Hansard

I thank the cabinet secretary for that explanation. I hope that it means that the Government will be able to support our amendment.

If we really want to celebrate and recognise the value of the digitisation of our heritage, we should celebrate the contribution of all those successful projects and all the agencies in a comprehensive way. As I said, that is what inspired our amendment. I hope that the Government understands that that is what we are trying to do and that it will support us in it.

Digitisation is an important tool and the quality of digitised images is improving all the time, providing access for research and study. It allows access over great distances and ensures that valuable or fragile documents are available to read or to see by anyone with a good broadband connection—my colleague Mark Griffin will say more about that later.

However, access to the original is also important and a digitised version can only—at least with current technology—be a substitute or a surrogate for the real thing. I was allowed access to some of the items in the Murray archive, which was acquired by the National Library of Scotland. One of the many wonderful exhibits that it contained was a draft of “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” by Byron. The document had the poet’s handwritten notations and corrections in the margin and to be able to see it at close quarters was a moment that could not be replicated by the best of digital archives. Similarly, I am looking forward to seeing the Scottish ten project come to fruition, but having had the privilege of visiting St Kilda, which was one of the most amazing experiences of my life, I know that the digitised version, even in 3D, will not be able to capture the feeling of utter remoteness and the raw beauty of the island—or the strength of the wind that it experiences even on a beautiful summer’s day.

Similarly, many of Scotland’s museums and galleries are now digitising their collections, which can be an excellent tool for them and for education and study. However, in 2009-10 Titian’s painting Diana and Actaeon moved from Edinburgh to Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen. Some 140,000 people took the opportunity to see that work in their own town or city. I am sure that some of those who went along to those exhibitions were already familiar with the painting, perhaps from illustrations in books or from postcards—and yes, perhaps from a digitised version—but at the end of the day 140,000 people took the time to go along to their local gallery to see the real thing. It seems that people prefer, where possible, to see the real thing and will make the effort to do so when they are given the opportunity. While we are on the subject, perhaps the cabinet secretary might like to indicate in closing when next we might see works from our national collections being made available in towns and cities outside Edinburgh.

As we look forward to the reopening of the Scottish national portrait gallery in December, perhaps we might see some of its collection go on tour in the new year, which would allow the celebration of its refurbishment to be shared by many more people. Frankly, I am disappointed that the Titian tour seems to have been a one-off. If we are to capitalise on the interest that was generated by that painting’s exhibition around the country, it is important that we continue to provide opportunities for people to see our national collections in their local place.

If used properly, our digitised collections can also be part of our tourism strategy, by showing the best of Scotland in an easily accessible way. However, collaboration between our agencies is important so that, for example, VisitScotland knows what images are available on Scran and Scran knows the type of marketing campaign that VisitScotland has planned. That will enable us to think about how the two can be brought together. In talking of Scran, we should recognise that it is one of the largest online facilities in the UK. It has some 360,000 digital resources, which support more than 4,000 schools, libraries and colleges, and it makes a significant contribution to the curriculum for excellence.

The contribution that the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland has made to the digitisation of our records is an early example of excellence. For a number of years now, through Canmore and PASTMAP, RCAHMS has led the way internationally in such work. Canmore is a searchable map-based database of buildings and archaeological sites, while PASTMAP is the point of entry for five separate databases that cover the built environment. The resource that they provide is envied by other countries, and the collaboration with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales that has been in place since 2003 is extremely successful.

The motion refers to the work of the National Records of Scotland in making family records more accessible, and there is no doubt in my mind about how valuable a resource it is. Like many others, I have used the records of Scotland to trace my family history. From time to time, it was an extremely frustrating exercise, but it allowed me to contact family members of whom I was not previously aware. It also allowed me to dispel a long-standing family myth about the origins of the man who was thought to be my great-great-grandfather. I say “thought to be” because it transpired that the man in question was not related to me at all. It remains a mystery how that connection was ever made. I am afraid that that is a story for another day, but one that is beyond even our national archives.

In order to do that work, I had to use the English records system, too, and to switch back and forth between the two sets of records. To trace my Irish heritage was even more difficult, as some of the Irish records were lost as a result of the burning of the Irish records office in 1922. However, suffice it to say that the digitised records of the archives that are held across these islands were of tremendous help, and I hope that it might be possible for the National Records of Scotland to follow the example of RCAHMS and to find a way to work with its neighbours to make the process even easier than it is now. It might even get yet another starring role on “Who Do You Think You Are?”—who knows?

I close by offering a word of praise for the many conservators, archaeologists, architects and information technology officers who make the important decisions about how to manage our heritage, what to manage and in what way, because we depend on them to get it right. In times of budget cuts, the work that they do in backrooms up and down the country must not be overlooked.

I move amendment S4M-01023.1, to leave out from “growing interest” to end and insert:

“work being carried out by Historic Scotland and its partners on the Scottish Ten project to scan digitally and record both Scottish and international heritage sites; acknowledges that encouraging and investing in the digital future of Scotland’s heritage should go hand in hand with encouraging more visitors to internationally renowned heritage sites; recognises that the use of modern technologies should complement and interact with any tourism strategy, including genealogical tourism; applauds the ongoing work of Scran in digitising and increasing access to images and media from museums, galleries and archives, and the work of Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland in digitising and increasing access to the built environment such as archaeological, industrial and maritime sites, ancient monuments and a wide range of architecture; understands that Scran works in partnership with over 300 cultural institutions in Scotland and the rest of the UK, and with this example in mind, calls on the Scottish Government to encourage a UK-wide approach to the digitisation of family and birth records, linking the Scottish national records with other UK records to further raise interest in the exploration of personal and family histories, and commends the work of Historic Scotland and the National Records of Scotland, estimated by SPICe to be facing a cut of approximately 30% and 35% respectively in the Spending Review period.”

15:48