Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have answered my question very honestly. I appreciate and understand that it takes a long time to shift culture.

I am very supportive of the policy, but I know how long it takes to change culture. Will the bill be enough to change the culture, given the backdrop in which English is so pervasive and the moves against indigenous culture are so pervasive?

People always comment that, no matter what is required, there is never enough money—that is just a common theme. Let us assume that around £695,000 is available over five years for Scots and Gaelic—I think that that was what was in the financial memorandum—and that there is a continuation of the approach that has been discussed thus far, which involves a framework that enables some of the good work that is being done to continue. Fully accepting the comments from Professor Ó Giollagáin, would the panel members be looking to spend money in particular pockets and remove money from other ones? I know that that is quite a complex question, but I am trying to tease out what you might do differently, given that we are in a difficult budgetary environment where we all understand that there is not enough money.

There was some earlier discussion about separating Scots out. We all welcome the focus on Scots and definitely want to carry on with it but separating it out would enable a really clear look at what is needed, given the number of people who already speak Scots.

Different measures are required and different funding. Would that also be an idea? At the moment, Scots is lumped in with Gaelic, and you are right to say that it is a zero-sum game, because, as we are all aware, there are difficult constraints on funding. Do you think that the financial perspective also adds weight to separating Scots from Gaelic in legislative terms and perhaps having a stand-alone bill for Scots?

We have had commentary that that limits long-range forecasting in your budgeting. David Hamilton, if you want to come in next, you can reflect on that additional dimension.

As you pointed out, change is time consuming and expensive in resource terms.

I am not forgetting you, Lorna, but can I bring in Ian Bruce? Do you have any further reflections on this area?

Good morning. Thank you very much for attending today. I will start by following up on the theme of front-office and back-office functions, which the convener was probing.

You have described the budget process as being quite inefficient—I think that Brian Plastow, in particular, did. Are you able to quantify how many days you spend—we could say “waste”—going through the budget process? I understand that you start in September but you do not get the final consideration until much later. If you were to say, “We spend N days on it,” what would the number be—roughly—just as a matter of interest?

I will follow that up with you before I bring the others in. Have you ever been approached by a representative of the Scottish Government to actively consider ways in which you can increase the sharing of back-office functions or to explore the further idea, which the convener was floating, of a shared service centre for the range of functions?

Let me bring in Lorna Johnston. As you pointed out, you are in a slightly different circumstance, which I appreciate. In response to David Hamilton’s comment that it would be up to individual commissioners to look at making savings, a bit of me thinks, “Do turkeys generally vote for Christmas?” I am being a wee bit provocative, and I am sorry for picking on you, but could I have your reflections on that?

Ian, do you have anything to add?

If that were to be progressed, who do you anticipate would drive that narrative about being more efficient with shared services? I think there is a general sense that all of you—and, indeed, the other commissioner bodies—could do that.