Chamber and committees

I associate myself with many remarks that have been made by members from across the chamber. I agree with many of the points that have been made and will try not to repeat too many.

Of course, I agree with the terms of the First Minister’s motion. I also agree with the amendment that has been lodged by the Labour Party. Pauline McNeill, in particular, spoke very forcefully. I pay testament to her long experience in these matters—as I pay tribute to our former colleague, Sandra White, who is sitting in the gallery.

One thing that I must repeat is that the attacks that were carried out on 7 October were beyond words and should be condemned. I am confident that all members of the Scottish Parliament will join together to condemn those horrific attacks. There is nothing that could justify the brutality that we paid witness to on that day.

I also want to say that I think that it is entirely right that members of this Parliament are discussing the issue. That decision has been attacked, as have the demonstrations and various activities around the country, based on the assumption that we are not going to make any difference anyway. That is a counsel of despair. It is extremely important that demonstrations have been held and that people have been writing letters and making their voices known. I do not believe that diplomats and the people around the world who have the ability to change the situation are immune to hearing from populations about how abhorrent we believe what is currently happening actually is. It is entirely right that the Scottish Parliament discuss, debate and decide on the motion.

It is currently believed that between 11,000 and—as Kaukab Stewart said—13,000 Gazans have been killed since 7 October. That is according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I appreciate that sources are very difficult to verify, but those statistics have been independently verified by the UN, which at present has not cast any significant doubt on either of those figures.

We can also look to specific attacks as examples of what has been referred to by some members as the “disproportionate” nature of the response, such as the successive attacks on the Jabalia refugee camp in the north of the Gaza strip. There has been a wide range of reports on the exact number of casualties from the attacks on that camp over the past few weeks, but we know for certain that the number of Palestinian refugees who have been injured is in the hundreds and that dozens—possibly far more than that—have been killed.

I am told that those attacks have been justified by it being said that the attacks were targeting one particular Hamas commander. One cannot justify the murder of dozens, maybe hundreds, of people in order to attack one person. As the First Minister said, and as international law upholds, collateral damage is not an acceptable way of dealing with such things.

There is a vital distinction between those of us on one side of the chamber, who largely agree, and the Conservative position—although I agree with all the areas of concern that Donald Cameron listed towards the end of his speech. However, the main point of disagreement is on an immediate ceasefire. I think that I heard Sandesh Gulhane say that he could not call for a ceasefire, but thinks that there should be a ceasefire that everyone should adhere to. The reason, as I understand it, that is now being given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Hamas said it would not observe it. Why should we be intimidated by terrorists into not calling for a ceasefire? If Edward Mountain was here, I am sure that he would agree that it is quite often the case that, when two military forces oppose each other, it can be in people’s interests to have a ceasefire—

I agree with that point. It would be very powerful if this Parliament were to agree and say with one voice that, regardless of our doubts about the good faith of either side, we think that there should be an immediate ceasefire to save the lives that Monica Lennon talked about.

I can tell that much of my time has gone. I want to make one more point in particular, which is that one thing that can come out of this situation is a genuine attempt to achieve a two-state solution, so that both Israel and Palestine can live in peace and security. The failures to do that over many years have been laid out by Pauline McNeill and others. The current situation has to be a prompt to renew, with real vigour and serious intent, the efforts to achieve that solution.

One thing that I will say is that we can, if we support the motion and stand united, make a very powerful statement today. We stand for peace. I am quite fond of quoting Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, who said that peace

“is found also in dungeons”.

It is also true that peace is found in graveyards.

The point is that we cannot have a peaceful solution until Palestine is both free and secure, and is not a dungeon, not an imprisoned place and not an occupied place, and the people there—as for the people in Israel—can be free from the threat of being attacked by bombs, rockets and bullets.

We can unite around the fact that we want that to happen and to be made the focus beyond the ceasefire, which will, if we can achieve it—I know that this Parliament cannot—save countless lives and prevent countless injuries.

We have heard horrendous anecdotes about people without parents, without limbs and so on. We can stop that, and then agree to move on and encourage all those involved to move towards a real peace for the people of Palestine and the people of Israel.

I support the motion in the name of the First Minister.

If what Jackson Carlaw suggests is the case, why would that stop us calling for an immediate ceasefire? I understand the point that he makes. I think that Anas Sarwar made points about statements from Benjamin Netanyahu that cast doubt on whether he is keen on a ceasefire, as well. That should not stop us from saying that this is wrong, that the people who are being killed just now are innocent people and that it should stop. It should not be conditional—it should stop now. Of course, I also believe that the hostages should be returned immediately: that is only right.

There is not a war in history that I can bring to mind that has not ended with a treaty.

I suppose that there is a distinction to be drawn with regard to the Government’s obligation to look across the whole scope of things, but if the Government and the committee can agree a position where what we receive has more relevance and less volume, that will be good.

In response to Mark Ruskell, you mentioned talking to the EU ourselves. Obviously, the EU is the source of much of the legislation, but you might be aware that this Parliament and this committee have the ability to nominate to CALRE—the Conference of Regional Legislative Assemblies—which I have been nominated to, or the proximity group or whatever it is called to the Committee of the Regions. However, we will not have a member on that for many months to come, which I think undermines the ability of this committee and this Parliament to have those direct conversations. I do not know whether it is proper to do this—I know that the committee clerks are working on it—but could the Government prevail upon the UK Government to speed the process up as quickly as possible?

I listened to the exchange between you and Kate Forbes, in which there was mention of common sense. I wonder whether that makes you the Scottish Government’s minister for common sense. It seems to be the fashion, these days, to appoint such ministers.

I have two points. First, you mentioned accession. Accession is often portrayed as solidifying alignment. However, it also solidifies divergence, as happened with Maastricht—for example, with Danish second homes or the UK opt-out from the social chapter. If the EU proceeded with gene editing, I would be happy to see an opt-out on that. I just make that point because we sometimes get the wrong impression of what alignment actually means.

Given what you said about the volume of work in the UK Parliament and the resources devoted to scrutiny—including four legal advisers—and what I think is a fairly common academic assumption that there is a real lack of genuine scrutiny of European legislation beyond, perhaps, the House of Lords, are we not setting ourselves up to try to do far too much? You mentioned looking across the whole scope of things. I am fairly new to the committee, and maybe this has already been done, but might it be better for the Government and the committee to agree what was relevant and thereby make activity much more focused, as long as the committee or individual members could ask for information about areas that were not covered? Would it not be better to be more proportionate and focus on the areas that are more likely to be of interest to both Scotland and the committee? That would make it easier on officials, given the breadth of the stuff that they could be doing.

Thinking back to the Brexit debate, two scenarios were set out: one was that we would reach sunny uplands, full of opportunity, with no or very little regulation. On the other side, it was said that Brexit would be an enormous act of self-harm. I am getting a distinct impression from the sector about which of those two scenarios you feel is being played out. Perhaps this sector, more than any other, shows the folly of cutting ourselves off from a huge market right on our doorstep. It is depressing to hear some of the stories about people who have stopped working in their profession or stopped performing or touring.

I have two quick questions. The first is the extent to which the things that we have been discussing were predicted or predictable. Was it possible to know that those things were going to happen, or have some of them become apparent subsequently? What proportion of things does that apply to—if you can make a guesstimate of that? That question is for any member of the panel.

My second question is specifically for Lisa Whytock. I was quite surprised at this, but I am new to the committee, so this might be something that everyone else knows. You said that Scotland was too small a country to sustain full-time musicians. If that is the case, is there a cut-off in country sizes for the ability to sustain full-time musicians? Do you have an idea of what size of country would be able to do that?

I invite any member of the panel to comment on the things that have had a big effect that have become apparent since Brexit that were perhaps not predicted or predictable beforehand.

I thank the minister for her statement and commend her on the intention to make a direct award. If she manages to achieve that, she will be the first transport minister to do so, as no previous Government has been able to do that—I speak as the person who let the last contract.

The contract is a very important step in the future of ferry provision on the west coast. While the details and the process are being decided on, there are, of course, still ferry services that island communities rely on. I am encouraged by the minister saying that she intends that those improvements should start now. Can she say anything further than what she has already said on the steps that the Government will take to ensure improvements in service and the resilience of the fleet in advance of the contract being let?

The cabinet secretary may know that, at a recent meeting of the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, Professor Pacquin of the national school of public administration in Quebec confirmed that arrangements in Canada allow the National Assembly of Quebec to make decisions about economic immigration that meet Quebec’s specific needs, and that that has produced substantial economic benefits for Quebec and for Canada.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that if the Scottish Parliament had similar powers, that would allow us to address the issues that we face under current UK Government policy, such as the declining population and skills shortages that the cabinet secretary mentioned, and that, in the absence of reform of the immigration system, only independence offers us the opportunity to fully implement our own distinct system tailored to the needs of the people of Scotland?

I am a member of the committee but, unlike the previous speakers, I was not there during consideration of the report that we are discussing today, so I cannot speak with the same authority as them. However, I am absolutely on board with the place-based approach. In a culture debate a few weeks ago, I gave a number of examples of organisations in my constituency that take that approach, as well as stating the obvious, which is that we all want to see culture in Scotland thriving, and not just for economic reasons, which are very important, but because of the difference that it can make to people’s lives.

However, we need to be clear that, as was mentioned in the previous speech, the biggest obstacle in the way of the implementation of many of the recommendations in the report is the extremely limiting financial situation that we are in as a country, which the report rightly mentions. In my view, the current financial restraints that Scotland faces are perhaps the starkest that we have seen since this Parliament was established. We need to be really explicit with the people of Scotland. Bodies can all shout about sustainable multiyear funding, but if that is not what the Parliament is getting, how will we provide it? We must be serious about the challenges that we face.

The devolution settlements created a situation in which the UK Government still has control over the vast majority of Scotland’s finances. If the UK Government chooses to implement real-terms cuts, as it very often does, the Scottish Government must make difficult decisions to implement those cuts, either by cutting somewhere in the Scottish Government’s budget or by raising one of the few taxes for which the Scottish Government is responsible. Both those options are virtually always met with universal criticism from Opposition members.

On the point about local government, it is obviously constrained, but much less so in Scotland than it is in England or Wales. In England, there have been 40 per cent cuts to council budgets, and a number of councils have gone to the wall financially. We have not seen that in Scotland, although there is a difficult situation. We should acknowledge that and the impact that it has on a place-based approach to culture.

However, the Scottish Government has done, and it continues to do, what it can within the devolution settlement to support a place-based approach to culture in communities. I am also sure that the commitment to double funding for culture and the arts by £100 million over the next five years will play a part in furthering that approach.

The theme of the debate is challenges and opportunities. Although I have highlighted the challenges, I would also like to highlight the opportunities. Oddly, one of the side effects of austerity over the past 14 years has been the increase in community ownership of cultural assets, which we have seen across Scotland and which the report rightly highlights. During the summer, I visited Wimpy Park community garden in Alloa, which was recently taken over by Wimpy Park community group—a group of residents who had a vision and worked immensely hard to bring the garden to life. For members of the committee or anyone else who wants to visit it, I say that it is a real example of cultural empowerment in our communities—indeed, in one of our most deprived communities. That is absolutely to be commended.

The community garden is just one of a few examples in my Clackmannanshire and Dunblane constituency. Thanks, usually, to the work of immensely dedicated volunteers and community ownership, many formerly publicly owned spaces have taken on new roles in the community. Among many other such examples in my constituency, Tullibody Community Development Trust operates the civic centre in the town, the Dollar Community Development Trust operates the Hive in Dollar, the Dunblane Development Trust manages the Braeport Centre and—perhaps best of all—the Sauchie community group operates the Sauchie resource centre. All those facilities are used by their communities as spaces for culture, which is another important aspect of a place-based approach to culture, as is highlighted in the report.

I welcome the report. I will add that one of the most crucial aspects in delivering a place-based approach to culture in our communities is that we give the people in those places a significant role in developing and delivering services. However, as a Parliament, we need to be aware of the root causes of the significant financial challenges that face implementation of the recommendations in the report. We do not serve the people if we try to ignore the source of those financial constraints.

Austerity has been one of the biggest problems, but I will mention another that was brought home to me today during the committee session with touring musicians. It is in a different category, but it involves a very similar challenge. Brexit, largely, has caused a huge meltdown in their sector—we all heard the evidence. I asked the witnesses about the two scenarios that we were given about Brexit—one involved sunny uplands full of opportunity and no regulation; the other involved enormous economic and cultural self-harm. I can tell members that the latter characterises the experience of those touring musicians since Brexit. They also said that most of the factors that were causing them to suffer were predicted at the time of Brexit. We heard about the decimation of the Scottish culture sector in their area, and we heard about some Scottish artists having continued, but only if they could get an Irish passport. Those people are appearing at Irish events in Germany and elsewhere—not as Scottish artists but as Irish artists. That is the only way that they can continue.

It is as if a theatre curtain has come down on a vital part of our cultural heritage. Some people have lost their jobs and others have walked away from the sector, which is a loss to Scotland. An absolute crime is going on. The musicians laid the blame fairly and squarely at the door of Brexit, although, as we would expect them to do, they made requests of the Scottish Government about the support that it can provide. That is the reality of what our cultural sector is going through.

The news of the additional £100 million from the Government is very welcome, and I would endorse the request by some of the people whom we heard from today that some of that money finds its way to touring musicians, because that is so important for the international reputation of Scotland. It is how the rest of the world views us.

They also made the point, very fairly, that, grim as the situation is, Scotland is overendowed with talent and with artists who can enhance Scotland’s reputation. Therefore, my main appeal is that supporting that talent through the place-based approach that we are talking about today is done at the same time as we support culture and try to reverse the damage of Brexit, which has decimated our cultural sector.