our festivals are absolutely outstanding, and they are another of our nation’s most significant assets. Alongside a global reputation for programming on stage, festivals provide hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish and local economies, supporting a pipeline of jobs and businesses. Festivals across Scotland have received significant increases through multiyear funding, and a third of all funding recipients run a festival. Beyond the core funding, the expanded festivals fund, which we are now making permanent, is supporting the ambitions of 55 festivals across Scotland, supporting the sector’s growth and its breadth and strength.
We must be equally determined to support the individuals whose work sits at the heart of our creative economy. Artists and creative practitioners are central to our cultural life and our international reputation, yet too many of them face financial insecurity and barriers to accessing the profession. That is why we are taking forward a minimum income pilot for artists, reflecting our determination to support artists to begin and sustain their careers and to pursue artistic excellence in Scotland’s name.
The cabinet secretary has talked about a range of sectors that will benefit from very welcome Scottish Government support. Has she considered the booming and very successful writing and publishing scene in Ireland, which is a direct result of the cultural support that is given to writers there? Would the cabinet secretary like to see whether Scotland can emulate some of that?
Patricia Gibson is absolutely right—both to highlight writing and publishing and to speak to the experience of Ireland. In a moment, I will talk a little bit about having been with the Irish President at the weekend. As we are designing our minimum income pilot for artists, we are looking to Ireland to see how the Irish ran their programme. That is an important connection to highlight.
It is important to support those working in the sector; so, too, is supporting young people to access it. I put on record our intention to develop a youth culture pass. That will allow young people to engage in culture and it will support them while also supporting artists and venues.
Everything that I have already talked about in relation to culture is very much linked to my responsibilities in education, as well as in Gaelic, Scots and British Sign Language. In my view, those are mutually reinforcing. Engagement with culture enriches learning. Creative activity helps to develop confidence, communication skills, critical thinking and problem solving. I believe that art seeks the truth and seeks to hold it up to power. Our Scottish languages are how we engage in our culture and our education, and they are how we represent our heritage and our future.
If I can have a wee bit of time back, I will take an intervention from Paul Sweeney.
The cabinet secretary highlights the importance of access to culture through education and tuition. Sometimes it is important that that happens through the curriculum and in school settings, but community settings and charitable organisations are also important, particularly for working-class kids, who can often find formal educational settings intimidating. Will the cabinet secretary consider the example of Beatroute Arts, in the north of Glasgow, of which I am a trustee, and its excellent, innovative work to break down barriers, allowing working-class kids to access creative expression and music tuition?
Creative expression and engagement in the arts are for everybody. I should be very glad to meet Paul Sweeney and the organisation that he mentions to understand more about what it is doing and how we can make such opportunities available to more people in the country.
Speaking of education, I would like to highlight our film and screen curriculum, which is a ground-breaking and shining example of the work to intertwine education and culture; we are taking all of that forward.
I have been talking about Gaelic, and Patricia Gibson mentioned Ireland. I want to take a little longer to focus on Gaelic within Scotland’s national identity, our culture and, of course, our creative economy. I mentioned that I had the pleasure of welcoming the President of Ireland to the Isle of Skye and to Sabhal Mòr Ostaig at the weekend. In her lecture, which I was privileged to respond to, the President spoke of the many connections between Éire and Alba. We spoke about great Scottish and Irish cultural figures such as Seamus Heaney, Sorley MacLean and Màiri Mhòr nan Òran, or Great Mary of the Songs. Those were great literary figures who spoke of the connection between people, language and the land. I was proud to hear students at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig replay that connection and talk about the enthusiasm that they had for their language and their home areas. It meant so much to me to stand on the site where Sorley MacLean was among the first of a few individuals to set up Sabhal Mòr Ostaig. I want to take the opportunity to put some of his words on the record. This is from “The Cry of Europe”, translated by Iain Crichton Smith:
“What is each ringlet of your golden hairwhen weighed against that poverty and fearwhich Europe’s people bear, and still must bearfrom the first slave-ship to slavery entire?”
That is a reminder of the power of carefully crafted words and considered communication, of our responsibility as parliamentarians to use our voices and to raise them for those who cannot raise their own, and of the indispensable nature of culture and art in our society, not least—in fact, especially—when it comes to political thought.
I look forward to hearing other members’ contributions. I am pleased to accept my Green colleague’s amendment and that of the Liberal Democrats. I should flag to the Liberal Democrats that, although I am not entirely clear that an innovation hub is the approach that we should take, I agree with them on the enormous potential of games, and I would like to work with them on how we harness that.
I will close by saying an enormous thanks to everybody at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig for a wonderful visit with the President of Ireland, and to every artistic individual whom I have had the privilege of meeting since becoming culture secretary.
I move,
“That the Parliament recognises the significant contribution that Scotland’s culture and creative sectors make to the nation’s economy, communities and international reputation; notes that these sectors support employment, innovation and skills development across all parts of Scotland; celebrates the success of Scotland’s artists, creative businesses, festivals, cultural organisations and screen sector in showcasing Scottish creativity at home and abroad; welcomes the commitment to establish Screen Scotland as a distinct public body, in light of the sector’s potential for growth and the benefits of inward investment and domestic production to the Scottish economy; notes the value of the public service broadcasting ecosystem to the wider screen sector and the importance of broadcasters fulfilling their obligations to Scottish audiences and creative industries; acknowledges the importance of ensuring that creative career pathways are accessible and sustainable for people from all backgrounds; recognises the role that culture and creativity play in strengthening community cohesion and improving wellbeing; welcomes the Scottish Government’s ongoing efforts and increased investment to support growth within the creative economy and to develop opportunities for creative workers and businesses; recognises also the unique and welcome contribution that Gaelic and Scots language and culture make to enriching Scotland’s society and economy, and supports continued collaboration across all of society to realise the full economic, cultural and social potential of Scotland’s creative industries.”
I call Katherine Sangster to speak to and move amendment S7M-01304.3.
15:07
I will have to be careful with my time today because, given that we are discussing Scotland’s creative economy, I could use all my time talking about the endless quality and value of the cultural organisations across Edinburgh and Lothians East—from the grass-roots clubs and schools that bring professional artists into local communities to give kids equal opportunities, right up to our world-leading Edinburgh International Festival.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the team behind the Edinburgh International Festival on another outstanding year. It is not just an occasion to show Scotland to the world, but an occasion when the world comes to Scotland, and it is a privilege to represent the city where it all happens. I remind members that the festival was founded in 1947 to heal the deep divisions after world war two.
I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s opening speech and for her motion. I am glad that she spoke about how we grow the creative economy, but there is a challenge in taking that approach, so we need to continue to take an active role in growing the economy, while also listening to the industry when it advises us on the limitations of the approach.
We need a joined-up approach that recognises the unique position that our industries find themselves in, between the public and private sectors. We need a strategy that works across business, trade and the creative sectors. The approach until now has often treated the creative industries as either one thing or the other: a purely private commercial venture or a sector that is core to national ambitions and deserving of grant funding. We need to move away from that binary view, and we have seen that with the success of Screen Scotland. The truth is that, unsurprisingly, the sector is a bit of both.
Our creative industries are a key part of our national story. They are an integral part of brand Scotland, and they are a key means of upskilling young people and providing opportunities to realise and express creative ambitions. They tell a story, as the cabinet secretary said, of who and what Scotland is, and the Government should take an active role in helping to realise that. The creative industries also deliver commercial value: they attract millions of visitors to Scotland each year; they attract the brightest and the best to work and perform in Scotland; and they are, as the cabinet secretary rightly said, the fastest-growing part of our economy.
The public aspects of our creative industries are tied to the private aspects. They need consumers, advertising, software, publishers and more. The commercial aspects of our creative industries support the public aspects too, so we should not seek to separate them. It is important that the Government recognises the complex relationship. Good support might also mean looking at the private enterprises that support the creative industry, not just the public.
We need to have a strong pipeline that will inspire young people and guide them towards opportunities to upskill and into careers that will not only improve their lives but become part of our rich cultural tapestry and traditions.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the talent that Edinburgh and Lothians East holds, from the grass roots all the way up to our international performers. That is not a coincidence: the two support one another. Organisations in my constituency, such as Lyra, help to bring the magic of the international festival to young people by giving them the opportunity to see some of the world’s best performances. Those organisations offer working-class kids opportunities to express themselves through art and light, and to be inspired by where that will take them.
We need to consider every stage of the journey. Support needs to run across every level so that that relationship can continue. We agree that young people should have early access to music and art in schools, but, when the number of music and art teachers in primary schools has fallen by more than 70 per cent since 2008, we must consider how we can confidently say that every child has the opportunity to be inspired.
We understand that the creative industries are about not just artists but technicians, costume designers, advertisers, jewellers and many others. We know that colleges are integral to teaching those skills, but how can they do so successfully when Audit Scotland has warned about the financial pressures that Scottish colleges are under? We want the creative industries to be accessible to all, but our present care systems are not flexible enough to allow those with caring responsibilities to participate confidently and consistently.
The Government needs to join the dots if our creative industries are to succeed. In doing so, it must consider why Scotland’s creative industries are growing more slowly than those in the other constituent parts of the UK. Acknowledging that fact does not diminish Scotland's success; rather, it sets a challenge for us all to strive further. Scottish Labour is up for that challenge.
I move amendment S7M-01304.3, to insert at end:
“recognises that, despite Scotland’s wealth of talent, the creative industries in Scotland have grown at a slower rate than the UK average; believes that a strong creative sector needs a strong skills pipeline and effective business support, and calls on the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that Scotland’s skills system meets the needs of modern creative businesses and that Scotland’s enterprise agencies have the expertise and resources to support the growth of the creative industries.”
I call David Kirkwood to speak to and move amendment S7M-01304.1.
15:12
The culture secretary’s motion quite rightly celebrates the creativity of this wonderful wee country and the contribution that it makes to every aspect of our lives—nationally and internationally, culturally and financially.
Two of the industries in Scotland that are mentioned in the motion, film and television, have a huge advantage over their competitors in the rest of the world simply by virtue of being located here. To make a TV ratings success, just point a camera at our scenery. If someone can wrap a good story in the Scottish aura that is so well appreciated around the world, the world will be their crustacean of choice. That is why “Outlander” was such an enormous global hit, bringing hugely consequential benefits to us by promoting tourism and being a televisual ambassador for our country.
Being able to make content in English as our native language also eases our way into a huge number of markets. We have a surprisingly high number of high-quality TV and film production studios, including Wardpark Studios, where “Outlander” was created. I am not sure that I welcome the commitment to spin out Screen Scotland into a separate entity, as I do not think that the quango constellation really needs another star.
We have a long history of visual art in Scotland, ranging all the way back to rock carvings near Biggar from about 12,000 BC. In recent centuries, those arts have developed mainly into painting of various types, and we have produced many fine artists in watercolours, oils and other media. One of the more famous schools was the Scottish colourists; at the moment, Kirkcudbright Galleries is holding a major exhibition of the paintings of Samuel Peploe.
One recently announced Scottish Government initiative has been the Scottish artists minimum income plan, which intends to provide salaries for Government-approved artists. It may sound like a great idea, but unfortunately, the nearest parallel for the scheme that I can think of was the art fund of the USSR, which supported artists in the Soviet Union. It guaranteed a living wage for artists, but only as long as the art satisfied the commissars. When combined with the Government’s intended food price cap, it looks like a move towards the sovietisation of Scottish society.
Will Mr Kirkwood take an intervention?
Would the cabinet secretary take one of mine?
I do not think that the member made one.
No, but would she, in general? The reason why I am asking the question, Presiding Officer, is that the other parties have a history of not taking interventions from our party. [Interruption.]
Could we move on with the debate, please?
I will take the intervention.
Mr Kirkwood talked about the minimum income pilot. Instead of looking to history and very far afield, I point him to Ireland, which has successfully piloted that work; I will be influenced by what it is doing.
I do not know of any analysis of the success of that scheme, so I will wait until we can see that. [Interruption.] I will wait until I get a third-party analysis of that.
Genuine artists will create art regardless of circumstances. My favourite artist is a 20th-century abstract painter who lived nearly all of his productive life in comparative poverty and ended his days in a camper van in France, scrimping and saving but producing inspiring watercolour paintings to the very end. Instead of subsidising apparatchiks to spend their lives producing pictures that will be acceptable to the culture secretary, why could we not strive to create an economy wealthy enough to allow artists to commit their own time and money to express themselves without constraint?
The motion concentrates on what most people think of as the creative industries: visual arts, music festivals, films and TV—all the fun stuff. However, there is a lot more to creativity than that, and it cuts across all fields of human activity. Members will probably know that I want to expand the STEM acronym—which stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—to STEAM, to incorporate an appreciation of the arts and technical people. During the summer recess, I visited a graduate show at a university that is generally known for its textile and graphics teaching. The show was a delightful riot of imaginative colour and shapes, all designed and created by students from several parts of the world, and included work relating to production control, architectural design and the preparation of raw materials.
I called in again recently to discuss the university’s metamorphosis from a textile specialist into a leading-edge general design institution. As part of our conversation, I offered to introduce it to a company in Dumfries called Vaso Build. Vaso Build is about to open a factory that will turn recycled scrap glass into very high-performance structural panels. The panels will then be assembled into buildings of various sizes that are extremely environmentally responsible, highly energy efficient, fast to build and cheap to produce. An organisation that only a few years ago was concentrating on creating new designs of tweed will, I hope, soon be asking its students to imagine new ways of using a groundbreaking Scottish product to produce economical and versatile social housing. That is creativity. To grow our creative economy, let us just let our general economy grow, and the creative industries as we know them will follow.
I move amendment S7M-01304.1, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“notes that creativity is not limited to the performing or visual arts, but is inherent in every activity and every person; recognises that creativity is a synonym for innovation, and believes that Scotland has been the most innovative country on Earth since at least the mid-seventeenth century; recognises that innovation is most often the product of a society that values freedom of thought and is rich in trust and knowledge; insists that innovation cannot be directed by government, but flourishes when innovators are free of societal constraints, and celebrates that Scotland is, in its view, probably the most marketable country on the planet, with an enormous depth of international goodwill, as was demonstrated by the magnificent Tartan Army earlier this year, and by the very many instantly recognisable Scottish icons.”
I call Q Manivannan to speak to and move amendment S7M-01304.2.
15:18
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I have spent far more of my life struggling as a writer and an artist—in the very same ways that Mr Kirkwood has said that we do not—than as a politician on the other side, so it is a genuine privilege. I welcome the Government’s motion and the engagement that the cabinet secretary has had with the wider art sector as well as with the Greens.
In June, I convened a round-table meeting with Culture Counts and the basic income for artists Scotland group, which brought together the leads and representatives of organisations across Scotland and the arts sector, from the Federation of Scottish Theatre, the Scottish Music Industry Association and Traditional Arts and Culture Scotland to the collecting companies, the galleries, the performing companies, the unions and more. What struck us was how differently we each answered the question of where culture resides, what culture means or how we measure it. For some, it resides in a rehearsal room or a gig space; for others, it resides in a building, a landscape or a castle; and for others, it is an intangible heritage that resides in a ceilidh, a song passed from one generation to another or a skill that is taught by hand. My colleagues Patrick Harvie and Kate Nevens joined that discussion and each returned, albeit from different angles, to the same point: culture cannot simply be built from the top down by institutions, nor solely from the bottom up by individual artists; it needs both approaches together, and it needs the Government to recognise what is actually happening and where, not only where it is easiest to count.
This morning, before I came to the chamber, I was at the National Library of Scotland, where I was shown archives of working-class Scottish writers and artists. Those pages reminded me of an old economic adage: there is no measure of assessment that is not time bound or not bound by geography. It is not just that culture’s value cannot be measured in a spreadsheet but that our existing methods of measuring it are simply incredibly flawed. That measurement does not always reflect culture’s value long after it is made, or when culture does not reside where we expect it to.
Walter Scott’s influence over the world took decades to be realised and truly registered. Agnes Owen wrote for years while working ordinary jobs in Scotland before being recognised as one of our most important working-class voices. That recognition came far too late, and no contemporary economic survey back then would have predicted it.
Edwin Morgan’s significance, including as a translator, internationalist, one of our makars and someone whose words opened this very Parliament building, deepened for decades after the work was written, much as it was shaped by places and languages far beyond Scotland.
I do not just say this to romanticise the past but to make a hard, practical economic point: when we measure culture simply by the year’s gross value added figures, we are using a measurement method that is structurally blind to how culture creates value, often years and generations later and often in a form that official statistics cannot, or were never built to, see.
That is the case not just in theory but in practice. In 2023, I was privileged enough to win the Kavya prize for new writers, established by the late Scottish writer Leela Soma. Winning it opened doors for me that would otherwise never have opened. The prize and the writers who it supported will not show up in any economic data set for years, if ever. Its value is very real, but it is currently invisible from the frameworks that we inhabit.
The Scottish Parliament information centre research confirms that the basic comparisons that we have between Scotland’s cultural spend and that of Nordic countries is distorted by how, for instance, broadcasting spend is classified, since the BBC is treated as non-identifiable expenditure and stripped out of national comparisons altogether. On economic impact, more broadly, SPICe notes that most assessments of economic impact must be treated with some degree of caution, because they rarely account properly for displacement, which is money that would have been spent elsewhere anyway, or deadweight, which is activity which would have happened regardless.
However, this demand for quantification—for measuring a cultural sector by its industry and by its impact—will always exist. I know that every organisation is working their hardest to publish reports and to justify themselves through footfall, support for local economies, jobs created and more. Those are serious efforts by serious sectors. Every one of them is struggling with the same problem: the numbers that we have were never designed to capture what culture actually does, or to capture those who are missing.
As the cabinet secretary rightly noted, there are many for whom access is not equal. The Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre shows that overall engagement with culture in Scotland is high, but there is a 22-point gap in cultural attendance between disabled and non-disabled people. People in our most deprived areas are 25 per cent less likely to have gone to the cinema than those in the wealthiest, and gaps of a similar scale exist for galleries, classical music, live music, and more. Just 11 per cent of people from a minoritised ethnic background report attending the theatre, compared with 31 per cent of everyone else.
Those statistics matter not because Scotland’s culture resides, as many would like to believe, in the central belt but because the geographic spread is immense. The Outer Hebrides has one of the highest concentrations of artists anywhere in Scotland. Our rural and highland communities carry that burden and that share of our culture workforce that urban-centred policy often overlooks.
That is why I am delighted to move the amendment in my name, because fair work matters now more than ever. It matters across the breadth of our cultural life and our geography, and in the temporality with which we assess it. Musicians, traditional artists, screen and costume crews, textile makers, games developers and craftspeople are all overwhelmingly freelance or self-employed, with a much higher percentage in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. That is exactly why the culture fair work task force recommendations must be implemented—from stronger safeguards against artificial intelligence systems scraping and reproducing creative work without consent or payment to the need for a dedicated fair work fund. My amendment calls on the Government to provide an update on implementation, including on welcome efforts such as the basic income for artists pilot. That applies just as much to a session musician in Dundee or a textile maker in the Borders as it does to a novelist in Edinburgh.
At the end of the day, culture is not found only in our national institutions, vital though they are; it is found in the pub session, the cafe or the open mic. I respectfully disagree with Mr Kirkwood—although artists do not need the Government to direct them in their art, they do need its support.
We are in a housing crisis, as I think that Ms Sangster very likely mentioned. We are in climate and an environmental crisis climate in which costs are going up, which is no fault of artists themselves. However, every conversation that I have with members of the art sector involves them asking how they can contribute to the economy, the health sector, the justice sector or the education of our young people, instead of talking about what they require from the Government and the Parliament.
For that reason alone, but also because of the wonderful artistic spaces that I come from and the people who wish to contribute more than they would ever ask for, I commend the amendment in my name and am delighted to support the Government’s motion and that of my colleagues in the Lib Dems, which recognises the games sector.
I move amendment S7M-01304.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that fair work, including fair pay, secure contracts and safe working conditions, remains a significant challenge across parts of the creative sector, particularly for freelance and self-employed workers, who make up the majority of the workforce; calls on the Scottish Government to publish an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Culture Fair Work Task Force, which was published in December 2025; welcomes the Scottish Government’s engagement with consultations for a proposed Culture and Arts Bill and believes that this Bill, developed through meaningful consultation with artists and the culture sector, would provide a lasting legislative foundation for supporting Scotland’s creative industries, and calls for the Bill to be ambitious and inclusive of grassroots organisations and individuals.”
15:25
I declare an interest as a published author who is in receipt of what are usually very small sums in royalties. They were not always small sums, but the book has been out of print for a number of years—you can still buy it as an e-book on Amazon, so I would encourage members to look it up.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic to her brief. I think that this is the first debate that she has led on culture in that new role. We should also take a moment to reflect on the work that was done by her predecessor, Angus Robertson, who is no longer with us in the chamber. He had a strong personal interest in the arts, and the sector welcomed some of the successes that he was able to achieve, not least securing additional funding for the arts and, perhaps even more importantly, securing the multiyear funding settlement that many in the sector had called for over many years and thought was absolutely essential.
That said, there were two significant failures on his part. The first, which I mentioned in my intervention on the cabinet secretary earlier, is the continued uncertainty around the funding for the national companies: Scottish Opera, Scottish Ballet, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and the National Theatre of Scotland.
I have nothing but admiration for the work that is done by the national companies. They are genuine world leaders and tremendous ambassadors for Scotland, and the economic benefit that they bring to the country far outweighs the investment that goes into them in public funds. However, they seemed to be ignored by the previous cabinet secretary and not given the support that was required, and the funding that they received did not reflect the overall increases in the budget. I hope that, in her new role, the cabinet secretary will look seriously at the funding for the national companies.
I am sure that, over the summer, the cabinet secretary will have seen mention in the media of Scottish Ballet saying that it can no longer afford to take performances to Edinburgh, because the cost of the visitor levy that has been imposed by the City of Edinburgh Council means that it cannot accommodate its necessarily large company in Edinburgh to put on performances. That should be a serious worry for the cabinet secretary, because, if we cannot see our national company in Scotland’s capital, that raises serious questions about the future of our cultural offer.
The other thing that we saw under the direction of the previous cabinet secretary was a crisis in the two Government agencies that fell under his remit—Creative Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland—with the crisis in HES continuing to this day. Barely a day goes by without yet more damaging revelations appearing in newspapers about failures in leadership and governance in HES. That is having a huge impact on the reputation of that organisation, on staff morale and on the ability of HES to deliver on its objectives. As for Creative Scotland, there were a number of well-publicised failures and weaknesses that the previous cabinet secretary failed to get a grip of, and those now need to be addressed.
I endorse much of what the cabinet secretary has said about the value of the culture and creative sectors to our economy. We only have to look at what happens in Edinburgh in the summer and at the world-leading reputation of the Edinburgh festivals to see an illustration of that. At the same time, it should concern us when we see the TV festival taking a decision to move away from Edinburgh, again because of the high costs of running activities in Scotland’s capital. There is a danger that we become victims of our own success.
In respect of Mr Fraser’s comment on the TV festival, I hope that he will acknowledge that a great deal of work was done by the Government and other stakeholders to retain it. Moreover, I hope that he can welcome the fact that we were very fast in filling the space and confirming that there will be a replacement festival from next year.
Indeed—I recognise that the Government tried hard, but we still need to reflect on the fact that we lost the TV festival in the first place because of the costs of maintaining it here in Edinburgh.
It is not only Edinburgh that benefits from festivals and events; we such benefits right across the country and throughout the year. In fact, the need to spread cultural success out from the central belt to all different parts of Scotland, including rural areas, throughout the year is important. We need employment to be supported in theatres, concert halls and music venues.
As David Kirkwood said, Scotland is increasingly becoming a location for film and television production, which is welcome, but it is curious, as we are talking about public service reform and rationalisation, that the Scottish Government has decided to make Screen Scotland a stand-alone agency, which seems to fly in the face of everything else that it is trying to do on reducing the number of quangos.
We recognise, as stated in our amendment and in the Government motion, the importance of the Gaelic and Scots languages and the relevance of public support in those areas. Scotland has a rich Gaelic culture, which is predominantly in but not restricted to the Highlands and Islands, and it is essential that that part of our heritage and culture is not lost.
I want to mention two important points that we make in our amendment. First, we must absolutely support the principle of the distribution of public funds being done at arm’s length and not directly by Government. However, that needs to come with an absolute guarantee that there can be no political bias in the allocation of funding and that there can be no suggestion that public funding is being given to those whose political sympathies lie with the current Government.
Will the member take an intervention?
If have time, I will happily give way.
We are tight for time, I am afraid, but on this occasion, okay.
Does Murdo Fraser share my concern that the proposed artists minimum income scheme could well be a taxpayer-funded nationalist agitprop fund?
I thank Jamie Langan for that intervention. There is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune, so perhaps we do need to be careful about those issues.
The other point I was going to make was about free speech. There was an extremely unfortunate incident last year, where a venue in Edinburgh, the Summerhall arts centre, issued an apology to artists for what it described as an oversight in booking the then Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to speak at the venue. That is a perfect illustration of cancel culture in operation.
Kate Forbes is clearly not from my party, but nevertheless, she was a very senior figure in this Parliament—indeed, the second most senior figure in the Scottish Government. It is absolutely disgraceful for a venue that is in receipt of large sums of public funds to seek to restrict freedom of speech in that manner.
Is it really the case that, in defence of freedom of speech, Murdo Fraser is trying to tell independent culture venues who they should and should not book? Are they not free to make that decision for themselves?
I say to Mr Harvie that if they want to stand on their own two feet financially, they can do what they like. If they are in receipt of taxpayer funds, they should stand up for freedom of speech and stop closing down debate.
I do not want public funds to come with many restrictions, but trying to restrict debate and stop free speech, even from people in the Scottish Government, with whom I have many disagreements, should not be permitted. We must protect freedom of speech, and I am sure that that view is widely supported across Scottish society. It is the point made in my amendment, which I am pleased to move.
I move amendment S7M-01304.4, to leave out from second “welcomes” to end and insert:
“believes that public support for culture and the arts should uphold freedom of expression and speech, and that decisions on public funding should be made at arm’s length from government and be free from political interference; recognises the contribution that Gaelic and Scots language and culture make to enriching Scotland’s society and economy, and supports collaboration across all of society to realise the full economic, cultural and social potential of Scotland's creative industries.”
15:33
As we have heard this afternoon—I expect that we will hear it more over the course of the debate—Scotland’s culture and creative industries deserve recognition. I therefore welcome the opportunity to speak to the cabinet secretary’s motion.
I believe that we can find genuine consensus and shared ambition in the motion. The test, which I appreciate the cabinet secretary recognises, is whether the Government can ensure that support and opportunities reach the people and places that make Scotland creative. Our culture and creative industries provide livelihoods, but they are also so much more.
At a recent meeting of the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I highlighted the submission from Culture Counts on public service reform. Its warning is a serious one: yes, culture can help to achieve better outcomes, but, when seen through the lens of preventative spending in particular, seeking savings in this sector would
“amount to little more than a rounding error against the total efficiencies sought, while inflicting further disproportionate damage for communities across Scotland”.
That is an important warning, albeit that I recognise the commitment to spend within the culture brief.
I saw what was at stake during the summer, when I visited An Talla Solais in Ullapool, in my constituency. It works with schools and runs workshops for people with dementia and their carers, and it offers connection and purpose while enhancing wellbeing. The value of that work must be better recognised in the Scottish Government’s public service reform agenda.
That question matters in particular in my Highland constituency, where geography can determine whether someone can attend a performance, learn a skill or pursue a creative career. Those challenges are borne out by the statistics. Liberal Democrat analysis of Creative Scotland awards covering April 2025 to March 2028 shows that Edinburgh received 300 times more spending per head than North Lanarkshire, which received just 49p per head. That is not an isolated example of people living outside our biggest cities feeling left behind.
In evidence to the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee most recently, the cabinet secretary stated her belief that
“everyone has an equal opportunity to get involved irrespective of background or where they live.”
I welcome that commitment and I share that belief, which is why I press the Government to apply rural proofing to all aspects of Government spending, including culture spend. I repeat that call today. I see that the Minister for Innovation, Technology and Tertiary Education, Mr Smith, is in his place. I welcome him to his post and appreciate the constructive nature of our engagements to date, but I hope that he can address the issue of rural proofing in summing up.
Although I empathise with the member’s overall point, would he agree that his reference to Edinburgh is somewhat out of context, given that Edinburgh hosts the biggest creative festival in the world? We have to protect and treasure that and not take it for granted.
I recognise that that one example can perhaps be complemented by many more, and I would be happy to put that in my summation, if the member sits in the chamber and waits for it.
I turn to the people at the heart of the debate: the artists, freelancers and small arts organisations themselves. I spoke recently to a small charity that had spent thousands of hours in preparing lengthy funding applications—time that it could have spent on delivering projects itself.
Accountability matters—there should be no disagreement on that—but applications to Creative Scotland should be proportionate. Clearer priorities and simpler processes, and a genuine voice for applicants, would make a difference. To that end, I welcome the Scottish Government’s intention to consult on a culture bill during the current session of Parliament. However, I urge the Government to give a cast-iron guarantee that that bill will, at the very least, be print ready by the end of the session.
Turning to the amendment in my name, I believe that we need to bring games directly into the discussion about growing Scotland’s creative economy. According to the UK-wide games trade body Ukie, the games industry contributes nearly £200 million annually to the Scottish economy and employs more than 2,000 full-time staff. However, although our games sector has high-profile success stories, the reality on the ground is incredibly challenging. Video game and digital media companies face a steep financial mountain during the initial start-up phase, long before a product is ready for market and, following Brexit in particular, our games businesses are losing access to vital funding streams.
We have seen those pressures reflected most recently in the closure of Axis Studios, resulting in more than 160 job losses, and mass redundancies at companies such as Build A Rocket Boy where more than 300 staff were cut.
Research by the University of Glasgow and the University of Stirling highlights why that is happening. The industry faces a severe deficit in business skills, a lack of dedicated funding and the absence of a central games hub or support body.
I warmly welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment’s drawing attention to the games sector. Does the member agree, however, that there is a strong overlap with some of the issues that we are raising around fair work? Even some of the profitable parts of the games sector have a serious hill to climb in providing fair work standards for the people who are producing very profitable content for them.
I agree with the member’s point. That is why my party will support the Green amendment later this afternoon. Mr Harvie is right to say that there are big challenges in the gaming sector. We must celebrate the sector and support it, but that support must go hand in hand with action to address the challenges that Mr Harvie raises—we are on the same page in that regard.
To address all of those challenges, my colleague Neil Alexander has introduced proposals to establish a national games innovation centre alongside regional hubs—I put on record my thanks to him for that. That network would help to develop enterprise, drive research, embed fair work practices and deliver the critically important business skills that I have talked about. Crucially, I hope that, by providing low-cost office space, we can ensure that the growth from that industry can be spread out right across rural Scotland.
Let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats want culture to flourish throughout Scotland. We support the aspirations of the motion, while asking the Government to heed the concerns raised by Culture Counts and others with regard to how we can strengthen our communities and wellbeing alongside them. I know that the cabinet secretary recognises the need for that to happen. That is how we can use welcome words to make a lasting opportunity.
I move amendment S7M-01304.5, to insert at end:
“; notes that the games sector contributes around £200m annually to the Scottish economy, employs over 2,000 people and has produced internationally recognised success stories; considers, however, that there are opportunities to grow the sector further and better compete with other countries around Europe, and calls on the Scottish Government to unlock investment and growth in the games sector by establishing a national games innovation centre alongside regional hubs as a means of developing expertise, research, fair work, business skills and low-cost office space for start-up studios.”
We move to the open debate.
15:40
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a sitting member of West Lothian Council and a former employee of the National Youth Choir of Scotland.
Culture is who we are. It is how we make sense of the world, and it is the story that we tell about ourselves to others. In Scotland, we are lucky to be part of a culture that is one of the most powerful and distinctive of any small nation.
As was mentioned, our culture is rooted in tradition. It is reinterpreted with each generation and layered with the history of our development as a nation. Some of Scotland’s most important industries, from food and drink to tourism and textiles, are deeply woven within it, and people throughout the world cherish their enduring sense of Scottish identity—we have a diaspora of millions.
The tartan army’s contribution to this year’s world cup exemplifies Scotland’s positive international image. It was a masterclass in soft power, which yielded tangible benefits from twinning arrangements with Boston to VisitScotland’s projection of an increase of potentially up to £200 million extra in future visitor spending in Scotland.
The depth, diversity and international profile of Scottish culture mean that further investment in our creative economy will offer benefits that are far beyond purely economic ones. If we are serious about growing Scotland’s creative economy, we must interpret that as an investment in people, place, wellbeing, fair work practices and international influence. Although the multiplier effects of investment in art and culture are well documented, economic growth is not an end in itself. Growth has a rate, but it also has a direction and we should be seeking to shape that direction.
That is why I welcome today’s debate, particularly at the start of this parliamentary session, when we have the opportunity to rewire how we deliver outcomes for Scotland’s citizens. As a member of both the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I can see clearly the twin challenges that we face in supporting our creative sectors over the long term—maybe over centuries, as Q Manivannan suggested—while also addressing the immediate fiscal pressures that Scotland faces. However, this is not an either/or situation. That is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to increasing investment in culture during the course of this session. It is refreshing to have a Government that recognises that support for culture is not separate from our economic ambitions but central to them.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government is focused on improving access to culture for people throughout Scotland, regardless of where they are from and their ability to pay. Our cities are world-class cultural centres, but we need to make sure that the opportunity to access culture is universal and that young people from all backgrounds can see a path into a sustainable career in the creative industries.
I grew up in West Lothian, 20 miles from Edinburgh and 30 miles from Glasgow. At that point in my life, those cities may as well have been 500 miles away, culturally. Even though I have been fortunate enough to build a career as a freelance musician, my route into music was local. I had a local music teacher and a supportive school music department with free instrumental tuition, there were bands that took me under their wing and a local ladies choir that gave me my first job, and there was a community who loved their music and have produced world-renowned artists such as The Snuts, Susan Boyle and Lewis Capaldi, not to mention world champions such as the Boghall and Bathgate pipe band and Whitburn brass band, one of the country’s best brass bands. West Lothian truly punches above its weight.
Through measures such as free instrumental tuition, the rolling out of a national film and screen curriculum for all pupils—the first of its kind in the world—and plans to introduce a youth culture pass and to pilot the artists minimum income, the Scottish Government is truly broadening access to culture and the creative industries for the next generation.
Our grass-roots music venues are also part of developing that essential ecosystem. The excellent work of the Music Venue Trust reminds us that those venues are not only places to perform but vital cultural assets that nurture emerging talent, strengthen local economies and build the foundations for Scotland’s wider music industry. There is a fantastic example of that in my constituency: Scotland’s oldest rock club, DreadnoughtRock, to which it is well worth a night out—maybe I would suggest it for a Christmas night out.
I will give a local example of just how far £1 invested in our creative industry can travel. In an area of high deprivation in my constituency, the organisation Artlink has worked for many years alongside people who are experiencing enduring mental illness. Together with the community—including local asylum seekers—it has recently designed and built a community garden where people can come and grow, cook and eat together. It is also a place for creativity and expression. Last year, I attended a concert in that garden, organised by Artlink. It was the culmination of a project that brought together a researcher from the University of Edinburgh and a historical archive of Ethiopian and Eritrean music held by the National Museum of Scotland, in collaboration with Ethiopian-Scottish musicians, which resulted in a performance that celebrated shared culture and heritage. A local small street food business owner cooked the food, which was supplied by a local family butcher. The local community took part in a traditional Ethiopian coffee ceremony. It was a joyful afternoon and a powerful example of how the arts can break down barriers and strengthen communities while contributing directly to the local economy.
The economist Mariana Mazzucato said:
“Economic frameworks too often struggle to value what matters most—preferring to measure value in terms of GDP, and not on how we live, belong and imagine collective futures”.
In Scotland, we are showing that both options are possible.
15:46
The foundation of the creative economy is ordinary people having a small thought: “Perhaps I could do that.” Sometimes, we can trace that thought back to a single moment. Alan Cumming has spoken about the impact on his life trajectory of Dundee Rep coming to Monikie primary school when he was eight years old. He went on from Carnoustie high school to Broadway and Hollywood, and he has now won three Emmy awards. That is what access to culture can do.
That is why I was particularly pleased to see the introduction in the programme for government of the youth culture pass—the cabinet secretary has also mentioned that. I lobbied for the introduction of the pass because young people’s access to culture should never depend solely on their class or what their parents can afford. When money is tight, people spend it on the essentials. Trying something new or pursuing a passion can, too often, feel like money that someone cannot afford to spend. The aim of that policy is simple: to give young people the freedom to discover something that, otherwise, they might never encounter. Let them find the music that stops them in their tracks, the story that they cannot put down or the performance that they are still talking about all the way home. The message from this Parliament to young people should be, “Culture is for you, too, so go out and find what moves you.”
That freedom to discover is not only good cultural policy; it is good economic policy. Before the theatre’s curtain rises, someone has built the set, designed the lighting, rehearsed the music and sold the tickets. I know that it will come as a surprise to everyone in the chamber, but, in a previous life, I worked in theatre. Behind every performance is a whole team of people working to pull it together. For many people, that creativity can become their livelihood. The child who looks at the stage and watches the performance today might build that stage or tread the boards tomorrow. The teenager who goes to the gallery to see a masterpiece might paint the next masterpiece. We need to nurture places where talent can thrive.
At Hospitalfield house in Arbroath, artists have space and time to create in an environment that brims with inspiration. I welcome the fact that it has been awarded multiyear funding from Creative Scotland. For everyone from Patrick Allan Fraser in the 1800s to people who are just picking up a paintbrush today, Hospitalfield is at the centre of Angus’s artistic economy and I am proud to represent it in the Parliament.
That brings me to two people who have made the arts and culture such a large part of my life—my grandparents, Alexander Melville, who was a Couper Angus farmhand, and Elizabeth McCarthy, who was a proud daughter of the city of Dundee. They balanced raising our family with professional careers, but creativity was a constant throughout.
In her 40s, Liz took herself off to art college at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design and dedicated much of the rest of her life to her true passion—painting. She spent a lot of time at Hospitalfield, including as an artist-in-residence, and one of her paintings now hangs in my office in Holyrood. I do not think she ever could have imagined that.
Sandy spent his time making things from wood in his garden shed, translating established poems into Scots and composing his own. I have fond memories of me, as a wee boy, sitting and listening to his Scots rendition of “The Pied Piper of Hamelin” and hearing him recite Violet Jacob’s “The Wild Geese”, vividly picturing that
“lang skein o beatin wings”
flying high above the Angus straths.That influence shaped my appreciation for the arts and my love for Scotland’s varied linguistic landscape.
The point is that we can talk about the creative economy in terms of industry, jobs and economic value, but it is driven by ordinary people turning their passions into reality. I see that same spirit every year when I cross the Tay to visit the Pittenweem arts festival. For a week, homes, studios, gardens, garages and halls across the village become places for people to show what they have made and to engage in the arts.
It is a shame that Willie Rennie is not here, because I am sure that he would agree with me that places such as Pittenweem and Angus, whose festival of makers brings people together around the joy of making, are essential to the grass roots of Scotland’s creative economy.
Let me take this opportunity to agree with something that David Green and Murdo Fraser said. If we are to grow our creative economy further, we need to back up-and-coming creatives with the direct funding that enables them to thrive and, indeed, to tilt the funding towards people outside the central belt—particularly those from rural and working-class communities. I hope that we can take that forward.
Sustaining the grass-roots creative economy in the long term will also mean giving young people the chance to pursue the arts, no matter what background they come from. I was glad that the Scottish Government removed school instrumental music tuition fees and that it ended curriculum charges for art materials and required drama trips. Since music tuition fees were abolished, participation has risen by almost 30,000 pupils, which means that more young people now have the chance to pursue their talent at no cost. Surely that is a welcome outcome for all of us. I very much look forward to seeing how the youth culture pass and, indeed, the artists minimum income pilot build on that progress.
Some of the most important Scottish culture of the next 20 years will be made by people whose names none of us know today. They will tell stories that we have not heard, challenge our tastes and make things that we would never have thought to commission. That is good, because a creative country should continually surprise itself.
When a young person encounters something today and thinks, “Maybe I could do that,” let us give them the chance to find out.
15:53
I welcome this opportunity to debate Scotland’s creative economy, and I am pleased that the Government’s motion recognises the significant contribution that is made by Scotland’s languages—Gaelic, in particular.
Last year, we saw Police Constable Kat Crichton played by the talented Sorcha Grounsell as she took to our screens in “An t-Eilean”, which has a gripping storyline, top-class acting and the stunning scenery of the Isle of Harris. If members have not seen it, I suggest that they catch up before season 2 comes out, next year.
That was a watershed moment for Gaelic broadcasting, with “An t-Eilean” billed as the first ever high-end Gaelic language drama, representing a significant investment, with a £1 million budget for each of the four episodes. It brought Gaelic TV to a wider audience, showed what can be achieved creatively and also showcased the language, culture and place to the world.
Since its launch, the BBC Alba channel has gone from strength to strength, with documentaries, dramas and very popular current affairs and news programmes becoming staples. BBC Alba recently secured the rights to broadcast matches from Italy’s serie A, and its programmes have continued to win awards, including “Somhairle Spins”, which, in 2026, won the Prix CIRCOM award for most innovative and original TV show in European regional television. It is a good example of how MG Alba is embracing the shift to digital content and linking that back with its more traditional output.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.