• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Arts funding body to be reviewed for the first time since it was founded to 'ensure it meets the needs of the sector'.

Creative Scotland offices in Edinburgh
Creative Scotland, which has offices in Edinburgh, was established in 2010
Photo: 

Chabe01/Creative Commons

Scottish Culture Secretary Angus Robertson has announced a review of Creative Scotland, the first since the arts funding body was created in 2010.

The stated purpose of the review is "to ensure its operations and structure are optimal to the needs of the culture sector".

It will examine Creative Scotland’s remit and functions as a funding body, as well as how planned increases in levels of public funding can be maximised to "support sustainability in the sector and in participation in the arts".

READ MORE: 

Robertson said that with the sector facing "new and enduring challenges" since Creative Scotland was created, "the time is now right for us to ensure Creative Scotland’s remit and functions remain relevant".

He continued: "It is routine for public bodies to undergo reviews throughout their lifetime, and while that process is ongoing we are clear that we expect the organisations involved to take forward their business as usual.

"Creative Scotland is no different and they will be carrying on with their important work throughout."

Robertson added that the review was "in line with our commitments to invest at least £100m more annually in the arts and culture by 2028/29, and to continuous improvement across all our public bodies".

Full details of the review and its process will be set out in the Scottish Parliament "in the near future".

Open Fund funded

Robertson also confirmed in the announcement that Creative Scotland has now received the full funding it was allocated in the 2024/25 budget.

The uncertainty around this promised funding was cited by Creative Scotland CEO Iain Munro as the reason it had closed the Open Fund for Individuals, a major funding stream for artists in Scotland.

Munro said last month: “The level of uncertainty regarding the provision of grant-in-aid budgets from the Scottish government is creating critical problems for the ongoing support we can provide to Scotland’s culture sector.”

“This decision ... is not one we would have wanted to take but is unavoidable without the funding from the Scottish government."  

Robertson said the government was now releasing £1.8m to Creative Scotland for youth music as well as a further £6.6m which includes £3m for the Open Fund and £1m for Screen Scotland. 

He added that funding was being released "following a period of necessary due diligence" and that the money would allow the Open Fund to be reopened. 

Internal review

This latest twist in an ongoing Creative Scotland saga follows the publication of an internal review into decision-making for the Open Fund.

The review was instigated following the political and public fallout over the decision to award £85,000 to the Rein film project, which was later withdrawn amid concerns that participants would engage in "non-simulated" sex and "hardcore" acts.

The report said that "funding was awarded on the basis that this was a theatrical performance, including all scenes with sexual content... Creative Scotland would not have awarded any funding had this information regarding real sex acts been expressly referenced in the application".

Among the recommendations in the report, which was sent to MSPs on the Scottish Parliament's Culture Committee, is that the maximum amount an individual can apply for should be reduced from £100,000 to £50,000.

The report stated the higher figure was a "considerable level of risk to take with a single individual".

The report also questioned the "lack of adequate risk management", including "reputational risk" for Creative Scotland,

A new clause on "damaging the reputation of Creative Scotland" is now to be added to contracts.

The report also expressed the need for staff to clarify "unfamiliar terminology" in funding applications – such as the phrase "non-simulated sex".

Author(s):