Seòmar agus comataidhean

It was not so much about the committee. The meeting that happened at Westminster was for a particular political party. Is that courtesy extended to all parties?

I do not think that there is a shared understanding in the sector of the financial pressures—or in this committee, either, by the way. As for the examples that have been mentioned, I would just note that the last one, about Denmark, came up at a previous meeting when I asked representatives of the sector to come back with meaningful comparisons, not with independent countries, which have fewer constraints on their budgets, but with devolved Administrations. I should say that, so far, I have had no response from the sector to my question.

You have mentioned the constructive relationships with different partners in the sector, but I am not sure that I have seen that with Creative Scotland. Perhaps I can get your view on a couple of points. First, as I mentioned last week to Creative Scotland, I attended an event with the culture minister just before Christmas at which the Creative Scotland representative felt it necessary to publicly lambast the Scottish Government to the hundreds of people who were attending the meeting. I would also note the contrast between the press release that was put out by Creative Scotland on what it termed the £6.6 million cut—which as we now know is for backfilling a shortfall in national lottery funding—and the fact that its reinstatement last week was passed with virtually no comment. I think that there is a real issue with Creative Scotland’s approach to the Government.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will say that the relationship is very constructive, but all I will say is that that is not the evidence that I have seen. Is he aware of any tensions with Creative Scotland?

The total expenditure in the UK is around £6 billion, more than a third of which is raised from sources other than the licence fee. What is the equivalent figure for Scotland for money raised from sources other than the licence fee?

I am happy to offer this advice for no fee whatsoever. [Laughter.] A sure-fire way to increase the BBC’s viewership figures is to address the absurd situation that we have in Scotland whereby we cannot see free-to-air international football matches, especially competitive ones, that involve our national team but can see matches from other countries. Would the BBC support the designation of international Scottish football matches as part of what are called the crown jewels?

I am interested in Creative Scotland’s relationship with the Scottish Government. First, I endorse the points that Mark Ruskell made about Creative Stirling, which has also contacted me, as a local MSP.

Just before Christmas, I attended an event at which the person who was there from Creative Scotland felt able to launch an attack on the Scottish Government about funding. That was given added spice for me, as I was sitting next to the culture minister at the time. In addition, the cut of £6.6 million was referred to—you might remember the apocalyptic press release about that which went out just before the committee’s previous round-table meeting.

In contrast, we hear now, and we heard in the earlier session this morning, that the fact that that money has been reinstated is pretty meaningless. In fact, someone in the earlier session said that it will not feel like “new money”, although I think that it probably will do to those parts of the Scottish budget that are being cut. I highlight the downplaying of that, and the playing up of the potential cut.

In relation to the Scottish Government, I have two questions. In response to Mr Bibby just now, you talked about the detail of the budget. It would be interesting to know what details you fear you might not get before the budget. Obviously there is a lot of discussion before the budget, and I would imagine that it will fill in most of the blanks, but maybe not. Maybe you fear that some parts of it will not be laid out for you.

Secondly, I still cannot get my head around the national lottery stuff. I have seen it referred to as a shortfall in reserves. I would like a wee explainer of the Scottish Government’s responsibilities in reinstating any shortfall, or whether the shortfall has been caused by the Scottish Government—perhaps that is the point that is being made. Perhaps you can tell me, in a way that I will understand, what is going on there regarding the relationship between national lottery funding and the Scottish Government’s obligations in that regard. In addition, I would like to hear what detail you fear that you might not get prior to the budget.

I am glad that we got the joyous, optimistic and positive version of things from Shona McCarthy—I am not sure that I could have withstood a negative one.

There are a couple of things that I—as a new member of the committee, perhaps—do not have a grasp of but which have not yet been mentioned. First of all, I understand the point that what we are really talking about is the country’s long-term cultural impoverishment, given the changes that have been made and the reductions in choice and diversity that have been going on for some time. As has been pointed out, the Government understands where the sector is coming from and the pressures that it faces, and that is really important. However, apart from Anne Lyden’s contribution, I do not get any sense that the sector understands where the Government itself is coming from. Anne mentioned the financial crash in 2008 and 2011 as the key years when things changed—that is, when austerity came in.

In our last evidence session on this issue, I mentioned that we had no comparison with other devolved Administrations—the comparisons that we were given were not relevant. The dialogue has to be genuine, because if you do not know where the other side is coming from, you will not be as effective as you might be.

Maybe I am getting this wrong, though—perhaps there is a recognition of where the Government is in the discussions that people have with it. Energy costs, staff costs and inflation—most of which the Scottish Government cannot control—have been mentioned, but I am looking for a bit of reassurance that those things are acknowledged when you have discussions.

I would also note something that has happened a few times in my experience as a committee member. I think that the convener mentioned innovation and entrepreneurialism, but there has been virtually no other mention of them. I appreciate that they will apply to different extents in different parts of the sector, but surely, given the gravity of the public finances, they should be focused on much more eagerly. I think that somebody said that they had been tried, and I think that Mr Bibby mentioned wishful thinking, but to be honest, I do not know where we can get to if we do not have wishful thinking. Are entrepreneurialism, innovation and new sources of funding for those who are able to pursue such things being taken more seriously? We have not heard a great deal about that. Does anybody want to have a go at that question?

I see that an increase of about £12 million in the funding for “Other Arts” is proposed for this year.

Could you explain the point about the national lottery shortfall?

It is not really about this year’s budget, therefore, but how it is going to play out in the next few years.

I am happy to hear from others. If anyone wants to submit any written evidence on the efforts that individual sectors are making in respect of innovative and entrepreneurial funding, it would be really helpful. I do not know whether anyone else wants to come in on those points.

On a personal note, I hosted a Ukrainian family for six months and was able to get them both permanent accommodation and a job—in fact, two jobs. We have stayed in contact—they are now in the minister’s region—and their real worry is about what happens now. They see the 18-month deadline looming. Their home in Nikolaev was destroyed, and they have no idea where they would go back to. Having taken the opportunity to get a quite specialist job and having settled, after moving from Killin to me to where they are now, they are still really worried. Is the UK Government giving any reason why it will not confirm what its intentions are?

Secondly, given the possibility—I will put it no higher than that—that there could be a change in Government next year, and I know that you will have Government-to-Government relations, is there any indication of where the Labour Party stands in relation to the three-year visa?