Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I thank witnesses for coming along and for their submissions.

I have two questions to begin with, but if I get a chance, I might come back in again. This is a follow-up to the convener’s question. I am trying to draw out the extent to which the UK is different from other jurisdictions, not least in the way that it treats different parts of its devolved areas and—I do not know what they are called these days—its dominions.

I am struck that, before the referendum that we had in 2014, we were told that Scotland was going to be the most powerful devolved legislature in the world. I am also aware that, in December last year, the UK Government, by order in council, changed the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands to allow a law enacted by the legislature to make provision for holding a referendum on a matter of national importance. The second part of that order says:

“The question of whether the Turks and Caicos Islands should seek any amendment to this Constitution that may result in their independence shall be deemed to be a matter of national importance.”

So, the law gives the power to the Turks and Caicos Islands to hold a referendum and for it to have the effect of achieving independence.

On the other examples that we have just heard, I think that I am right in saying that, in Northern Ireland, the criteria for whether a referendum should be held seems to be whether there is likely to be support for a united Ireland. One of the things to be taken into account is whether the Secretary of State thinks that it is likely to be supported. The exact reverse seems to be the case in Scotland, because it was felt by the UK Government in 2014 that there would be no prospect of Scotland voting yes. Yesterday, we saw a poll again show majority support for independence. That seems to be the motivating factor for the UK deciding whether to support a referendum.

I would like to draw out how unusual and asymmetrical the UK is in the way that it decides these things, because that will eventually tell us whether the position is sustainable. I know that these things do not show a consistent pattern across the world, but the UK seems to be way out there in terms of the inconsistency of how it deals with such issues. Do witnesses have any comments on that?

Do other members of the panel want to come in on that? I suppose that my question is: if all the parties agree that Scotland has a right to self-determination, and yet there is no route beyond one party being able to say, “No, it’s not going to happen,” how sustainable is that?

Thanks for that. You also mentioned the importance of scrutiny of the board in particular. The committee has had concerns in the past when it has tried to scrutinise the work of boards and there has sometimes been an evasiveness or a willingness to use their two different funders to obscure proper scrutiny, and almost a resentment at being held to account. That will not apply to all members of the board but to those who attend the committee.

Could you say anything about that? Is it just that there needs to be greater scrutiny by the board or does your review tell you that the organisation as a whole needs to better understand that it is being held to account and not shrink from that?

Have you seen Creative Scotland’s response to your review?

Thanks. My last question.

You were taken down the road of being asked about the cabinet secretary’s involvement earlier, to the surprise of nobody on the committee. However, your review was not a review of the cabinet secretary but a review of Creative Scotland. The answers that you gave referred to the two meetings that you had with the board, the recommendation that there should be greater working with the sponsorship team in the Scottish Government, and the fact that you had meetings with the cabinet secretary. Do you agree that that kind of engagement is pretty much the norm for such reviews?

Good morning. First, my single greatest achievement in my less than illustrious ministerial career was having haggis, albeit slightly modified, put back on sale in Canada. That was some years ago. We still have to crack the US market.

John Devine, as part of North America, are you making substantial plans for the world cup? There is the potential that Scotland could be based in Canada. Whether it is or not, if you look at what was done in Germany, the international office there started planning from the draw right the way through to where it always ends for Scotland: the group stage. The tournament surely provides a fantastic opportunity. Could you say anything about what preparations are in train so far?

It is good to see you both again. I have a couple of questions, and will play devil’s advocate. The first is, how much of what you found during the review could be attributed to the fact that, since it was formed 15 to 20 years ago, Creative Scotland has endured as much austerity budgeting as everybody else? Was that reflected in the concerns that were raised? Is it likely that a grant-giving body that has been rationing public funds for 15 years will give rise to some centres of discontent? Capital in particular has been slashed over the past decade or so. To what extent might austerity budgeting explain some of your findings?

I wonder whether it would cause a lot of people concern. It seems to me that it is not exactly dismissing the review but is saying that many of those things were already under consideration, that it could not do some things because of cash and that it will not be able to do some things unless it gets more cash. That does not speak to a body that is ready to listen to scrutiny or criticism when it is justified. In its response to your review, it seems to be digging its heels in. Did you come across that characteristic during the review?

Thank you.

On the point about having the best evidence available, it seems that you were not aware of some things that Creative Scotland now says were in train and under way. You were not told about them. I imagine that that will concern the committee, as will your response to Mr Bibby earlier about not being told performance monitoring information. I do not know why the review was not given that information. Leaving that aside, however, I have two final points.

One is on the issue of discontent. Mr Halcro Johnston has already mentioned the northern isles and the Highlands. Usually, when we talk about being fair across Scotland, we say that, in addition to the central belt, the Borders and the Highlands should be looked after. That leaves huge tracts of Scotland quite discontent. You will be very aware of the situation in Clackmannanshire, for example. However, there are areas, such as Ayrshire, that do not feel they get a look in. The big arts festivals in Edinburgh soak up a lot of the funding. It may be that those areas are so culturally barren that they need some speculative funding. Maybe that is where Creative Scotland has to be bolder. Can you confirm whether you found different parts of Scotland saying that they were a bit discontent with the extent to which they get attention—far less any finance—from Creative Scotland?