It is a shame that Meghan Gallacher chose not to recognise that, in the recent budget, the Scottish Government raised the culture budget by more than £15.6 million this year, in the first stage of raising annual culture spending by £100 million. By comparison, the United Kingdom Government has cut spending on culture in England through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by 6 per cent. In Scotland, we will be delivering for culture; unfortunately, the UK Government is not doing so in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am not aware of any Barnett consequentials having been received in Scotland, but I will ask officials for clarification and write to Claire Baker to update her on that point.

To reiterate what I said a moment ago, this Government has committed to increasing culture spending not just by £15.6 million this year but by an additional £25 million in the forthcoming budget for next year, taking us to a position in which annual culture spending in Scotland will include an additional £100 million from 2028-29. That is a very considerable commitment by the Government, given the level of financial pressure. We will do all that we can.

I am sorry that we have not received—as far as I am aware—any Barnett consequentials whatsoever, but I will reply to Claire Baker and give her clarification on that point.

I commend Mark Ruskell, because he is consistent in using every opportunity that he has in the chamber and at committee to raise that issue. We are still awaiting the matter to be fully discussed by the cross-party group on music, which I look forward to. There will no doubt be views from across the industry and the culture sector more generally.

However, as Mark Ruskell and members of all the other political parties in the chamber know, we are looking not only at maximising the Scottish Government’s commitment to culture and the arts sector in Scotland but at other means that will benefit the sector as we recover from Covid and move towards a situation in which things are on the firmer footing that everybody is committed to.

I am not in a position to answer Alexander Stewart’s question today, but I undertake to write to him. He and other members will have seen the full range of events that have been promoting Scotland and Scottish tradition and culture internationally. I hope that he supports that—I see that he is nodding affirmatively, which I welcome.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Scottish Government offices, the Scottish Development International teams around the world and all the others who have been celebrating Burns. I think that, when the matter was most recently quantified, the University of Glasgow found that there were more than 2,500 Burns suppers around the world, which we will continue to support.

I will write to the member to answer his question directly. I hope that he will join me in praising the international work to promote Robert Burns and make Scotland an attractive place to visit and to invest, live and study in.

Scotland’s international network delivers benefits to our people, businesses and institutions that range from attracting overseas investment and growing exports to facilitating cultural exchanges. Our engagement supports the delivery of Scotland’s domestic policy objectives.

As colleagues will be aware, we have now published our international strategy, which describes the three key areas of focus for the Scottish Government’s international engagement and what we aim to achieve in each area by the end of the current parliamentary session. That will see our offices develop business plans on those three main themes: the economy, trade and investment; climate change, biodiversity and renewable energy; and relationships, influence and reputation.

It would be helpful to clarify the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’s position. I thought that it was in favour of the Scottish Government’s international network of offices and that, in fact, it had called for it to be increased. Now, from the back benches, we seem to hear calls for it to be reduced.

I am not sure what the head shaking by Conservative members is about. Is it because one wants to close offices that promote inward investment, trade, tourism and education, or is it just because they are saying one thing on the back benches and another thing from the front bench? We really need some consistency on the matter.

Yes. “Best in class” is the right description. Scottish Development International statistics show that, in the financial year 2022-23 alone, Scotland’s international operations helped to achieve £1.73 billion of forecast export sales and that 8,500 forecast jobs were secured through inward investment support.

Scotland remains consistently the most attractive destination in the UK for foreign direct investment outside London. That success is aided by the hard work and dedication of the people of our international network. There are SDI offices in more than 30 locations around the world, nine of them in joint presences, supported by the Scottish Government.

I am glad to have the support of some members in the chamber. Certainly, they are all on the governing side. It is a shame to see members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party undermining them.

I want to make a bit more progress on this point, but I will give way later to Mr Bibby.

The EU market is seven times the size of the UK—almost 450 million consumers compared with the UK’s 67 million. Scottish businesses trading in the EU would face reduced barriers to trade and the free flows of data, as well as less bureaucracy.

That position was supported by the Scottish Labour Party and by Mr Bibby’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who said:

“That’s why nobody can credibly claim they want to protect jobs and not support membership of the single market and the customs union. I am the only candidate in this contest”—

that is, for the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party—

“who supports permanent British membership of the European single market and the customs union.”

Perhaps, if I give way to him now, Mr Bibby would clarify whether that is still the Scottish Labour Party’s position.

When Mr Bibby intervened on me earlier, I asked him what the Scottish Labour Party’s position was. He was not able, or not prepared, to answer then, so will he do so now? Is it the position of Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour Party to support

“permanent British membership of the European single market and the customs union”?

It is a yes or a no.

The best answer to being outside the Erasmus+ scheme is to be back in it. Is the position of the Scottish Labour Party, or indeed the UK Labour Party, like that for Horizon—in favour of rejoining Erasmus+? It is quite simple: it is a yes or a no.