Chamber and committees

No.

Indeed.

It is impossible to operate in a multinational state in which 85 per cent of the population lives in one constituent part. The Government of the United Kingdom operates, in effect, as both an English and a UK Government, and sometimes does not understand the difference between the two. That is the difference between the United Kingdom and all other federal or confederal systems of which I am aware. I am not aware of a working federal or confederal system that has sustained a state with such a divergence in size, which brings a divergent view on which part is the most important.

That is why I believe that Scotland’s optimal form of governance is as an independent country—like every other country of a similar size that is a member state of the European Union. That is the best way to do things. Then, for example, if negotiations were undertaken on our behalf as an EU member state, as is the case in the EU on trade—individual member states are part of the process that draws up the negotiating position; they are kept fully apprised of the situation with regular meetings of their permanent representatives in Brussels as the process is on-going, the documentation being shared not just with those representatives but with the member states in their capitals; and agreement is then reached involving the member states—the process would be different from what happens in the UK.

For people of a unionist persuasion who have said that they wish the UK structures to work, that poses a big challenge, because we can see better custom and practice elsewhere and we can see that that does not operate in the UK. Mr Brown is right to ask what will bring about an attitudinal change, which is what is required. I am not seeing that and, with the passing of time and the rhetoric of a reset being well and truly in the rear-view mirror, people such as yourselves on the committee and others in this place—and perhaps members of the Westminster Parliament—will be asking ever more difficult questions about those processes.

Yes. The first thing that I would say about that is that there is currently a secretariat, which sits within the Cabinet Office. It includes, among others, a seconded civil servant who works for the Scottish Government.

Mr Mackie will speak for himself as a senior civil servant, but my understanding from what has been reported back to me is that there are no concerns about the way in which those arrangements—such as the ability to schedule intergovernmental meetings, provide the necessary background information and make the logistical arrangements—work in practice. The secretariat exists.

With the recent publication of the draft climate change plan, ministers have discussed energy efficiency measures and carbon emissions reductions across all sectors of Scotland’s economy. I welcome the efforts of Dundee Rep theatre and other similar organisations to reduce their carbon emissions and to contribute towards meeting Scotland’s net zero targets. The SME loan and cashback scheme continues to support many businesses across Scotland in all sectors. We are currently reviewing the scheme’s terms and conditions to make sure that support is as widely accessible as possible.

That is the driver behind the introduction of multiyear funding, the point of which is to fund more organisations and to do so on a longer basis than an annual application process. There are other pots of funding that can be accessed, as I have outlined. However, if there are organisations that might be in a position to access multiyear funding, I would advise the member to communicate that. I am sure that they are aware of that multiyear funding, but my hope is that more cultural organisations in all parts of the country will make use of it. I believe that its introduction is transformational for the culture sector, and I have no doubt that organisations in the member’s region will be keen to make use of it.

First, I pay tribute to Creative Scotland for introducing multiyear funding. It is a transformational shift in the culture sector—and I think that Liam Kerr agrees that that is a good thing. Having done that, Creative Scotland is now in a position to take seriously the suggestions that have been made as part of the review. More than 450 people and organisations took part in it; if Liam Kerr did, I am sorry that I have not seen his contribution of suggestions. If he has any contributions that he passed on to the review that he would wish me to look at closely, I would be delighted to see them.

I agree with Kenneth Gibson. It is clear that devolving additional tax powers would give the Scottish Government greater resources to tackle the health harms that are caused by tobacco and alcohol, which remain a significant health challenge. Disappointingly, our calls for the disparity in alcohol duty to be addressed in this budget went unheard. Greater control over taxation would ensure that the Scottish Government could design a system that better tackles public health challenges while supporting Scottish businesses and industry where it is appropriate.

I note that Murdo Fraser did not raise one of the most significant challenges that the whisky industry faces, which relates to tariffs. I hope that he will join the Scottish Government in endorsing the work of the First Minister and in hoping that the United Kingdom Government does all that it can in its discussions with the US Government on tariffs. He mentioned the scotch whisky industry which, along with American colleagues in the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, is working very hard to ensure that we reduce the threat from tariffs.

A balancing act is to be struck when judging questions around alcohol duties and public health harms. I think that the Scottish Government has got that balance right, and we will do all that we can to deal with threats of tariffs to the likes of the whisky industry. We would be grateful to have the support of all parties in the chamber on that.

That is a very interesting idea. As Miles Briggs is aware, I have convened a standing strategic partnership involving Scotland’s festivals, including a number from Edinburgh, because some of the challenges that exist in Edinburgh are also felt in the rest of the country. I have also had recent dialogue with the City of Edinburgh Council on festival matters.

I am open to suggestions. We are approaching the setting of budgets so, if Miles Briggs has any specific proposals, including details on how we would pay for them, I am open to receiving them. I look forward to receiving such contributions from him in the weeks ahead.