Chamber and committees

Finally, on the positive side—I asked a question about this and, unfairly, the previous panel of witnesses did not mention it—I know that you can be a conduit between what is happening at local government level and what is happening at national level, and that you can ensure that various different streams of funding are available. For a bit of balance in our discussion, in the current budget landscape, how do you see that work continuing in the future? I know that you have regional reps in various areas who are working with local authorities to try to make things happen.

There is also a practical thing that arises from my Sandy Stoddart example. The reality is that when you pay for a Sandy Stoddart installation, you know that it is going to take years, it is going to be massive and it is going to employ quite a lot of people. It is also going to train quite a lot of people, which brings us back to what Lyndsey Jackson was saying about the fringe. There is that tangible thing there, too.

I also wanted to ask about where the connectivity is. How do you get that story to Government, apart from in this kind of forum, so that civil servants and politicians know that that is the way forward? How does Creative Scotland, which must obviously get its budget from the Government as well, ensure that it is making that pitch for various things?

As a sidebar to that—this will be my last question—when we are talking about the disconnect between local authority funding and national funding, is it not Creative Scotland that is meant to be in that middle space? I am aware of some local projects in relation to which someone, locally, has managed to help local authorities and national Government get together and navigate through that issue. Is that not Creative Scotland’s role, too?

It is more or less about the tangibles. How do we get that story through to Government and how do we connect it up with all the other stakeholders involved?

I get that, and I understand the history of Creative Scotland, but in the here and now, not one of the organisations that have given evidence to the committee—we heard earlier from representatives of the Musicians Union, Dundee Rep and Scottish Dance Theatre, the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society and Culture Counts—sees you as being part of the solution with regard to what they are trying to do. They mentioned the challenges and the difficulties that they have. You are an advocate for the arts, but they did not say that you were part of the solution, which concerns me.

I am already sold on it. I am buying in.

Good morning. I have been interested in everything that you have been saying, so the issue is where to start at this stage. I will try not to go down a rabbit hole and instead stick to the basic ideas. This is similar to what Keith Brown said, but, having been in Government myself, I can assure you that, every Tuesday morning, there is discussion of the cross-portfolio work and the benefit of some of the stuff that you guys give to Government. However, things become quite difficult during challenging times.

I am reminded of a conversation that I had a few years ago with Sandy Stoddart, the Paisley sculptor. He told me that, during a challenging budget time, he had met a local councillor who had said to him, “Why would I buy one of your installations when we can spend public money on a kidney dialysis machine?” Sandy’s answer was very Sandy. He just went, “What is the point of living?”

I get that argument about the thought of life without colour, without music and without the thrill of the lights going down and the curtain coming up in the theatre. Yes, that is part of the argument, but, the reality is that the Government also has to deal with the challenges. We have heard a lot about the fact the Government should do more cross-portfolio working, but, as organisations, how do you feed in and tell Government about the benefit of what you do? Lyndsey Jackson spoke about this earlier. It is easy to talk about the Edinburgh festival fringe—I get it. In August, people come here from all over the world and the festival generates millions of pounds, but how do we make sure that Government is aware of that and your impact on the economy and everything else? Sometimes, I think that that gets lost in translation. We talk about it, but we need to get that across to people in Cabinet meetings or a local authority meetings.

For example, in a debate this week, I spoke about the Gaelic language and I said that the effect of the Royal National Mòd, which was held in Paisley last year, will potentially be to increase footfall and that it had brought in millions of pounds of new revenue. That was tangible—I can actually say that that money was there. What is the mechanism for getting that information into Government, and where does Creative Scotland come into that, as a conduit for that information between you and the Government?

Good morning. Last night, when I was preparing for the meeting, I looked at your website and your strategic framework, which says that Creative Scotland supports

“the arts, screen and creative industries as a development organisation, a funder, an advocate, and as a public body that seeks to influence others to increase opportunity and maximise the impact our resources can offer.”

A lot of major players in your sector have given evidence in the past couple of weeks and, each time, I have asked the same question: I have asked how they influence others and how they engage with the Government on how their creativity can make a difference in Scotland. When I have asked that question, as I did earlier, not one of the representatives of those organisations has mentioned Creative Scotland as being part of that, so my question is: what is the point of Creative Scotland?

I will tell you exactly what I need from you, Lori. I am buying into the idea. My constituency in Paisley is a post-industrial town. Culture is a major part of the regeneration of that town centre and will be part of the regeneration of town centres throughout Scotland: I want Paisley to be that pilot.

The Ferguslie Park idea is a perfect example of how culture makes a difference in communities. What I need from you, therefore, is to get a loudhailer and make sure that everybody knows and hears that. I will do all that I can on my side, but we really need to go into Government with a sharp elbow, especially in these challenging times. I am just trying to work out what the mechanisms are for you to do so.

Finally, you have admitted that it is quite a crowded landscape. I am buying into what you say, but how do we navigate that crowded landscape to get ourselves to the stage where we are making the cultural change that you keep talking about, Professor Muir?

Thank you and good morning. This follows on from the questions that I asked earlier. I am not going to go on about the cultural part, because we kicked that ball around quite a bit earlier on.

One of the things about inspection is that we know that local authorities appreciate inspections. We know that the education authorities and parents respect the whole process. When we get to the stage of making a decision on how we will go forward, should it be the new chief inspector who makes decisions on the principles of inspection, or should that be in the bill? Probably Professor Donaldson is a good starter for that one.

We talk about a refocused Education Scotland, which to me seems strange: either it is working or it is not working—maybe that is because I am a St Mirren fan and like black and white, but never mind. You have spoken today about cultural change with an open and listening leadership. That sums up everything that you have said today. What does Education Scotland need to do? You are saying that much does not come from the ground up but seems to get stuck in the middle before it gets anywhere near a Government minister hearing about any ideas coming up from the trenches. How do you see that organisation going forward? What changes are needed for some of your ideas, which I have much sympathy with, to work?