It is not my job to dictate what you can create, says Swinney on eve of festival
Mr Swinney told the audience on Thursday he would be a protector of freedom of speech in his time in the top job.
'I also know that freedom of expressing is under greater and greater attack, both at home and abroad,' he said.
'I want to ensure that Scotland, the birthplace of the Enlightenment, remains a country of robust debate and inquiry.
'I firmly believe that art and culture must be able to challenge us, to ask us tough questions, and to force us to look at things from different perspectives.
'And, yes, it must, at times, be allowed to shock and offend us, but it can also heal us.
'Let me be absolutely clear – as First Minister, I will always protect freedom of speech in our country.
'It's not the First Minister's job to tell you what to create, nor would I ever seek to do so.'
Mr Swinney added that his and his Government's role is to assist artists in any way they can.
The First Minister went on to make a plea to the crowd and to wider society – with a particular nod to tech firms – to look at how the arts can be better supported financially as the Government looks to boost funding to £100 million annually in the coming years.
'I'm asking that from crowdfunding to patronage, to philanthropy to local authority support and much more, we all ask ourselves how can we do more to support the arts from the grassroots up?' he said.
'How can we better support emerging artists that don't necessarily fit the current mould?
'And how, in particular, can Scotland's emerging businesses in new sectors become the new generation of patrons of the arts and culture in Scotland?
'How do we incentivise a new guard of custodians and investors in Scotland's creative economy?'
Speaking to journalists after his speech, Mr Swinney said he is open to discussions about new legislation to support the cultural sector.
He said there is a sense that local authorities 'might not have a particularly explicit statutory duty to support artistic and cultural activity', suggesting this area 'might need to be strengthened'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Could this be the way Starmer placates his revolting MPs?
Keir cannot afford another fiasco like welfare,' one Starmer loyalist told me, recalling the government's humiliating climbdown on proposed cuts to disability benefits after a revolt by Labour MPs. The prime minister knows the episode showed that his way of governing is unsustainable. He is consulting people widely this summer about how to turn things round. There's a fierce internal debate taking place. In Keir Starmer's right ear, Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff, tells him to focus on wooing back voters in the red wall from Nigel Farage. In his left ear, soft-left cabinet ministers urge a more progressive approach to woo centre-left voters who have deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. They argue that these lost voters outnumber defectors to Reform by a margin of three to one. The soft left's allies in Downing Street want Starmer to emulate Bill Clinton, who fought back against a right-wing populist – Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives – after a rocky start to his first term in 1993. One minister admitted: 'There is a battle over the direction of the government. There is only one person who can resolve it. Keir has got to decide for himself – based on his values, who he is, who he wants to be.' The left-ear whisperers want the PM to trust the instincts that are serving him well on foreign affairs and apply them to the domestic agenda, too. Starmer appeared to be tacking leftwards when he told Tom Baldwin for the paperback version of his biography, published on Thursday: 'We have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform – yes, Labour has to be a progressive party.' He has hinted that he wants to tackle child poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit limit. The PM has nodded to Labour critics who argue – persuasively – that his government has sometimes acted left but talked right, and that it's no wonder, therefore, that it gets little credit from progressive voters. He said that issues such as clean energy, nationalising the railways and increasing the national minimum wage should be shouted louder from the rooftops. 'We should show we're proud of all that,' he told Baldwin. Starmer views this as part of 'telling a better story'. But you can only tell one if you know the direction in which you are heading. The battle isn't over yet; I'm told McSweeney is not convinced about a shift to the left. His critics say the shortcomings of attacking Reform head-on were illustrated when the science secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage was on the paedophile Jimmy Savile's side in the heated debate over internet regulation. The attack line was reportedly approved by No 10, but it backfired. It was the sort of smear we might expect from Reform. The lesson for Starmer: Labour can't 'out-Farage Farage', and the public will vote for the real thing if Labour tries to look like Reform-lite. Allies of McSweeney believe the red wall will decide the next general election, so Labour's primary pitch must be to the white working class. His internal opponents insist that trying to re-run the 2024 election triumph, McSweeney's greatest hit, will not work next time. They dispute the idea that Labour 'won' the north and the Midlands last year, saying that it reaped the benefit of a split on the right between the Conservatives and Reform, and that Labour regained seats seized by the Tories in 2019 mainly because Tory voters switched to Reform. At the next election, Farage will likely hoover up the right-wing vote. Crucially, the left vote will be split this time – inflicting deep damage to Labour unless Starmer can appeal to left-of-centre voters. He won't do that by tacking right, cutting benefits for the disabled and pensioners or aping Farage. For Starmer to win a presidential contest against the Reform leader, being the anti-Farage candidate will not be enough: he will have to offer progressive voters more than he has offered them so far. Another reason why Starmer should listen to the buzz in his left ear is that the new socialist party launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will present another alternative to disenchanted Labour voters. It already has 600,000 registered supporters. Starmer won't lurch to the Corbyn hard left – and rightly so. But the sensible decision he should make this summer is that it's time for Labour to live up to its name and its values, and stop pretending to be something it is not.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
The surprising and forgotten roots of the Edinburgh International Festival and its Fringe
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... In 1945, as the clouds of war started to clear from Europe, people of great vision were already planning what became the Edinburgh International Festival. It was not just a cultural decision and certainly not a commercial one. Rather, it was a statement of optimism and hope, to create a better world; to bring people together; to celebrate the permanence of human creativity even as so many of the places through which it had been expressed, in the great cities of Europe, lay in ruins. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There were many such statements at the time, as people of all nationalities aspired to an international order worthy of those who had sacrificed their lives and their dreams. Conceived of as a cultural manifestation of that mood, the Edinburgh International Festival has survived better than most. The theme of this year's Edinburgh International Festival, directed by Nicola Benedetti, is 'the truth we seek' (Picture: Jane Barlow) | PA Vision of a festival city Hopefully, within the Festival as it exists today, there will be room for reflection upon these noble sentiments as the resolve of 80 years ago, that the same must never happen again, is cast into doubt. War in Europe... the rise of anti-Semitism, these were never supposed to recur. The lead visionary, Rudolf Bing, was an Austrian Jewish impresario who fled to England after the Nazis took power in Germany, to inaugurate the Glyndebourne festival in 1936. As the great opera houses of Europe were reduced to ruins, the concept emerged in his mind of a festival city, where the cream of European talent could reassemble. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad READ MORE: Meet three comedy couples collaborating at the Fringe this year Bruno Walter and Kathleen Ferrier perform at the opening of the Edinburgh International Festival in the Usher Hall in 1947 | Edinburgh International Festival There was no certainty it would be Edinburgh. Bing's first choice was Oxford but he ruled it out because 'town and gown' were too far apart. Bath was considered and so too was Liverpool but, said Bing, 'no money on earth could turn it into a festival city. Edinburgh was a different matter'. Both the newly elected Labour government, eager for such symbols of hope, and Edinburgh's city fathers got behind the idea. In 1945, before the war ended, Bing started working on the 'manifold challenges' which included the fact that 'many of the singers had never heard of Edinburgh'. Thus are the vagaries of history written. As far as can be recalled, the citizens of Edinburgh got behind it too, in principle if not in participation. At the inaugural festival in 1947, coal rationing was still in place and floodlighting the castle was prohibited. The people of Edinburgh donated their coal rations so it could be lit from dusk to midnight. READ MORE: Six myths about the Edinburgh Festivals debunked Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The audience stands for the national anthem in the Usher Hall as the first Edinburgh International Festival gets underway | Edinburgh International Festival Communist Party's cultural committee How much else they had to do with the Festival and the reputation it soon brought to their city, as a centre of cultural renewal, is more doubtful and this produced its own response – the creation of a 'People's Festival' which in time would turn into 'the Fringe'. Two of the leading instigators were also central to what would become the Scottish folk revival, Norman Buchan and Hamish Henderson. It had been 'a fortunate accident', Henderson later wrote, that Bing had decided to site his Festival in Edinburgh, not least because it provoked a reaction which had its own historic consequences. 'When it became clear that the Edinburgh Festival was to be in the main a prestigious showcase for the 'High Art' of the world… it was decided by the cultural committee of the Communist Party in Glasgow (of which Norman was a member) to create an 'alternative' festival' which would feature 'the finest traditional singers and musicians in Scotland and Europe'. It would be fair to say that the Fringe has travelled a very long way from these early objectives. Somewhere within it, there should be at least a nod towards these origins as a people's festival and a celebration of traditional music as a complement to the 'High Arts'. Why indeed should that modest counterpoise not have a place within the International Festival itself? Nicola Benedetti will understand that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A slightly jaundiced view There is an endless, annual debate about whether the Fringe is too big, too expensive, too lacking in quality control; probably all true. However, these are best left as arguments for the market to decide though, by same token, it might reasonably be asked why such a hugely competitive market also requires public subsidy. Long ago, I formed a slightly jaundiced view of the Fringe when I was pressed into service as a reviewer of four or five shows a day, each more challenging than the one before to find something nice to say about. But I suppose that's what its many adherents expect of the Fringe – a hopeful search for hidden gems. Back in the day, there was the annual entertainment provided by whatever manifestation of 'filth' a Tory councillor in Edinburgh could be induced by the popular press to be outraged about. The views of the eminently quotable Councillor Kidd were as close as most of Scotland got to the cultural wonderland that was happening in the capital. Fringe nudity A dear friend of mine, Duncan Campbell, later a distinguished journalist at the Guardian who died recently, had a good story. As a student in his native Edinburgh, he appeared in a Fringe production which required him to run naked across the stage. Councillor Kidd was duly informed and readily agreed to be outraged. A tabloid furore ensued. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad To Duncan's horror, his mother decided that as an act of solidarity, she must attend a performance of this theatrical epic. 'If there's one thing you don't want to do,' he said, 'it's appear naked on stage with your mother in the audience.' Let that be a cautionary tale.
