Chamber and committees

My next question goes back to Mr Bibby’s question about readiness if the obstacles that are currently in the way of activity are lifted. I imagine that, to people outside, the incredible concentration on ensuring that every single vendor is vetted to the nth degree seems a wee bit absurd, compared to the gravity of the crisis, with 2 million people on the brink of starvation. I think that that would be very puzzling to many people.

We are talking about 2 million people, which is almost half the population of Scotland, so six or seven truck loads will not do a great deal in the meantime. I think that Mr Bibby was asking whether, if the restrictions are lifted, the trucks and warehouses outwith the area are fully ready to go. Is everything ready to go if eventually we get rid of the structural obstructions that are preventing aid from getting through? Is everything ready to go at the push of a button, or are you seeing depleted supply lines because of diminishing resources?

Going back to the question of diversity, I think that it is fantastic that you have managed to find a leading role for a Hibs fan in the cast as well. [Laughter.]

The discussion is centred very much on the BBC for obvious reasons, but the witnesses have made a point about the symbiotic relationship between what the BBC does and what “River City” does, and what Netflix, Amazon, Paramount or whoever else do. Is there not a case for looking at those organisations too? I know that it may be a bit of a fool’s errand, but can they not contribute in some way to what we want to see? I am thinking of something along the lines of the informal cultural college that “River City” has produced for different careers within the industry. Could they contribute as well, or would they just not consider that?

I am not sure that we should accept the context that Trump wants to set for us as a reason for not pursuing that, and it would be interesting if the committee were to get people from Netflix or Paramount in front of it to find out. You said that people benefit greatly from this, so let us try to monetise that bit.

It is very useful to have had the offer from Lynda Rooke to try to work together on this. It is difficult enough for us to influence BBC Scotland without trying to influence the rest of the BBC in the UK, to be honest, but I think that we should do that.

For full transparency, I am not from Dumbarton. I took the high road down to “Garnock Way” when I was younger. I am from Edinburgh.

Your point, then, is that an on-going, long-term commitment provides better opportunities for diversity, equality and inclusion.

On jobs and the opportunities that they create, Frank Gallagher was making a point about the authentic Scottish voice. None of those other options would necessarily replicate what “River City” does in that regard. The BBC is turning down the voice of Scotland through this, and there is no guarantee that what “River City” provides would be replaced or replicated.

It is a kind of cultural vandalism, because we will end up with a situation in which, I would imagine, we will be surprised to hear a Scottish voice on a soap or drama from elsewhere in the UK, rather than a situation in which somebody knows that they can tune into something where they will hear something that they can relate to, because it is in their own voice. Would that be your view, Frank Gallagher?

Thanks, panel. I am conscious that last night I paid my licence fee and I should also confess that I am a sporadic viewer of “River City”. It is one of those things that I have dipped into and watched sometimes. I know a number of people who have worked on it, including members of the cast and at least two of the writers who have been involved in it. The point has been made that much of its value is to do with it being almost a media cultural college for Scotland. It is a central pillar of media in Scotland.

I understand the point that has been made about the three dramas: they would be no replacement for what is there just now. I know that we want to make sure that “River City” stays, but if we are ever to convince—it is a big if—the BBC to spend the money it gets in Scotland in Scotland on something other than “River City”, what would be needed for to replicate its impact? Would a soap, with all the on-going opportunities that that provides, be the only thing that could replace what is there just now and have the same effect?

This point is probably also for Rachael McKechnie. When it came to the bid, was any consideration given to whether Scotland could have two venues and was Murrayfield stadium considered? The potential number of people who want to visit Scotland and Edinburgh and the bigger capacity at Murrayfield stadium might have been attractive. Is what we have just a factor of more or less equitable distribution among the different home nations? Was the decision partly about criteria for the number of corporate ticket places that are available, which Murrayfield stadium did not qualify for? I do not know whether you know.

On the point about protests and so on, Police Scotland did a superb job for the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties when they pre-engaged with different groups. The engagement for COP26 was huge—it was on a much bigger scale for all sorts of reasons—but I hope that there will be a similar approach in this case, although the senior personnel have all changed.

We were talking about that before we came in. Remind me, what led to the UK getting the championship?