Independent Review of Creative Scotland

Theme 4: Creative Scotland’s finances and distribution of funds

Funding overview

Creative Scotland distributes funding for the arts, screen and creative sector from two sources, the Scottish Government and the National Lottery.

The Scottish Government’s funding for Creative Scotland is set out in Creative Scotland’s Budget Allocation Letter from the Scottish Government and in Creative Scotland’s Annual Plan which is published at the start of every financial year.^[79] In the 2025-26 financial year, Creative Scotland is projected to receive £89 million from the Scottish Government.

Creative Scotland is also a national lottery distributor under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Its National Lottery Distribution Fund is entitled to receive 1.78% of the proceeds allocated to good causes from National Lottery ticket sales.^[80] The purpose of the fund is to support artistic and creative activities in Scotland. For 2025-26 Creative Scotland is expected to receive £31.9 million from UK National lottery proceeds.^[81]

As one of its four core functions, Creative Scotland is responsible for distributing these funds to support both individuals and organisations across Scotland. This is achieved through a variety of targeted programmes and two main Open Funds - one for individuals and one for organisations.

A significant development this year is the launch of the Multi-Year Funding programme, which aims to provide stable, long-term financial support to organisations from April 2025 to March 2028. In its first year, £59.9 million will be allocated to 251 organisations, with an additional £3.2 million set aside to support 13 more organisations through a development fund. These 13 organisations are being considered for inclusion in the Multi-Year Funding portfolio from 2026-27.

Amount of funding available

Years of pressure on public finances have set a challenging funding backdrop for the public sector as a whole, and consequently the arts, culture and creative sector. Creative Scotland’s funding has been broadly static over the last ten years.^[82] Other than emergency funding in response to COVID-19,^[83] the key exceptions have been increases in Scottish Government funding when Screen Scotland was launched in 2018, and again in 2024-25 and 2025-26 as part of the Scottish Government’s 2023 commitment to increase overall culture budgets by £100 million annually by 2028-29.^[84] Of the £16 million uplift from the Scottish Government to the sector in 2024-25, Creative Scotland received an additional £13.2 million. The Scottish Government provided a further additional £34 million in 2025-26 for the sector, of which £29 million is destined for Creative Scotland.

Despite the recent increases, there was widespread agreement that funding does not match the ambition of the sector. Many from across the sector commented that there is insufficient funding. The competitive environment results in low success rates in receiving funds from Creative Scotland’s Open Fund: in 2023-24 the success rate was 33% for individuals and 42% for organisations.^[85]

There was apprehension that the Scottish Government’s pledge of increased funding may not be deliverable. Many highlighted the vital role that public funding plays in supporting individuals and organisations, particularly where this is stable and long-term, to sustain the development of high-quality art, culture and creative practice.

This Review was not tasked to consider the rationale for public funding of the art, culture and creative sector, nor the level of support required to support the Scottish Government’s vision which ‘recognises the intrinsic value of culture and the power of culture to inspire, enrich and transform people’s lives, our communities and the places where we live, work and have fun.’^[86]

The funding landscape is complex, with individuals and organisations within the sector receiving funding from a variety of sources (see Annex D). There is no overarching strategy and rationale for the Scottish Government’s approach to funding different organisations. Rather than being funded through Creative Scotland, some cultural organisations, such as the National Performing Companies and Sistema Scotland, are directly funded by the Scottish Government.

Recommendation 21: The Scottish Government should consider its rationale for directly funding parts of the arts, culture and creativity sector, and whether there would be greater synergies that could be realised by a different approach.

Scotland’s festivals contribute hugely to the economy and the cultural life of the nation. Many of the major festivals currently receive funding as Multi-Year Funded organisations. Edinburgh- and Glasgow-based festivals receive support through the Festivals EXPO Fund as well as through other organisations such as VisitScotland. Some suggested a different model should be explored for funding the major festivals. As set out in the remit (see Annex A), this Review has focussed on the allocation of funds by Creative Scotland. There is an opportunity for the Festivals Strategic Partnership to consider this as part of the Government’s commitment to increase culture budgets.^[87]

Breadth and type of funding support

There is a strong and consistent call across the sector for increased support for individual artists and creative practitioners, alongside a geographically diverse network of cultural organisations.

Individuals

Feedback on Creative Scotland’s approach to funding individuals was mixed. Some roundtable participants argued that funding should be more selective, focusing on fewer individuals to ensure that recipients can adequately pay themselves and their collaborators. Others advocated for a broader distribution model, aiming to benefit as many people as possible across the sector.

A recurring concern was the financial instability faced by many creative professionals, particularly freelancers who often rely on short-term contracts. This has led to calls for a more sustainable and predictable funding model that acknowledges the economic vulnerability of freelance artists and creators.

Many individuals expressed dissatisfaction with the current reliance on short-term Open Fund grants. The prevailing “trickle-down” funding model, where resources are allocated to organisations with the expectation that they will support individual artists, was widely criticised. Artists reported that this approach often forces them to tailor their work to fit organisational priorities, limiting creative freedom. Others highlighted the risk of tokenism, where organisations engage with certain communities primarily to secure funding, rather than out of genuine commitment.

There was a strong sentiment that medium-term funding, similar to the Multi-Year Funding available to organisations, is lacking for individuals. This gap leaves many artists without the stability needed to plan and develop their practice effectively.

The Basic Income for the Arts, which is being trialled in Ireland,^[88] was also frequently mentioned. It is worth noting that the Scottish Government does not have the same range of powers as Ireland and consequently the context is different.

A specific concern was the £50,000 cap on individual awards through the Open Fund, which was seen as a barrier to delivering ambitious projects. This is especially problematic in disciplines with high production costs, such as theatre or dance, where venue hire and staffing expenses can quickly consume budgets. Notably, Creative Scotland is the only UK arts council that imposes a lower funding cap for individuals than for organisations.

Organisations

Similarly mixed views were heard on the number of organisations Creative Scotland regularly fund.^[89] Some welcomed the larger number of supported organisations, whilst others thought that the ‘jam was being spread too thinly’ with insufficient focus on quality, and frustrations that - even with a minimum 30% uplift for those previously in receipt of regular funding - organisations were awarded less than they had applied for.

The portfolio of Multi-Year Funded organisations was generally seen as being more diverse and inclusive, which has been welcomed. There remain some concerns about the balance of funding across regions and disciplines. Some within the sector also thought that funding and support was more readily available for organisations with an established relationship with Creative Scotland.

Approach

Many felt that Creative Scotland’s approach to funding has not evolved sufficiently to meet the changing needs of the sector.

Both individuals and organisations noted with frustration that, with the exception of Multi-Year Funding, Creative Scotland funding was mainly only available for new projects. For example, support often did not cover essential things like maintaining equipment, or core costs such as salaries and buildings. Creative Scotland could mirror Screen Scotland's investment approach by partnering on more ambitious projects, funding at different growth stages and being open to established artists.

The Review could not source evidence by way of reports or papers to the Board to demonstrate that Creative Scotland had used research and intelligence to inform either their Board or the Scottish Government on where future funding would have maximum impact. For example, there was no evidence of an analysis of the sector to identify priorities in line with Creative Scotland’s strategy or the Scottish Government’s Culture Strategy. Nor could the Review see the analysis to support Creative Scotland’s proposal to the Scottish Government that it should support a large number of organisations with Multi-Year Funding.

The increased funding provided an opportunity to consider funding gaps (a) in support of specific sectors, such as animation, radio and video game development, (b) for interdisciplinary areas such as art and health, and (c) for development such as seed funding for the creative industries and individual capacity building (e.g. training, mentoring) to ensure talent pipelines. Having reviewed Board papers relating to the development of the Multi-Year Funding, the Review was unable to find any reports that indicated consideration of broader use of the funds to reflect the sector’s changing needs. Nor was there evidence that the communications promoting the new Multi-Year Fund was targeted at wider groups or indeed at regions where applications had historically been low.

Flexibility of funds

There is a widespread perception that Creative Scotland cannot commit to funding until their own funding has been approved and released by the Scottish Government.^[90] There is evidence of other public bodies, such as sportscotland and Arts Council Wales, giving provisional funding allocations ahead of final parliamentary budgetary approvals to allow recipients to plan more effectively and avoid ‘cliff edges’. Creative Scotland could consider how to mitigate investment risks associated with making a commitment to funding beyond the annual funding settlement provided by Scottish Government, for example by exploring the options of sharing the risk with funded organisations, holding funds to cover any in-year gaps from delays in funding being confirmed and developing a rolling programme of investment to distribute the capacity pressures associated with the most recent application and assessment process.

Several commented on the confusion of Creative Scotland’s different funds and sought clarity on the strategies and differences between the Scottish Government grant-in-aid and National lottery funds. The funds were seen by the sector as being overly rigid and influenced by historic criteria. Despite having operational freedom to meet its remit (see theme 1), both senior executives and the Board said that they felt restricted in their actions because of the ring-fenced nature of funding and wanted flexibility to be able to allocate the funds to better support the sector. The Review was unable to find reports to the Board that indicated other areas where Creative Scotland should prioritise funding.

Funding is to a degree directed by legislation and Scottish Ministers (see Annex B), but the evidence shows that the organisation has sufficient discretion to influence how it uses the funding it receives from the Scottish Government and National Lottery. There was evidence of occasional flexibility between the funds. For example, in 2023-24 the Board agreed to use National Lottery ‘reserves’^[91] to fill a gap of £6.6 million that the Scottish Government could not honour but committed to provide the following financial year. The Board have also chosen to use National Lottery reserves to top-up the Scottish Government funded Multi-Year Fund.^[92]

Creative Scotland has the authority to determine its priorities and practices based on its knowledge, intelligence and research of the sector. As demand for funds is significantly greater than those available, the organisation should make better use of the intelligence it gathers and make it clear why specific priorities have been selected. The sector is wide and diverse and each art form is passionate about the work they do. Selecting priorities therefore requires this strong evidence base, good communication and engagement as well as a clear understanding of risk.

Creative Scotland should improve transparency by setting out more clearly on its website the separate purposes and uses of National Lottery and Scottish Government funds. If Creative Scotland used their intelligence to evidence the changing needs of the sector, and not solely the areas they traditionally fund, the Scottish Government would have greater assurance that its grant-in-aid was being directed to best support the sector.

Recommendation 22: While Creative Scotland has discretion to tailor funding, the Scottish Government should consider specificity associated with its grants to increase the ability for the organisation to respond to the sector’s needs and to strengthen the arm’s length principle. Creative Scotland should increase the use of these flexibilities to ensure funds are available to suit the needs of the sector.

Capital investment

Stakeholders across the cultural sector consistently highlighted the urgent need for capital investment. Without it, many organisations face significant barriers to providing inclusive, accessible, environmentally sustainable, and future-proofed infrastructure.

Numerous organisations maintain buildings and facilities that are outdated and ill-equipped to meet net zero targets. Despite this, Creative Scotland is the only UK arts funding body without a dedicated capital fund. While it has the authority to use National Lottery funding for capital purposes, there is little evidence that it has done so in a strategic or systematic way.

The Review found no indication that Creative Scotland has conducted a comprehensive assessment of capital investment needs across the sector. Without such an assessment, it is difficult to determine the scale of demand or to prioritise funding effectively.

Given the wide range of cultural assets across Scotland, there is a clear opportunity for Creative Scotland to take a leadership role in building sector-wide intelligence on the need for capital funding. This could include (a) mapping existing infrastructure and usage, (b) continuing to collaborate with partners such as the Scottish Futures Trust to align cultural infrastructure planning with broader public investment strategies, and (c) exploring how capital investment could support environmental sustainability, accessibility and regional equity. It is important to acknowledge that establishing a capital fund would require difficult trade-offs, as it could divert resources from other funding priorities.

Recommendation 23: Creative Scotland should work towards establishing a dedicated capital fund, supported by a strategic assessment of infrastructure needs across the sector.

Application processes

The application process for Creative Scotland’s funding programmes has been widely criticised for being overly complex, time-consuming, and inaccessible -particularly for smaller organisations and individual applicants.

Barriers to access

It has become increasingly common for applicants to hire consultants to help prepare funding applications. This trend reflects a perception that a high level of professionalism is required to secure grants. However, this has created barriers for those without the financial means or professional networks to access such support. Many individuals expressed frustration at the significant amount of unpaid time required to complete applications, which can be particularly burdensome for freelancers.

Concerns were also raised about the accessibility of the process for neurodiverse applicants, with some reporting that the structure and language of the application forms discouraged them from applying.

Multi-Year Fund application process

While the Multi-Year Fund has been welcomed for the stability and growth opportunities it offers, the application process itself has drawn widespread criticism. The key issues raised are covered below.

Firstly, there was frustration over the ‘one size fits all’ model, given the diversity of the sector and that levels of funding ranged from £50,000 to over £3 million. The Review heard that the application process should have been proportionate to the amount of funding being sought.

This is not a new view and featured in the Wavehill 2018 evaluation of the Regular Funding Process.^[93] One of the Scottish Parliament Committee’s recommendations in 2019 was for Creative Scotland to consider ways that the funding application process for its grants could be tiered to focus the early stages of the funding process on artistic merit and reduce the burden on applicants who are unlikely to progress to later stages of the application process.^[94] Other funding bodies, such as Arts Council England’s National Lottery Project Grants, have staged levels of application detail within the same fund for different amounts of grant.^[95]

Secondly, the application process was widely considered by both successful and unsuccessful applicants as being extraordinarily burdensome, particularly for smaller organisations. Respondents described excessive information requirements and unclear expectations, often with no assurance of feedback or learning regardless of the outcome. Some reported that the approach favoured organisations that had previously received regular funding and as such have a greater level of familiarity with the application process. Others were frustrated that the track record of delivery and extensive annual monitoring by Creative Scotland for those organisations who had previously been in receipt of funding did not appear to be considered.

Thirdly, many reported that the application process for the Multi-Year Fund was both long enough to disrupt the strategic and operational planning of many organisations (15 months between application and decision), and yet short enough to present an almost impossible schedule as many organisations struggled to prepare extensive business plans in the seven week turnaround between stage one and two of the application process. There was also a general feeling that a two-stage process was not a good use of time, especially given the high (78%) success rate between stages one and two.

Fourthly, despite draft Multi-Year Funding guidance being shared amongst Creative Scotland staff and a handful of organisations, there were avoidable inconsistencies between the guidance and application protocol. Using the same language in the guidance as in application portal would avoid confusion and misalignment.

Finally, requesting detailed information from all organisations at the same time puts strain on Creative Scotland to assess that quantity of materials in a timely manner. Some suggested that Creative Scotland’s effort to ensure proper use of public funds and be as fair as they could be with the awarding of Multi-Year Funding was considered to have overloaded the organisation. Some fed back that Creative Scotland had underestimated the additional complexity and time it would take to consider applications. It appeared to the sector that Creative Scotland had given insufficient regard as to how it would support funded organisations. Several mentioned the negative impact on their mental health and burnout amongst many creative practitioners. This was supported by evidence from the Poorboy research which suggested 91% of respondents who were involved in the Multi-Year Funding process reported harm to their wellbeing as a direct result of the process.^[96]

Open Fund application process

There were mixed views on the application process for Creative Scotland’s Open Funds. Although these have been improved there remains a need for more transparency and support for applicants, particularly individuals and small organisations who are competing with salaried staff in larger companies. The high numbers of applications and the burden of reporting was said to limit innovation and creative risk, stifling Scotland’s creativity over the long term.

There was frustration that applications which met the criteria but were not funded due to lack of funds had to be resubmitted rather than automatically being funded once more funds became available. This adds time and cost to both applicant and Creative Scotland. Creative Scotland should review the criteria for the Open Funds to ensure they are sufficiently targeted to avoid individuals spending time on abortive work and, at the same time, having staff and panel members considering this volume of applications.

Guidance and feedback

Despite the length of Creative Scotland’s guidance documents, many applicants found them unclear and repetitive. Applicants requested clearer guidance on how to meet funding criteria and more transparency about what is being prioritised.

Views varied on the quality of feedback received during and following the application process for funding. There was significant frustration when the feedback received did not align with the guidance (for example being told to include Gaelic in all Highland and Island applications when that is not in the guidance). Some reported that feedback was not consistent, with different points being raised between first and second rejections. Both individuals and organisations reported that feedback received was unclear, leading to a sense that it was either not transparent or not rooted in an understanding of the sector. Some were keen to understand whether, having taken previous feedback into consideration, this was taken into account in subsequent assessments. Feedback was deemed essential as part of their learning and development and a key aspect of Creative Scotland’s role.

There was a keenness for Creative Scotland to publish statistics on the level of funding awarded and number of applicants by art form. This has been done for the Multi-Year Fund.^[97]

Guidance should be improved with clear communication of the assessment criteria. Feedback for unsuccessful applicants should provide the rationale for refusal or signposting to what further development is required.

Digitisation

Automation allows staff to more effectively use expertise and enables a more efficient operating model. The use of digital platforms to reduce bureaucratic processes was said to be very limited. This was a particular concern of the sector who were concerned that some of the major video streaming services thought that Scotland lagged behind other nations. Screen Scotland requested an improved system for funding requests some years ago, but the Review has not seen evidence of this being adopted into a work programme.

Digitisation of the application and monitoring processes could reduce the cost to both applicant and Creative Scotland. This is especially relevant where demand for funds is high and/or success rates are low. Staff within Creative Scotland also highlighted the inefficiencies being caused from not fully embracing digital potential.

To improve efficiency for both Creative Scotland and applicants, Creative Scotland should prioritise the development of user-tested, streamlined digital application systems. These should be developed with improving accessibility in mind and designed to reduce the amount of information required for application and monitoring processes, and to improve turn-around times for decisions and feedback. Such work should also ensure intelligence captured through monitoring can be analysed to inform future decisions. Creative Scotland should also publish a digital plan which sets out priorities for development, aligns resources, and timescales for delivery.

Recommendation 24: Creative Scotland needs to revise and digitise all funding application processes to make them more proportionate and streamlined, reducing bureaucracy for both applicants and assessors and making it clear who determines funding.

Funding decisions

Concerns were raised across the sector about the transparency, consistency, and fairness of Creative Scotland’s funding decision-making processes.

There is a need for greater transparency on who makes funding decisions. Multi-Year Funding awards were decided by the Board. Information on membership of the panels for other funds is not available on the Creative Scotland website. Panels are usually made up of Creative Scotland staff, though EventScotland, the British Council and the Scottish Government are part of the decision-making process for festivals funding. Creative Scotland draws on panels of industry experts chosen for subject expertise for the Open Fund for individuals and for the Theatre & Dance Touring Fund.^[98] Using industry panels is not unique to Scotland. The Canada Council for the Arts, Creative Australia and Creative New Zealand all operate advisory panels. These comprise of independent cultural practitioners who provide specialised knowledge, particularly in the assessment of grant applications.

The sector reported that funding panels have a set amount of funding to allocate, but no directive or rationale to judge the strategic value of for example, a dance project against a literature project. Significant over-demand on limited funds was thought to mean applications were selected by relatively slender margins. This was particularly concerning to many in the sector given that panels are not art form specific.

While Creative Scotland has advised that applicants do not necessarily need to address all six funding criteria,^[99] the weighting of the criteria is not sufficiently clear.

There was concern from applicants of a lack of consistency in how the funding criteria were applied. A recurring criticism was that funding increasingly prioritised engagement, accessibility, and sustainability over artistic or creative merit. Some within the sector also felt that meeting the criteria was often financially unfeasible for smaller projects or led to a scaling back of ambition. The criteria being used for decisions should be communicated clearly to all applicants.

Many in the sector called for better diversity of representation amongst funding decision-making panels. The diversity and expertise of the panels (including their regional and art form expertise) should be communicated clearly to all applicants.

Funding decisions should also be communicated timeously with feedback.

Planning

Creative Scotland needs to develop a clear and longer-term financial plan that clearly aligns with its ambitions and priorities. Priorities should reflect the changing nature of the sector, the demand for funds, and the actions beyond public funding that Creative Scotland will pursue in furtherance of their stated goals as an advocate for the sector, a development agency and influencer. This will also require the organisation to articulate how it plans to improve and transform over the period to improve the use of resources.

Creative Scotland must distribute Scottish Government funding within the financial year but can carry over National Lottery funding to future years. Creative Scotland’s annual report for 2024-25, which is expected to be published in November 2025, will show that the National Lottery balance was £14.3 million at 31 March 2025. Creative Scotland’s current annual plan suggests a National Lottery deficit of £10.9 million in 2025-26 leaving a likely National Lottery balance of £3.4 million as of March 2026.^[100] The deficit is due to the Board’s decision to use reserves to support Multi-Year Funding related to transition, development and progression to year two levels. The rationale for this decision is not clear. Creative Scotland has the discretion to use these to support the sector and should set this out in a long-term plan.

There is a need for more strategic planning of the sequencing of funds. Many commented that the timings of funding rounds and decisions proved difficult especially for small and medium organisations. Applicants highlighted that there were gaps in funding caused by the lack of join up between funds.

Creative Scotland explained that the average funding to organisations is around one third of their annual budget. Nevertheless, given demands on public finance, there requires to be greater focus on supporting applicants to be progressively less reliant on public funding. Longer-term plans must include how Creative Scotland will support the financial sustainability of the sector. For example, Creative Scotland could actively help the sector explore alternative and additional sources of funding, and opportunities to collaborate with other private and public organisations, to maximise resources for the sector. This would support organisations in becoming more financially independent and secure. Such work is inextricably linked to Creative Scotland’s development role.

There are many useful examples of income generation which could be encouraged.^[101] In addition Creative Scotland could signpost to other sources of funding, share understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of corporate sponsorship, national and international philanthropic support or community ownership of cultural assets. Equally, consideration should be given to funding based on a tapered model or shared risk with organisations or individuals who have potential for future commercial success. For example, Shorestage is a Creative Scotland owned subsidiary company which manages real estate and sub-leases to FirstStage Studios. Screen Scotland has contributed to the initial set-up, refurbishment and running costs.

Many in the sector expressed a need for more investment in business development to support greater financial sustainability. Creative Scotland funds a partnership with a Social Investment Scotland who provide around 10 cultural and creative leaders with strategic business support.^[102] Creative Scotland also has a partnership with Crowdfunder offering match funding to incentivise crowd funding. ^[103] There is demand for more assistance.

Recommendation 25: Creative Scotland should develop short-, medium- and long-term financial plans to support strategic decision-making. The financial plans should set out planned investment to enable future funding decisions to reflect changes in the sector and areas for development and growth. They should also set out planned use of reserves.

Recommendation 26: Creative Scotland should develop analytical capacity to (a) demonstrate the economic and wider societal benefits of funding the arts, culture and creativity, (b) demonstrate achievement of strategic plans and priorities, (c) enhance its sector-wide advocacy, and (d) clearly articulate how its investment contributes to future financial sustainability for individuals and organisations.

Application success rates

Between financial years 2022-23 and 2024-25, application success rates to the Open Funds declined from 48% to 32%. This reduction coincided with a 44% increase in the volume of applications, which partially explains the lower success rate. However, the absolute number of awards also fell from 708 in 2022-23 to 634 in 2023-24 before recovering slightly to 688 in 2024-25.^[104] This trend in awards suggests that factors beyond application volume may be affecting the organisation’s capacity to process applications effectively.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) further support this interpretation. The organisation has committed to processing 90% of funding applications within published timeframes. While this target has been met each year, performance declined from 94% in 2022-23 to 90% in 2023-24, before improving to 93% in 2024-25. This gap in narrative raises questions about potential operational constraints, including staffing capacity and productivity. For transparency and accountability, it is recommended that all movements in KPI performance be explicitly addressed in future performance reporting.

One possible contributing factor is the increase in staff sickness. In 2023-24, the average number of sickness days per full-time equivalent (FTE) rose to 7.5 days across 140.2 FTEs, resulting in 1,051.5 days lost, an 86.5% increase compared to 2022-23, which saw an average of 4.3 days across 131.1 FTEs (563.7 days lost).^[105] This reduced to 4.9 average days in 2024-25 across 138.6 FTEs, however this still equates to a high number of days lost each year through sickness absence. The impact of this level of staff absence on application processing and award decisions warrants further examination and corrective action should be considered.

Payment timeliness to successful applicants

There is a decline in the timeliness of payments to successful funding applicants. The organisation’s target is to issue 90% of payments within the published timeframe. Performance against this measure fell from 98.6% in 2022-23 to just 75% in 2024-25. The stated cause being additional due diligence requirements relating to bank account verification due to increased regulation (which has been in effect for some time now) has now been cited in two consecutive annual reports (2023-24 published and 2024-25 draft), yet no remedial actions have been outlined.

Timely disbursement of funds is critical, particularly for project-based initiatives where cashflow directly impacts delivery. Delays in payment can significantly hinder recipients’ ability to execute their projects as planned and this was raised on several occasions during engagement sessions. It is therefore important that the organisation addresses this issue with urgency and transparency.

Collaborations

There was a need for decision-making to be closer to communities, building on opportunities for greater collaboration around funding decisions, particularly given the interrelated nature of culture funding in Scotland across the public, private and third sector. This would help reduce the risk of interdisciplinary projects and organisations falling between different funding streams and reduce duplication.

A regionalised approach to cultural investment, where Creative Scotland works with partners at local and regional levels could help address the apparent underinvestment outwith the Central Belt. Collaborative working could also help lever in additional mainstream funds and maximise funding for the sector (see theme 5).

Creative Scotland could also be more influential in shaping new funds developed by others for example the recent UK Government Plan for Neighbourhoods funds.^[106]

Recommendatio n 27: Creative Scotland should ensure its national funding is informed by local intelligence to ensure joined up decision-making for greatest impact across the breadth of Scotland.

Screen Scotland funding

Screen Scotland drives development of all aspects of Scotland’s film and TV industry, through funding and strategic support. It supports the screen sector through funds to attract inward investment, encourage producers to come to Scotland and to develop Scottish talent.^[107]

The Review heard some concerns about funding decisions lacking rigour, with suggestions that further training for officers would be beneficial. The majority of Screen Scotland funding decisions are taken by the Screen Scotland team. For applications seeking over £100,000, recommendations are made to the Executive Director of Screen and Creative Scotland’s Senior Leadership Team.

Whilst the administration and distribution of funding was widely welcomed, the decision-making process and pressures on legal resource caused delays. There were also concerns about poor repayment terms, including sharing underspend, slow cashflow, and of funding being limited to projects or talent, rather than investing in producers. These issues were said to disincentivise investors from producing in Scotland.

Several contributors to the Review called for Screen Scotland to provide a better balance between attracting inward investment and developing Scottish talent.

The Review heard requests for more clarity on how money was being used, for example in relation to repaying development funding in the Broadcast Content Fund. There were also calls for ring-fenced initiatives to support Scottish producers and filmmakers.

Recommendatio n 28: Screen Scotland should review the process of allocating funding to reduce delays in the system.