Chamber and committees

I will repeat a quote that Audrey Nicoll mentioned. She said that the senior law lecturer Andrew Tickell stated the following:

“Can it really be Scottish Tory policy that harassing the disabled, assaulting ethnic minorities and daubing antisemitic abuse on synagogues should not be treated in Scots Law as aggravated by prejudice? Because that’s a big part of what repealing the Hate Crime Act would achieve.”

Those were his words. However, during the debate, we heard the Tory spokesperson, when invited to do so, refuse to condemn hate crimes or even to acknowledge the existence of hate crimes in Scotland. Given that the Tory motion proposes no replacement for the act, we have to ask a different question: what is it about the absence of effective legislation on hatred against the vulnerable groups that are mentioned in the act that the Tories find so attractive?

The motion is performative. As I noted in my point of order at the start of the debate, it would have no effect on the law as it stands, so what underlies the Tory motive behind the motion? I think that Stuart McMillan was right—it is the latest iteration of the toxic elements of the Tory group trying to attack everything about this institution. There have been attacks on the police, on the judiciary, on the courts and on this Parliament. Of course, they could do what they usually do—they could go to big brother down south and say, “Why don’t you strike down this act of the Scottish Parliament?” I wonder whether any Tory MSP has asked the Tory Government or Alister Jack whether they would consider striking it down.

The trouble for the Tories is that, in a few months’ time, we will see the most venal Government that we have had in living memory thrown out. Who will they plead to then to beat down the Scottish Government?

I heard one Tory member refer to hiding behind the numbers. He was talking about the majority of this Parliament voting for the bill. That reveals the true nature of the Tories’ attitude towards democracy in Scotland. Of course, they have had a campaign with their usual friends. The reason why the Tories sometimes seem so certain of their case in the chamber is that every single word of it is parroted by their friends in the right-wing media.

On the point about responsible drinking, would the member acknowledge the efforts that Diageo has made in that regard? In addition, as we are talking about facts and figures, would he acknowledge that whisky is produced not only in rural and island communities? There is more whisky production in my constituency than anywhere else in the world, and we had the first ever industrial-scale production of whisky in Scotland. The whisky industry stretches across the whole of Scotland.

I seem to have encouraged Douglas Ross to his feet. If he can be brief, I will take his intervention.

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to the location of the headquarters of the proposed national care service. (S6O-03304)

Will the member take an intervention?

I can answer that very briefly by saying no. I do not agree with Lord Hope.

Over time, we will see, as we are starting to see, that if people act in good faith, the act can be effective in protecting the people that it seeks to protect. The reality is that the premise of today’s debate is the Tories’ objection to the policy. The level of misinformation about and mischaracterisation of the act that has, I am afraid to say, permeated the public discussion is really nothing to do with tackling hate crime but is actually a sad indictment of the political, media and online climate that we are living in today, in which outrage increasingly takes precedence over facts. As the cabinet secretary said yesterday, it therefore falls on all of us in the chamber to have a debate that is at least rooted in reality, respect and facts.

The climate that has been created has consequences, and the thousands of false complaints that have been made against people who obviously did not commit hate crimes are not only a huge waste of police time but a sad indictment of the misunderstanding of the act that has been peddled for all the wrong reasons. The fact that nothing has come out of many of the thousands of complaints proves that the fact that a person has discussed or criticised aspects of the protected characteristics and someone has been offended, shocked or disturbed does not make it a hate crime and that that is therefore—quite rightly—not criminalised by the law.

I was here during the passage of the bill. As we heard during that time, people of course have the right to be offensive to other people, including those in the protected groups. However, they do not have to do that; there is no obligation to be offensive to those people. Let us have a thought for the people in those groups, such as those who are suffering from antisemitism or Islamophobia. People are suffering if they are part of the groups that are characterised in the act because of the constant attacks on them, which are encouraged by the climate that we are now seeing. As has been said, they are very often fearful in their own homes, and that is largely to do with the public discourse around the legislation. Although we have the right to be offensive to people in those groups, we do not have an obligation to be so.

I, too, absolutely defend the right to be offensive. If that is what people want to do, they can, as part of free speech. However, the misplaced anger and frustration that have been generated by the reaction to the act is far too often channelled, not least online, towards the groups that the act seeks to protect.

Stuart McMillan mentioned the effect on many members. Like many members, I have had death threats—I think that I have had six now. I have had attacks in my constituency. My office manager was in the court all day yesterday trying to take forward a case against somebody who wanted to kill me. The abuse is constant. We all know that that is happening, but let us accept some responsibility when we feed that atmosphere, because it has real consequences. We have seen those consequences impact those down at Westminster; we do not want to see that happen here.

I apologise, but I am in my last 30 seconds.

We have two different visions of Scotland, in my view. One is that we have a law that challenges hate and has the effect of protecting vulnerable communities. The other is the Tory vision for Scotland, in which such protections are no longer in place and there is no legal framework. Under that vision, we would not have the new provisions that the 2021 act has brought in, previous provisions would be removed and we would be the least protected part of the UK. That is the vision that the Tories have for Scotland, and we should reject it at decision time.

It is a point of consensus, I think, that Scotland has always been one of the world’s most culturally identifiable and, indeed, most culturally prolific countries. Because of that, huge affinity with Scotland is felt around the world. As has been mentioned, the report is the first to outline Scotland’s international culture strategy for the future, but it also outlines where we are now and it shows clearly that devolution has allowed Scotland to formalise that affinity, to turn it into a relationship between Scotland and those around the world who have an interest in Scotland, and to use it for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

Much of the debate has—perhaps inevitably—centred on funding. I give no credibility whatsoever to those who argue that we should be spending more money on culture—and spending more money on transport, health and education—but who at the same time gleefully accept cuts from the Westminster Government or attack the Scottish Government’s tax-raising initiatives. There is no credibility in taking that position.

It is also true to say—given the constrained environment that we all find ourselves in—that it is worth our while to look for ways in which additional finance could be raised. The only member who has done that is Michelle Thomson. I, too, would like to suggest a couple of things. The first is a plea to the cabinet secretary to ensure that imagination informs what we do—which is one of the points that Jackson Carlaw, I think, made. It would be useful to hear the cabinet secretary confirm that he is willing to push the various agencies that are involved—I am talking about Historic Scotland, VisitScotland and so on—to make the most of the assets that we have.

I will give a couple of examples of those assets. About 20 years ago, I was, believe it or not, responsible for taking the Wallace sword—or the “Braveheart” sword—to New York, as we sought to exploit the aftermath of the movie, although I understood that if the sword was lost I could never return to Scotland. It was hugely well received and there were queues around the block of people coming into Grand Central terminal to see it. Afterwards, the benefits from that meant that the renovation works that were needed at the Wallace monument were basically funded by increased visitor numbers because of the interest that the sword and—of course—the movie had created. I think that such things could be done in many more areas.

In the mid-1980s, I wrote to British Telecom, which had then been newly privatised and was £2 billion in profit. I suggested that it buy the house in which Alexander Graham Bell was born—which is only a stone’s throw from Bute house in the new town—and develop it. I suggested that it perhaps use telecommunications—or whatever it is called these days—students to explain to people the development of the technology that had allowed Alexander Graham Bell and Marconi to do what they did with the invention of the telephone, and that it use an international pool of people who could come to do that. There are two visitor centres for Alexander Graham Bell in Canada and one in the United States, but he was born in Edinburgh, where that has not been exploited, although it could be. The same applies to John Logie Baird and what he achieved—albeit that he did it when he was in London. There is massive potential for us to capitalise on such things.

As the committee heard, there are buildings all round the country, that for a variety of reasons, provoke niche interest around the world, including clan-based interests. I do not think that we are properly exploiting them, but if we did, perhaps by niche advertising, we could massively increase the number of visitors to Scotland and to those buildings and sites. That, in turn, could help to fund development when it is very hard for the Scottish Government find the money for that.

It might not be the done thing to say this in a debate about culture, but given the constrained financial circumstances that we find ourselves in, a more imaginative commercial approach could pay dividends. The money that would be raised could fund other initiatives and free up money to do some of the things that have been mentioned in the debate.

The Edinburgh festival and the fringe festival have been mentioned. I was born in Edinburgh and have been going to festival and fringe events for more than 40 years, but there is more to Scotland than Edinburgh and lots of other parts of Scotland also need investment. We must confront the choices that have to be made because of financial constraints. There is no point in imagining that that is not an issue. Other parts of Scotland must have their say. I want to see the festival, the fringe and the various other festivals that go along with them, prosper. We all do, but we must also acknowledge that there are other parts of Scotland.

Jamie Greene made a comparison with Ireland, but there are pretty big differences that help to explain the different approaches. First, Ireland has a budget surplus. It would be nice to have billions of pounds of budget surplus. Also, Ireland has not had to deal with Brexit, but is a member of the European Union and it is, of course, independent.

If members want to see the effect of that, they should look at the effect that Brexit has had on people from Scotland’s ability to tour across the EU. We have heard many examples already. Our space has been taken up by Irish initiatives. The committee heard that it is often the case that Scottish artists get to go to Europe only because Irish artists are willing to help them to get across—in particular, to Germany but also to venues in other countries. In my view, that shows the benefit of being part of the EU and of being independent. Some acknowledgement of that would have helped the debate.

The committee has heard evidence about the long-lasting effects of Brexit on artists whose careers have been put in jeopardy because of their inability to get into European countries, which happens for various practical reasons that we have heard about—mainly visas, but also cost and other difficulties. It will be very hard to reverse that and it will take a long time.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member will be aware of the likely closure of Wales’s national museum, which has been attributed to cuts in funding for the Welsh Government. Does he accept that UK Government cuts play any part in the issues that he has raised? He mentioned some words that are not mentioned. Does he intend to use the word “Brexit” or to address the consequences of it in his speech?