Official Report 837KB 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 are 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 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.
I welcome Mr MacKinnon’s advocacy for MG Alba and for Gaelic language programming. Does he agree with me that the disparity between the BBC’s investment in Welsh-language broadcasting and its investment in Gaelic broadcasting is very much out of kilter, and would he call for those investments to be equalised?
I agree, and I will come to that later in my speech.
In addition to the success of BBC Alba, Gaelic TV has a great economic story to tell. MG Alba supports 340 full-time equivalent jobs, with half of those in the Highlands and Islands, and it generates an estimated £18.2 million in gross value added to the economy. A report by Ernst & Young found that MG Alba would amplify the value of any investment by 137 per cent.
However, the sector is not without its challenges. When BBC Alba launched, in 2008, original programming sat at 40 per cent of its output, but that figure is now as low as 22 per cent. The MG Alba annual report welcomes Scottish Government support, which provided greater certainty for the year ahead, but it notes that long-term funding is essential if Gaelic media are to continue investing in new content, talent development and digital innovation.
That ask is one not only for the Scottish Government. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, there is a strong case to be made for the BBC providing additional funding to MG Alba, and she is also right to raise the issue of Welsh TV receiving additional funding. I encourage the cabinet secretary to continue making that case to the UK Government as it considers the renewal of the BBC’s charter. I fully support her aims and would be happy to work with her on that.
The economic opportunity that Gaelic represents goes well beyond television. There are opportunities for Gaelic in the wider creative sector, the arts and the growing traditional music sector. One example of that is the Hebridean Celtic Festival in my constituency, which last year provided a £4.4 million boost to the local economy. Festivals such as HebCelt and EDF, in Benbecula, are grounded in the Gaelic language and culture and are tremendous assets to our islands and to Scotland. In addition, next month, the Royal National Mòd, which is a fantastic showcase of Gaelic culture, will return to Glasgow.
If we want to keep seeing Gaelic delivering all those economic benefits to the creative sector, we must invest in it as a community language and ensure that it continues to be spoken. That means ensuring that opportunities for Gaelic-medium education are widely available and that community groups, particularly in the heartlands, are supported to continue their amazing work to keep the language thriving. That will remain key to realising the economic potential of Gaelic.
Will the member accept an intervention?
The member has concluded his speech and will, unfortunately, not be able to take an intervention.
15:58
This summer, I attended the Edinburgh deaf festival at Deaf Action, and that is a useful place for me to start my speech about growing Scotland’s creative economy. The festival had art, comedy, theatre, film, exhibitions, workshops and storytelling, with around 2,000 people visiting over a few days. I specifically mention that because the Government motion talks about artists, festivals, creative careers, community cohesion, wellbeing and the contribution that our languages make to Scottish culture, and the deaf festival has all those things.
We have a habit of putting BSL into a slightly different box. We talk about it mainly in terms of access, asking whether a deaf person can access a performance or whether there will be an interpreter. Those things do matter enormously, but BSL is not just the means by which a deaf person accesses someone else’s culture. BSL has a culture of its own, and I have probably always understood that because, as members know, my dad is deaf and BSL has been part of my life from childhood.
My dad is a historian and has contributed to a book recording deaf history in the north-east of Scotland, so the deaf history archive at Deaf Action particularly interested me because Deaf Action itself has quite a history. Walter Geikie was a deaf Edinburgh artist whose artwork recorded simple everyday life in the city in the early 1800s. He was also an important figure in the deaf community and helped to found the organisation that eventually became Deaf Action. Nearly 200 years later, deaf artists are still coming together through that organisation to tell stories, make people laugh, make films, perform and create. That thread matters, because identity and language carry history, humour, expression and stories through time.
Our BSL national plan recognises that BSL and deaf culture are intertwined and that BSL users should be able to enjoy and contribute to culture as participants, audience members and professionals. There is also a cultural rights dimension that we do not recognise enough. Article 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture, and the opportunity to develop creative and artistic potential for the enrichment of society. Cultural rights are not just about access; they are about being able to create, contribute and have your own culture recognised.
That takes us straight back to the creative economy. In Banff, in my constituency, we have Sandra Duguid, a deaf filmmaker. Her award-winning film—I will not start a fight between the north-easters—“Rowies v Butteries SAGA!” used BSL as its primary language with captions in English and Doric. I will not give my opinion on rowies versus butteries for fear of dividing my constituency. I love that example because it shows that we do not have to put Scotland’s languages into separate boxes. Just as the motion rightly recognises Gaelic and Scots language and culture, Sandra’s work shows BSL, Doric, film and deaf identity sitting together in something rooted in the north-east.
Now, that is a creative product. It is also somebody’s work. We talk about growing the creative economy, but the people creating that work have to be able to build sustainable careers from it. Scotland’s creative industries already contribute more than £5.7 billion a year and employ more than 90,000 people. I am glad that the programme for government includes a Scottish artists minimum income pilot alongside increased cultural investment and work on creative career pathways.
The pounds matter, but they are not the only return on investment that we should recognise. At the deaf festival, people were laughing together, learning together and sharing a language and culture. For communities where isolation can be very real, that means everything—it means living a life.
The Scottish household survey found that almost half of adults said culture and the arts made a positive difference to their lives. Among them, 39 per cent cited improved mental health and wellbeing so, when we talk about a wellbeing economy, there is a legitimate question about whether we measure all of the value that culture creates. A person being less isolated and finding somewhere that they belong matters deeply to a healthy economy. Those things are harder to attach a pound sign to, but they still produce a real return for society. Therefore, I am heartened that the motion mentions not only the economic potential of Scotland’s creative industries but their economic, cultural and social potential.
When we think about BSL within that, I would like us to get beyond asking only whether deaf people can access what everyone else is doing. We should also ask whether deaf creative artists have the same opportunities to create, lead, earn, tell their own stories and pass their culture on. BSL and deaf culture are not at the edges of Scotland’s creative life; they are already part of it. Recognising that is exactly what realising the full economic, cultural and social potential of Scotland’s creative industries should mean.
16:04
I am pleased to speak in support of the Scottish Government motion, which rightly recognises the significant contribution that Scotland’s culture and creative sectors make to our nation’s economy, our communities and our international reputation. Those sectors do far more than provide entertainment. They support employment across every part of Scotland. They drive innovation, develop skills and help to build the confidence and identity of all our people, new Scots and old. They showcase Scottish creativity at home and abroad and they form an essential part of who we are as a nation.
In my constituency of East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs, we see that contribution with particular clarity through two outstanding festivals: Fringe by the Sea in North Berwick and the Lammermuir festival.
Fringe by the Sea has grown into one of Scotland’s most successful multi-arts festivals. Each summer, it transforms our beautiful coastal town of North Berwick into a vibrant hub of music, comedy, conversation, film and, of course, family entertainment. Held at the same time as the Edinburgh festival, it has, in recent years, attracted well over 100,000 visitors and delivered economic impacts for the local economy, which have risen from around £11 million, initially, to a record £12.7 million. It supports tourism-related jobs; fills our cafes, restaurants, galleries and shops; and encourages people to explore our beaches, harbours and museums. Many of those visitors are new to East Lothian, and a high proportion say that they will return.
Fringe by the Sea demonstrates how a well-supported festival can generate substantial economic value while enriching community life and raising the profile of our area.
Although different in character, the Lammermuir festival offers something equally special. For nearly two weeks each September, it brings world-class classical musicians to East Lothian’s historic churches, halls and landscapes, from Haddington and Dunbar to Whitekirk and beyond. Beautiful music is matched with beautiful places, creating performances that feel both intimate and ambitious. The festival attracts audiences from across Scotland and further afield, while giving local people the opportunity to experience outstanding music making on their doorstep. It also strengthens community pride, supports local venues and businesses, and showcases the unique cultural and architectural heritage of our county.
Fringe by the Sea and the Lammermuir festival illustrate many of the points that are made in the motion.
Scotland’s artists, creative businesses, cultural organisations and screen sector continually punch above their weight. The public investment that is provided through Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government’s expanded festivals funding makes a tangible difference on the ground in East Lothian.
The commitment to establish Screen Scotland as a distinct public body is particularly welcome. It recognises the sector’s clear potential for growth and the significant benefits that inward investment and strong domestic production bring to the Scottish economy.
As has been touched on, we must also recognise the value of the public service broadcasting ecosystem to the wider screen sector. Broadcasters have important obligations to Scottish audiences and to our creative industries. Meeting those obligations helps to sustain the talent pipeline, supports production and ensures that Scottish stories continue to be told on screen, as Donald MacKinnon mentioned.
Equally important is ensuring that creative career pathways are accessible and sustainable for people from all backgrounds. Talent exists in every community, from our coastal towns and rural villages to our urban centres. We must continue to break down barriers so that opportunity is not limited by background, geography or circumstance.
Culture and creativity also play a vital role in strengthening community cohesion and improving wellbeing. Festivals such as Fringe by the Sea and the Lammermuir festival do not simply fill venues. They bring people together, create shared experiences, foster a sense of place and help to make our communities more vibrant and connected. In an often-challenging world, that social value is every bit as important as the economic return.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s ongoing efforts and increased investment in supporting growth in the creative economy and developing opportunities for creative workers and businesses. I also recognise the unique and welcome contribution that Gaelic and Scots language and culture make to enriching Scotland’s society and economy. Continued support for them is essential to the diversity and depth of our national culture.
Scotland’s creative industries possess enormous economic, cultural and social potential. Fully realising that potential requires sustained collaboration across Government, public bodies, broadcasters, local authorities, communities and the sector itself.
In East Lothian, we are proud of Fringe by the Sea and the Lammermuir festival. They show what is possible when creativity is properly nurtured and supported. Let us all continue to celebrate and invest in Scotland’s culture and creative sectors so that they can thrive for the benefit of all our people and for the reputation of Scotland on the world stage.
We have some time in hand. I call Ben Macpherson, who will be the final speaker in the open debate.
16:09
Expressing ourselves is central to the human spirit, as many members have said. It is also how we make our shared connections. It has been, and will continue to be, central to our progress. It is nourishing both to the individual and to our wider society.
The importance of our creative industries could not be clearer to me, as the son of a designer and the sibling of an artist, and as the proud constituency MSP for an area that is pivotal to our cultural success and story. It is great to have this opportunity to discuss that in the chamber.
We know the social value of the creative industries and cultural expression. For example, in Leith, we currently have on display the knife angel statue, made by Alfie Bradley. The sculpture, made from hundreds of knives, is helping our community to think collectively about the risks and consequences of violence—it is having that effect. Indeed, the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice visited it today.
The way that the Proclaimers’ “Sunshine on Leith” echoes around Easter Road stadium could surely move even the most ardent Hearts supporter. In parts of my constituency, we are now seeing the phenomenon of shanty creating and singing by groups of all sorts of individuals coming together to express their admiration for the bridges on the Forth. The cabinet secretary and I gathered with hundreds of Leithers, including new Leithers, to recognise the cultural contribution of “Trainspotting” in the magnificent Leith theatre during its journey to full restoration. Cabinet secretary, we would love to welcome you back to Leith theatre at some point—I hope that it will be sooner rather than later.
Small businesses in my constituency—such as the Out of the Blue drill hall, Custom Lane and St Margaret’s house, which is not too far from me—and initiatives such as Abbeyhill colonies residents opening up their houses to the colony of artists festival, which took place at the weekend, feature among the individual events and aspects of what happens in my constituency that surely make Leith the standout candidate for the UK town of culture designation.
The nourishment that all of that brings to our communities—and we could say the same for so many other parts of Scotland, as other members have expressed—is underlined by the economic value of our cultural industries, which is what we are talking about today.
It is good to hear that the importance of the film and TV sector has been emphasised. We have FirstStage Studios in Leith. In recognising the importance of public broadcasting, as the motion articulates, let us not underestimate the impact of attracting the big streaming companies to our country, which we have seen happening with “Outlander” and “Dept Q”, the second series of which is being filmed here in our capital city. Because of all that, I welcome the Government’s move to make Screen Scotland a distinct public body. That is an important aspect of public sector reform, not just because of what it does but because it creates an opportunity to make Creative Scotland even more impactful and beneficial. At the moment, many organisations sit between the grant-making power of Creative Scotland and the economic support of Scottish Enterprise and the other enterprise agencies. We have an opportunity to fix that.
The member speaks powerfully about the importance of engaging some of the big streaming platforms and bringing them to Scotland. Creative Scotland has an important role in welcoming and encouraging home-grown artists. At the minute, the process to get funding from Creative Scotland is very arduous and, at times, it is unduly bureaucratic. Does the member agree that something needs to be done to make it easier for people, especially smaller home-grown artists, to apply for funding?
Others have spoken in the debate about the progress made by the previous cabinet secretary towards multiyear funding and increased funding, but public sector reform and the changes with Screen Scotland provide an impactful opportunity to build on the good work of those who have been working at Creative Scotland up to this point, and to change the organisation to make it even more effective in supporting artists and continuing to grow our creative economy. We need to be able to help our creative industries to be even more commercially successful, while taking account of considerations about grant making.
Talking about economic impact, this summer we experienced the world cup—a massive event. Every year in this capital city, we have nearly the equivalent of that in the form of the Edinburgh festivals—they are the golden goose that we cannot take for granted. As we move into their 80th year, let us think about the fact that, in exchange for around £12 million of public investment, as reported by Brian Ferguson in The Herald,
“economic impact research … found the annual showpieces were worth £852m for the national economy.”
Yes, we need to spread the investment, and, yes, there are issues about participation and accessibility, but we cannot take the Edinburgh festivals—or, indeed, Edinburgh’s Hogmanay—for granted.
I absolutely agree with what Ben Macpherson said about the value of the Edinburgh festivals, but I wonder whether he shares my concern about the announcement from Scottish Ballet that it can no longer afford to take performances to Edinburgh because of the associated costs.
Whether it concerns our Edinburgh summer festivals, Edinburgh’s Hogmanay or considerations around the city’s growing attraction of tourists, we can see that we are at an important juncture. We have had the introduction of the visitor levy legislation, which I strongly supported, and the changes in short-term letting.
However, there are questions about affordability for those who are coming to perform, so we need to ensure that, during our tenure, we are careful of national bodies being able to perform in our capital city and, crucially, at our festivals. I am grateful for help in teeing up this ask—or suggestion—for the Government. I think that this period of autumn, between the summer and winter festivals, would be a really apt time to bring the Edinburgh festivals and key stakeholders together to consider the challenges and possible solutions. I ask the Government to take that request, and perhaps the minister could respond to that in his summing up.
People do not have to come here from all over the world. They spend a lot of money to be here to perform—thousands of pounds, in many instances—and it is not a given that visitors will come. We have had the Edinburgh international festival since Rudolf Bing created it in 1947; it is special and it allows the flowing of the human spirit, so let us treasure it and make sure that we look after it.
We move to closing speeches. We have time in hand, so front-bench members can be generous in taking interventions.
16:17
There has been a lot of consensus in the course of this afternoon’s debate, which I certainly welcome. There was also some helpful and constructive advice, which I will touch on as I summate this evening.
Katherine Sangster made a strong case for college funding. I recognise that, if we compare the level of such funding in 2024 with where it was in 2007, it was 5 per cent lower in real terms. We feel that particularly within the culture brief that we are discussing this afternoon, but also across the board. That was a point well made.
I welcome the Greens’ amendment, particularly the expertise that Q Manivannan has brought to the debate and the wider context ahead of it. I recognise the work that they did on the round-table meeting.
Murdo Fraser managed to find a good deal of consensus, particularly on multiyear funding, which I also welcome. However, he was right to highlight some of the challenges, particularly with Historic Environment Scotland. That is a long journey that we need to learn from and continue to make progress on.
I refer David Green to a comment in his opening speech when he spoke of expenditure in Edinburgh being around 300 times the level that it is in North Lanarkshire, with North Lanarkshire getting 39p per head. The level of expenditure in Clackmannanshire is zero—nothing—from Creative Scotland. That cannot be a healthy situation.
I entirely agree with what has been said about the Edinburgh festival. I am from Edinburgh and have been going to it all my life. I went there this year. I have sung “Sunshine on Leith” in Leith on many occasions, and once at Hampden, as Murdo Fraser will remember. I am very supportive of the festival—it is a true gem—but other parts of Scotland also have a human spirit and deserve support, too.
That was a point well put. I said to Ben Macpherson that, if he were to stay in the chamber until my summation, I was sure that I would find him some more statistics. I also put on record my recognition of his time in ministerial office. It is great to hear him speak again, if now from the back benches, and I look forward to working with him.
Glasgow gets 110 times more spend than West Lothian. I am sure that Lloyd Melville would disagree that Dundee has more cultural value than Angus, yet there is a disparity between those areas as well. It is a well-made point, but of course there will be a skew when it comes to the context of Edinburgh.
I welcome the contribution of Karen Adam, who spoke powerfully about BSL. I also welcome her underpinning of the issue of wellbeing, which is fundamentally important to the wider contribution that the culture sector can make for us.
Deputy Presiding Officer, I recognise that you are giving us a bit of time back, but I will come to a close by making a couple more points.
The first is on the BBC and Gaelic. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks in that regard. Nonetheless, I think that there is still more that she can do across her wider brief, on revamping teacher bursaries to encourage more teachers into that space. I also want to put on the record that I am quite concerned about the potential cuts to the BBC. I am fearful that they might look similar to the cuts that we saw to STV North, on which Jack Middleton spoke powerfully in one of his first contributions in the Parliament. Any loss of local news gathering across the BBC will be to the detriment of the Parliament’s accountability and the opportunities for journalists to experience and grow in that field. We need to be keenly aware of that.
I recognise that there is a lot of consensus on these issues, which I welcome. I appreciate members’ support for my amendment, and I look forward to working with the Government.
16:21
This has been a really good debate, with a high degree of consensus across the chamber. I would like to reflect on a number of the contributions that we have heard and to look at the various amendments.
Katherine Sangster talked about the importance of the cultural sector to the economy. The Labour amendment refers to that and to the relatively slow growth in the creative sector in Scotland compared with other parts of the UK. That is an important message that we need to listen to. That amendment also addresses the crucial issue of skills, which ties very much into a broader agenda of support for colleges and apprenticeships, and it addresses how we ensure that funding comes through to support the sectors of the economy that will have the greatest value for the future. We will support the Labour amendment.
David Kirkwood, for Reform UK, gave us a history lesson covering different aspects of Scottish history going back to the 17th century. He was right to make some good points about Scotland as a location for film and TV production, which is one of our great strengths.
In an unusual development, I found myself in agreement with Q Manivannan and with his amendment. He also made important points in that respect. Both Q Manivannan and I have expressed support for a culture bill, which I hope the Scottish Government will consider.
I believe that one of the most useful things that could be done for the culture sector is to provide security around multiyear funding. That kind of funding has now been established by the Scottish Government, but we would like to see it put on a statutory basis. It is not just the arts that need multiyear funding—various other sectors, including the third sector, would like it too—but perhaps if there were a culture bill, we could start discussing multiyear funding for the arts at least.
David Green made a good speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and we will also support his amendment. It highlights the games sector, which is such an important part of the Scottish economy. Scotland is a world leader in the games sector. It has a hugely important economic and employment footprint; we can see that by looking across the road from Parliament at Rockstar North, which employs hundreds of people in Edinburgh. That footprint is found across the country, in Dundee, Glasgow and elsewhere. The notion of a dedicated games hub is a very interesting concept that I would like to hear more about. We are happy to support the amendment that the Liberal Democrats have lodged.
The cabinet secretary and others talked quite a bit about public sector broadcasting. I agree with what the cabinet secretary said about the BBC’s spend in Scotland; she made a very fair point. The BBC is currently facing the prospect of charter renewal. It knows that that is coming down the track, so it has to make the case for why charter renewal should be supported.
The BBC is unique in being funded by a licence fee that we must all pay, unlike a subscription model where we have a choice and go to different channels. If, being funded in that unique way, the BBC wants to justify its future existence, it needs to make that case. Therefore, I think that the Government is absolutely right to press the BBC very hard on the investment in Scotland.
I also agree completely with the cabinet secretary’s point about the broadcasting of the Commonwealth games. At home, we watched a lot of the games, because we have Premier Sports—whose coverage was not as good as it might have been, I have to say. It is incredibly disappointing that the games did not feature on the BBC; by comparison, it covers big sports events and is an exemplar in its coverage of the Olympics, with the BBC Olympics programmes.
We really enjoyed watching the Commonwealth games in our house—religiously, pretty much every night over the summer when they were on. However, people in large parts of Scotland were oblivious to their taking place, unless those people were going to the events or living in and around Glasgow, because the games did not feature on live broadcasts in the way that other sporting events such as the Olympic games or the football world cup might have. That is a significant point. Events such as the Commonwealth games should be on terrestrial TV, and the BBC should be pressured to ensure that it is not being outbid by commercial broadcasters in that respect.
Donald MacKinnon made very good points about Gaelic broadcasting on BBC Alba. I was watching BBC Alba on Saturday because my nephew, who is a much better shinty player than I ever was, was playing for Newtonmore in the Camanachd cup final. BBC Alba does great work bringing events such as that to the world—so, well done, BBC Alba.
Although I rarely watch the BBC Scotland channel, I looked at some of the viewing figures for it and wondered how much it can be justified, given the amount of money that it is spending relative to the return. However, we could continue to have those discussions.
Lloyd Melville made a thoughtful and personal speech, which I thought was excellent, in which he reflected on several issues in relation to his family experience. He and other members raised the issue of a minimum income for artists. I have been trying to get more detailed information on the matter, and all that I can find—the cabinet secretary is welcome to intervene if she can give more detail—is that the Scottish Government has said that there will be a pilot scheme, not by the end of this parliamentary term but by the end of this Parliament. That sounds to me a bit like a headline waiting for a policy instead of anything that is being worked out in any detail.
I have looked a bit at the Irish scheme. It provides 2,000 professional artists with €325 per week for three years, and recipients are selected through an anonymised, random process. If the Scottish Government is to go down that route, we need to understand a bit better how exactly the scheme will operate, who will be classed as an artist and whether there will be a quality threshold with regard to who comes forward. Although I do not necessarily share David Kirkwood’s view that that will make us like the USSR, I am a bit concerned about what it will mean for artistic freedom if artists are paid for by the state. If we are to go down that route, more detail around the scheme would be welcome.
I will make one more point, Presiding Officer, if I have time. We need to ensure that the infrastructure is there to support creativity and culture across Scotland. Recently, several music venues across the country have been threatened with closure because of very large increases in business rates. Clubs, music venues and hospitality businesses are all hit by the same collective burden—the costs of staff, national insurance and energy, as well as business rates, are going up. Too many venues are closing. If we are going to have a vibrant culture sector, we will have to preserve the facilities and the infrastructure.
We agree on much, and if we perhaps get a culture bill, as some of us would like to have happen, we could get the sector on a stronger and more secure footing for the future.
16:29
There should be a lot of common ground in this debate. Members have celebrated the creativity of the diverse communities that we all represent. Across political parties, there is support for the rising trajectory in culture spending and for the return to multiyear funding, and a recognition that Scotland has a great story to tell and huge potential for more success in culture and creativity in our communities.
The motion frames a lot of the issue in economic terms, and that is important, but access to culture in our communities is about far more than that. It is critical for our health and wellbeing; for resilient, cohesive communities; for ensuring that the values of equality and diversity are advanced in our society for the benefit of everyone; for addressing the challenges of our age, including the climate emergency or the legacy of colonialism; and for opposing the rise of modern forms of exploitation and inequality. All those aspects are benefited by a vibrant and healthy culture sector.
We have a lot of sympathy with some of what is in the Labour amendment, particularly around skills. I am not sure that I support the narrow approach to measuring economic value, and I am not sure that that would have the support of many in our culture community. The emphasis on the enterprise agencies instead of Creative Scotland seems like an odd choice to me. We will abstain on the Labour amendment.
The Conservative amendment, perhaps predictably, was a disappointing attempt to turn a debate about the culture economy into a debate about the culture war. I think that most of us would recognise that, when it comes to political interference, it is the right that is the most significant threat, seeking to further marginalise minority voices and routinely attacking the values of equality, diversity and inclusion, including in the culture sector—people who pretend to stand for freedom of speech then back book-ban campaigns because they are horrified that queer young people might see books in their libraries that are relevant to their lives.
I very much welcome the Lib Dem amendment, as I said earlier in an intervention. I am convinced, as I think David Green is, that there is much more that the Government and our national culture agency can do to achieve even more success in the games sector. I am pleased that there seems to be cross-party support for that as well, and I am glad that the Government will be accepting that amendment.
As we have also seen, there are significant problems in relation to fair work, even at the high end of the games industry. A business that was mentioned in this debate and that is just across the road from the Parliament, which is producing what is expected to be the most expensive entertainment product in all of human history, is subject to very serious allegations by former employees. If we are not seeing fair work principles being confidently achieved in one of the most profitable parts of the culture economy, we must acknowledge how far we have to go until they are achieved throughout the rest of the sector.
Fair work is the core part of the Green amendment. The Scottish Government and Creative Scotland have recognised that challenge and how far we have to go. That is why the independent culture fair work task force was brought together. It reported with its recommendations nearly 10 months ago. Even with an election having taken place this year, that should be more than enough time for a clear implementation plan and for momentum to be brought to that challenge, both by the Government and by Creative Scotland. I hope that we will hear something in the minister’s closing speech about a timeline for implementation and when we will hear an update.
This is about a fair and just approach to culture, and about making sure that we all have access to culture and to opportunities in the creative economy, which should not be available only to those who come from wealthier backgrounds. It is also about achieving the ecosystem that we need for a thriving culture scene in every community. The Musicians Union briefing tells us that the first UK-wide census of musicians, involving almost 6,000 people, showed that 43 per cent were earning less than £14,000 from music. An average annual income from music work is only just a little over £20,000.
I am certain that similar experiences would be found across the creative industries. Although the corporate owners of highly profitable creative intellectual property might well be raking it in, the creative workers are not. The success of Scotland’s creative economy tomorrow depends on the band that is trying to get its first gig today, the game design and coding that are being done at home and the writing that someone is doing on their phone in snatched moments between shifts on a minimum-wage retail job. It depends on a hundred different skills, trades and professions for which work is precarious, short term, insecure and unpredictable, and for which first career opportunities are hard to come by. A huge amount of work is needed to achieve fair work in the creative economy, and the Government must come forward with an update.
As a Glasgow member, I cannot finish my speech without acknowledging that, as well as fair working conditions, our creative economy and creative communities need spaces for their work. Those spaces have been vulnerable in recent years. Some have been lost already and others remain under imminent threat. I am sure that that is true right across the country and in constituencies that we all represent, but it is certainly true in Glasgow.
The extraordinary campaigning that took place to save Trongate 103 was inspiring, but it should not have been necessary, and the people who are now campaigning to prevent the loss of the former Centre for Contemporary Arts building at 350 Sauchiehall Street should not be having to take that action, either. I am old enough to remember the CCA as the Third Eye Centre and, when the Scottish Arts Council decided to acquire that building and make it an asset for our communities for half a century, that showed ambition and foresight.
If Creative Scotland no longer has the ambition to be a provider of such cultural spaces, I regret that, but I can accept it as long as the building remains in public hands. I ask that Creative Scotland and the cabinet secretary acknowledge that there will be great anger if the process that is under way results in the privatisation of that public asset, and I ask them, again, to rule that out.
16:36
I say to Patrick Harvie that I am not into banning books—not even Murdo Fraser’s book.
We have reached quite a good level of consensus across the chamber in talking about Scotland’s creative economy. We have one of the most remarkable collections of talent anywhere in the world, which includes the artists whose work fills our galleries; the playwrights and performers who make Scottish theatre a force far beyond our borders; the designers and architects whose ideas shape how we live; the fashion houses whose textiles and craftsmanship are recognised around the world; the musicians who define our cultural identity; the film-makers, whom members have talked about; and the animators, digital creators and games companies who carry Scotland’s stories on to global platforms. Creativity in Scotland is not a niche interest; it is a national inheritance, and we have all agreed how important it is to our creative economy.
Despite having all that brilliance, we must still build a system that is truly an economic engine and not a system that treats creativity as a sideshow. It would be a fundamental problem if it were waiting politely for permission to grow. Scotland produces world-class creative work across every discipline, but the governance around it does not always work as it could, and we see uneven consequences.
We have successes in Screen Scotland and in the gross value added that we get from festivals and TV shows such as “The Traitors”. On the other hand, some cultural and heritage sites face ongoing funding crises, which disrupt the lives of staff and visitors and even local economies. In addition, some grass-roots spaces and local cultural centres are experiencing death by cuts. It is clear that a reliance on handouts rather than true investment and a hand up is causing opportunities to slip away for many. We need infrastructure, confidence and an investment model across an even surface.
We do not want the sector to contract. We recognise its economic value. We do not want jobs to be lost, and we do not want Scotland’s global brand to fade.
One area where stagnation has originated is the labyrinth of processes for artists and organisations trying to access funding. Take Creative Scotland—whatever its intentions, it has become a symbol of a system that is slow, opaque and structurally incapable of supporting a modern creative economy. We have seen funding rounds paused without warning, organisations left in limbo for months, decisions that make no commercial sense and a model that rewards survival rather than ambition. It is not malicious, but it is miles behind where Scotland needs it to be.
Creative Scotland operates a charity-style approach that keeps creators dependent, venues fragile and organisations trapped in cycles of short-term grants. That is not how to grow an economy. The creative economy could be an engine of growth if we invested strategically, not with a scattergun grant system. With targeted, commercially literate investment, we could generate an even greater return.
Innovation is often seen as a sideline—it is seen as being over there on a spreadsheet—but countries such as Finland weave creativity into innovation, education, manufacturing, exports and digital technology. They create creativity as part of their national operating system. They build ecosystems, not application portals. They protect copyright and intellectual property rather than giving it away. JM Barrie gave the “Peter Pan” IP rights to Great Ormond Street hospital, which generated great success in terms of royalties. We could look at that as a possible model.
We need to see creators as entrepreneurs, not applicants. The result would be a creative economy that could scale even further, driving exports and fuelling national confidence. Other countries such as South Korea have models that have built a global cultural powerhouse by treating creativity as a strategic export. In Denmark, design thinking is integrated into manufacturing and technology. Canada invests in creative tech clusters that generate billions. Those nations understand that creativity is not ornamental; it is industrial. Scotland could do the same with a transparent, predictable and commercially literate governance model.
We need a structure of investment bodies that understand growth and not just grant distribution. We need to support creators not only as artists, but as entrepreneurs and people who can build a business, perhaps not in the traditional sense but in a new, creative way, while retaining equity in the ideas that they produce. We need innovation clusters, public-private partnerships and creative tech hubs, and we need a system that encourages risk, experimentation and ambition.
We know, as we have heard in the debate, that creativity touches everything. It can drive tourism, strengthen manufacturing through design and textiles and fuel digital innovation through gaming, animation and immersive technology. It can also enhance wellbeing and community cohesion, as we have heard. We must build a Scotland that has a strong international brand, based on a strong, creative economy.
16:43
It is a pleasure to sum up the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. It has been a consensual debate. I was struck by what Patrick Harvie said in his closing speech about how we find the balance between the creative economy and the economy, because culture is so much more than just GVA.
A lot of today’s debate has been in that liminal space between the two. The debate has recognised the huge economic benefit that events such as the Edinburgh festivals and many other cultural events bring to our economy, but culture is much more than that. It has been wonderful to hear from many speakers in the debate about that. My colleague Katherine Sangster touched on it when she said that the creative sector does not fall neatly into the public sector or the private sector; it sits between and across the two.
David Kirkwood had us back in the USSR, with talk of apparatchiks, although I do not quite see the cabinet secretary brandishing her hammer and sickle just yet. Q Manivannan spoke well about the value of culture and recognising the value of something far past the time when it was made. Years ago, I visited the home of Paul Cézanne in the south of France. He spent much of his life in obscurity, painting in the Provence countryside, and his work had only begun to be recognised when he died of pneumonia in 1906. Stories like that speak to the fact that the value of culture goes far beyond the time in which it is made.
Speaking of struggling artists, erstwhile author Murdo Fraser rightly raised the significant challenges that exist in Creative Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland. Addressing some of those administrative and often bureaucratic challenges is important so that those public bodies can channel and support cultural activity in the best way possible.
Like any good Liberal Democrat, David Green made sure to get a mention for his local patch, and he raised the serious issue of ensuring that culture is accessible and supported in every part of the country—I certainly support that.
Pauline Stafford spoke powerfully about the impact of West Lothian’s investment in music and in its young people, which is something from which I, too, benefited as a young person. It is important to hear about how our local authorities and local communities are supporting and growing the next generation of musicians and artists of all sorts.
Lloyd Melville spoke really well about his grandparents, and I thank him for sharing their story in this place. It is a helpful reminder of the cultural heritage that we have not only as a nation, but within our own families.
I thank Donald MacKinnon for his contribution on BBC Alba and Gaelic broadcasting. That is a very important area of policy that we on the Labour benches support—and, for that matter, have long supported.
We have heard many contributions about the cultural assets and events in many of our local communities, and I certainly will not miss the opportunity to add my home town of Linlithgow to that list. There is quite an interesting combination in Linlithgow. The huge popularity of the “Outlander” series has brought even more tourists and visitors from all over the world to visit Linlithgow palace and the surrounding area. There is therefore an interesting mix in how new culture in the screen sector—which, as other members have said, is booming—has contributed to yet more support for cultural assets such as Linlithgow palace.
I also want to put on the record my recognition of Linlithgow Arts Guild, which, every year, puts on a very impressive schedule of concerts and performances across the town, which are always well supported. Over the summer, I was delighted to see party at the palace return to the peel in the grounds of the iconic Linlithgow palace. Every year, that festival draws on an impressive range of world-class acts, including, in previous years, Nile Rodgers and Deacon Blue—
[Made a request to intervene.]
Speaking of which, here is David Green.
I thank the member for taking my intervention. Given that there have been so many mentions of her own patch in her speech, she would be very welcome on the Liberal Democrat benches.
I am far too proud a trade unionist for that, but I thank the member for the invitation.
Festival-goers from across the country and beyond flock to Linlithgow every year, spending money in our town’s impressive range of cafes, bars and restaurants. That is a prime example of the economic benefits that our communities can derive from the creative and cultural sectors.
Other members have highlighted the screen sector, which is a huge area of our creative economy. As a member of the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I, too, have reflected on the evidence session with Screen Scotland. It is important that the Parliament, and our committee in particular, has a focus on Screen Scotland being set up as a separate organisation in a way that best supports and optimises all the good work that is going on in many parts of our country. In terms of such programmes, Leith has had many a mention, thanks to Ben Macpherson, and so has Harris.
I wanted to touch on the skills shortages that exist and the need to marry up the screen sector and the tertiary education sector, through our colleges, which my colleague Katherine Sangster mentioned. However, I am conscious that time is short.
I will close on the need to recognise that the many local arts and cultural events that we have highlighted, which we have rightly celebrated, rely on physical spaces to host them. Those local venues are the backbone of our sector, and my region boasts fantastic venues such as the historic Bo’ness Hippodrome cinema and the Howden Park centre in Livingston. However, we must remember that many of those venues rely on local authority funding. In the current context, therefore, as we look ahead to potential local government reform, it is important that we remember and support those cultural venues in our communities.
I call on the minister to respond to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
16:50
I am glad to sum up the debate, because it has been very good natured. There is a lot of cross-party consensus in the chamber. I should start by declaring a couple of interests. I am a former chair of Creative Stirling, which chairs the Forth Valley creative economy network—I resigned from that post when I became a minister, as was appropriate. I was also a director of Radical Weavers in Stirling, which is a youth involvement charity based on weaving and tartan. It is a fantastic creative organisation that makes our high streets more interesting and our society more dynamic.
Those interests demonstrate that the subject of today’s debate is close to my heart. It has been inspiring to hear some of the speeches from all points of the compass. We have a lot of good news. As the cabinet secretary said, investment in this sector is on the up. There is a commitment from the Scottish Government to increase it by £100 million by 2028-29. Our investment in this sector is growing.
I was struck by a number of comments to the effect that culture cannot be measured on a spreadsheet. Indeed, it often cannot be defined, as it is so subjective. However, we know that it enriches our lives. We also know that it provides real jobs in the real world and that it makes our society more vibrant. Further, in a loneliness epidemic, I would hope that it also helps social inclusion: you cannot automate or use AI to host an open-mic night at Nicky-Tams in Stirling—I can get my constituency in as well, and all members are very welcome to come along to that.
We have much to celebrate, and there have been a lot of good speeches from across the chamber. I will pick up on some substantive points, and there were a couple of requests that I will respond to.
Katherine Sangster made a strong speech that recognised that culture is not a public or a private thing. I am very much in favour of blurring those lines and seeing private sector involvement in the sector, with public sector guardrails and support. She also made a point about colleges funding. As colleges minister, it is appropriate that I respond to that. I am alive to the issue that she mentions, and accept that there is a challenge facing our colleges. As I have said before, I believe that colleges are absolutely fundamental to our skills agenda.
On that, does the minister share my concern about the situation in my region in relation to the loss of courses at the Edinburgh College of Art, including courses in textiles and performance costume design? Craft Scotland, a chief curator of the Smithsonian Institution, Visual Arts Scotland, and other organisations, as well as 180 alumni of the Edinburgh College of Art who I am personally in touch with are mortified at the loss of those courses and are concerned about the effect it will have on the future of the sector. Does the minister share that concern, and, while acknowledging that the University of Edinburgh is autonomous, will he work with us to see if a solution can be found?
I am not going to pretend to micromanage any individual institution or their offering. There is a degree of rationalisation under way across Scotland as a whole, and I am in favour of centres of excellence.
The point on colleges’ funding is really important. The Auditor General’s report identified a £5.6 million shortfall out of a £740 million budget, and we are alive to that. There is a challenge—I fully acknowledge that—but I have faith in Scotland’s colleges to work through that by engaging in more innovative partnerships with the private sector and developing a greater degree of specialisation. I think that we can get through it.
David Kirkwood started on a high with a mention of “Outlander”. Representing “Outlander” territory, I am always keen to hear about that. He also made some genuinely interesting points about the distinction between creative and innovative sectors. As the minister for innovation, I am very alive to that. I liked his idea about STEM becoming STEAM—I think that there is something to that, and it is certainly something that I am alive to. However, he then slightly blotted his copybook with references to the USSR and commissars—frankly, I wish we were that organised.
On the concerns that he raised about the pilot scheme for the artists minimum income, I will be happy to send him some information on the Irish scheme, because it is working well there. To reassure Murdo Fraser as well, I say that our scheme is a pilot and a work in progress, and it is not coming forward tomorrow. There are things that we need to address in relation to it, but we think that it is very much worth taking forward.
Q Manivannan said that we cannot measure culture. I fully respect that. He also asked for an update on the pilot on basic income, which we are keen to take forward.
Murdo Fraser revealed himself to be the J R Hartley of the chamber—that reference might date me, but I see that he got it, at least—and made a very gracious reference to Angus Robertson, which I think was fully justified. He also referred to multiannual funding being a benefit. I am very well aware that it is. I have to say, though, that he is in favour of multiannual funding for everybody except the Scottish Government. We have a budgetary challenge that we need to deal with, and we are conscious of that, but I am very much in favour of his points.
Murdo Fraser also made good comments about the renewal of the BBC charter. I was glad about his support of the Government’s position on that. His points about non-domestic rates, hospitality and cultural venues were well made and are precisely why we are looking at those issues.
David Green made a grand speech and was, I think, the only member to talk about the role of arts organisations in social inclusion and social care. He talked about the challenges of rurality and of representing the big scale of rural Scotland. I am in favour of what he said and a strong ally to him on that point.
David Green also mentioned the proposed culture bill. To be clear, the commitment to consult on that is in order to focus minds. The answer does not necessarily involve legislation—we already have a lot of powers over that stuff—but we will use the consultation as an exercise to bring people into the discussion.
Pauline Stafford made the important point that the benefits go far beyond just the economic ones and the sector is much more significant than that. She talked about grass-roots music venues and offered a night at the Dreadnought, which I would be strongly in favour of having. Lloyd Melville talked about the youth culture pass. He can be very content with his own role in the commitment to introduce that; it is a significant step forward.
Donald MacKinnon made an excellent speech on Gaelic and other languages. I was glad to hear his comments on the BBC and the need for greater support for Gaelic and for parity of esteem with the Welsh language. Karen Adam spoke about how deaf culture is itself a mainstream culture. She is braver than I am because she opened up the butteries versus rowies debate—let us see whether anybody can sort that one out.
Paul McLennan mentioned the Fringe by the Sea in North Berwick and the Lammermuir Festival, which highlights the range of culture across Scotland. Ben Macpherson spoke thoughtfully about culture in Leith and about Trainspotting. He also had a specific ask about the Edinburgh festivals: he referred to the £12 million of public investment that was spun into £852 million of wider benefits, and asked for a meeting about the challenges of the festivals. I would be happy to have such a meeting in due course.
Will the minister respond to the call for an update on the implementation of the fair work task force’s recommendations? They were published 10 months ago; we need to hear about where that implementation will be going and to have some momentum on it.
Patrick Harvie is psychic—his name is written right here in my notes next to exactly that point. [Laughter.] That work is in progress. On the point that he makes about it having been 10 months, there has been an election in the intervening time. However, we are doing that work at pace. It butts up against the fact that employment law is reserved to Westminster—we do not hold all the cards on the subject. However, we are working on it and there will be an update in due course.
It is clear that the creative economy is close to the hearts of a lot of members across the chamber, including mine. It cannot, and should not, be measured only in economic terms. It makes our high streets more diverse and our society more interesting, and it puts Scotland on the global map. It has a huge role to play in solving the loneliness epidemic, and a huge role not only in our economy but in our society. It is obvious that there is a lot of consensus about it in the Parliament. It is a priority for the Government: we have a lot to do; let us get on with it.
That concludes the debate on growing Scotland’s creative economy.