Scottish Government's International Strategy
I welcome to the committee Robin Naysmith, who is the Scottish Government counsellor for North America, and Leslie Evans, who is the director of the Scottish Government's Europe, external affairs and culture directorate. I invite the witnesses to make an opening statement, after which I will open up the meeting to questions from members.
Leslie Evans (Scottish Government Europe, External Affairs and Culture Directorate):
I will give an overview of the international strategic framework that the Scottish Government is developing, not least to give a bit of context to today's discussion on North America. Because the strategy is under development, I can pick up issues that members raise and feed them into the process.
I do not pretend to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything internationally or in North America. Given that he has been in North America only a few weeks, I am sure that Robin Naysmith would say the same thing. However, if we cannot answer a question in detail today, we commit to making a quick written response to the committee.
The international strategic framework will act as a strategic umbrella for a number of detailed plans, initiatives and interventions, including the Europe plan, the refreshed China plan and the international development plan. The framework has three key objectives. The first key objective will be to help to achieve the Government's overall purpose of sustainable economic growth in Scotland, for which we will use the traditional and well-trodden paths of increased trade and inward investment, tourism and attracting overseas students to Scotland.
The second key objective will be to promote and market Scotland in order to influence people to choose Scotland as an excellent place to live, learn, visit, work, do business and invest. That will impact on the way in which we work most effectively with our partners and public agencies that work in these sectors.
The third key objective will be to promote Scotland as a distinctive global identity—a confident and ambitious place in the world. In this regard, we will consider issues and policies such as public diplomacy and nation branding, as it is called, both of which were raised in the Scotland's place in the world conference that the British Council sponsored the other week. We will also capitalise on the strong identity that Scotland has overseas.
In taking forward the framework, we recognise that we are but one player in a crowded and competitive international marketplace. The Scottish Government needs to be focused, realistic and credible about what it can achieve. That will mean four things. First, it will be important that the Government is clear about what it alone can achieve and where it alone can add value, as opposed to supporting and developing the expertise, experience and activity of others who work in the field. We want to be able to identify and respond quickly to points of leverage to which the Government alone can add value. The Government might do that through visits, through support from ministers or through specific interventions, such as the Confucius Institute for Scotland, which has given us and the University of Edinburgh a platform from which to work with China.
Secondly, we will need to take a fresh approach to key partnerships and our relationships with our stakeholders. It is important that, rather than just engaging people at the beginning of the process, we consider how we maintain dialogue and engagement as the strategy goes live and rolls out.
Thirdly, we will need to acknowledge that although our key strategic objectives are clear, how we talk about and promote Scotland will be different for different sectors, markets and customers. It will be important to align the international activities of our key delivery partners in the public sector and to demonstrate a joined-up approach to promoting and supporting Scotland's interests abroad. Robin Naysmith will want to talk about that as it relates to his role in North America.
Finally, we want to take advantage of our size and be agile, fleet-footed and nimble enough to be able to capitalise on opportunities and areas in which we think that we have a competitive advantage, such as the reputation of our universities and education system, the finance sector and life sciences.
I have given a flavour of how the strategic framework is being developed. We hope to hold a discursive session with key partners and stakeholders in March, and I understand that the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture will talk to the committee about the framework in April. We anticipate that the framework will be launched in spring, alongside more detailed plans that sit underneath it, such as a refreshed China plan—the committee will hear more about that in March.
Robin Naysmith will talk about how North America features in all that.
Robin Naysmith (Scottish Government Counsellor in North America):
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to discuss Scotland's engagement with the United States and Canada and my role in that—and thank you for inviting me on super Tuesday, as the convener mentioned before the meeting. I have been in Washington for only a few weeks, so it is early days for me. I have spent most of my time talking to people, to find out what they think that Scotland should be doing. I welcome the opportunity to hear and discuss the committee's views.
I commend the paper that the committee's clerk produced, which provides a succinct and accurate summary of the background to my appointment. I add two or three points to that and to Leslie Evans's introduction. First, my appointment as Scottish Government counsellor in North America should be seen in the context of the development of devolved Scotland's engagement in North America. The process began in 2001 with a decision by the then First Minister, Henry McLeish, to base a Scottish civil servant in the British embassy in Washington DC. Susan Stewart was appointed as first secretary for Scottish affairs and was succeeded in the role by Michael Kellet, who was appointed in 2005. My first challenge is to build on the important work that Susan Stewart and Michael Kellet did in establishing a Scottish Government presence in Washington, progressively raising Scotland's profile in the US and building important relationships.
My second challenge is geographical and diplomatic, in that my post covers the whole continent of North America. For the first time, the Scottish Government is seeking to engage and establish relationships directly with Canada as well as the US—that adds 10 million km2 and 31.5 million customers.
My third challenge is to try and add value by improving the co-ordination of activities by the Scottish Government and its agencies, to support the Government's overarching strategic objective of increased sustainable economic growth. That means not just extending our reach but deepening our engagement, with a view to bringing a sharper focus to the business opportunities that exist in the US and Canada and considering how they can support increased trade and investment in Scotland.
Finally, I am enormously proud to represent Scotland in two such important countries as the US and Canada. I am frequently overwhelmed by the good will that is extended to me when I meet people in Washington and elsewhere. If we could bottle the good will that they feel towards Scotland and the Scots, we would be on to a winner. It is a huge plus for our country, and we should treasure the fact that we are so well received abroad, particularly in those important countries.
Thank you for those two succinct and informative introductions. Robin, you answered my first question to some extent but, for the sake of clarity, can we be certain in our minds about the differences between your role as counsellor and the previous role of first secretary? To summarise, I think that you said that the differences are to do with including Canada, an emphasis on co-ordination, and the further raising of Scotland's profile in North America. Is that a fair summary of the differences, or are they wider than that?
That is a fair summary, but I will expand on the point. Canada is an important added dimension and, as I said, a pretty significant one, so the way in which we take that forward is important. I am sure that we will talk about the previous Administration's US strategy and where we go from there but, in the case of Canada, we are pretty much starting with a blank sheet of paper. We will be talking to people in the coming months, and I will be interested to hear views on how we can take on a country such as Canada in a sensible way—in bite-sized chunks. We do not want to overextend ourselves and be too ambitious, but we must not sell ourselves short either, given that there is so much good will in that country.
The point about the scope and responsibilities of the role is important, because it involves not just co-ordinating but driving policy as it relates to North America. I will explain that in a little more detail. Previously, North America was dealt with within our international division. Because of the changed grading of the post, we have taken the North American role out of the international division. Obviously, it has not been separated out entirely, but we recognise that it is a substantial role in itself. The generation of policy for North America now sits with me as well as the co-ordination of activity on the ground. It is a policy, co-ordination and diplomatic role.
Does the co-ordination involve co-ordinating Scottish Government agencies, or is it wider than that? Does it involve other Scottish interests that operate in North America?
In the final analysis, it is as wide as we want to make it. A huge variety of stakeholders are active on the ground in the States. There is a huge number of societies with Scottish affiliation—about 1,000 in the US alone. I could easily spend every day interacting with them, but the challenge is to prioritise. Essentially, I am there to represent Scotland's interests in the widest sense. Obviously, when it comes to the public sector, I have a more direct, hands-on opportunity to try to manage, co-ordinate and achieve better value for money from our deployment.
I have two broad sets of questions. They are particularly for Robin Naysmith, but Leslie Evans should feel free to comment.
First, what resource is available to you? How many staff have you got in the US and in Canada? What is your relationship with Scottish Development International, VisitScotland and other bodies that organise transatlantic links, such as the Scottish Arts Council?
That is my first broad set of questions. When you have answered those, I will move on to the second set.
My answer will be broad, too, because the two things—our staff resources and our relationships—are interrelated. I will try to answer as logically as I can.
The short answer to the question how many staff work directly to me as part of the Scottish Government is that there are three of us in the office in Washington, including me, and there are two staff here in Edinburgh. That is the limit of the—
Nobody in Canada?
Nobody from the Scottish Government is based in Canada at the moment.
On the second part of the question, as part of my co-ordinating role, I have a new relationship with the SDI. Part of my role is to provide strategic leadership for its work. We are working through how we interpret that and what it means. What SDI does is very much part of the Scottish Government's strategic agenda, which is my responsibility. It has 30 staff in six cities in North America and two staff in Toronto. Those are its only staff in Canada.
Does Lorna Jack report to you?
She has a management relationship with me and a professional relationship with SDI in Glasgow.
Okay. So there are just under three dozen people in North America in total.
That is correct.
My second set of questions is specifically about the US strategy. Our briefing note states:
"Scottish Ministers agreed that the US strategy should have a regional focus on Washington DC"—
not Washington state—
"California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina and Texas."
That is not a regional strategy; it is a state strategy. A regional strategy would focus on New England or the mid-west, for example. However, a more important issue is why it was agreed to focus on those states.
The agreement pre-dates my involvement, although that is not as much of a disclaimer as it sounds. There were different reasons why those areas were picked. I may not remember all of them off the top of my head, but I will do my best.
Washington was picked for an obvious, self-explanatory reason: it is the centre of government, and there are business opportunities in the Washington area. Boston is an educational and high-tech centre—it is a base for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the life sciences sector. Houston was also chosen for self-evident reasons—I refer to the oil and gas business there and the huge trade links with the States that were already in place in that sector. There are SDI offices in Boston and Houston. New York is also a centre for obvious reasons—it is the business and financial capital. SDI has a small office there. There are an SDI office and a British consul in Chicago, Illinois, because it is a reasonable centre of business and industrial activity.
Barack Obama comes from there, too. That could be advantageous.
I think that the strategy pre-dates even Mr Obama's presidential campaign. Illinois also has one of the most active diaspora societies in North America, which is a factor, I think.
There is an SDI office in San Jose in California, and there are consuls in San Francisco and Los Angeles. It is not difficult to see why. California has the biggest Scottish diaspora in North America, and it is a centre for the life sciences, information technology and business of all sorts.
Have I covered everything?
I was puzzled by the inclusion of North Carolina.
North Carolina is sometimes referred to as the Scottish state, not because it has the biggest Scottish diaspora in North America—I have read that California does—but because it has a strong affinity with Scotland. There are good business opportunities in North Carolina.
Other members are keen to ask questions, but I would like to ask some specific questions before they do so. I know that we are time constrained.
First, why is Washington state not covered by the US strategy, given that the aerospace sector is now one of our key sectors and that there are strong links between companies in Prestwick and Seattle?
Secondly, you have mentioned the Scottish diaspora several times. What is the Saltire Foundation's role and purpose in life?
Your first question touches on an important point. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a team meeting with SDI colleagues in Boston in which we considered their priorities for the year ahead and their performance in the current year. I was interested in what the representative from the west coast said. He was enthusiastic about the number of opportunities in and around Seattle and about the increasing number of huge global companies that operate out of Seattle. Also, the Seattle area has been described as being very similar to Scotland. If we are revisiting or refreshing the strategy, as I expect we will be doing during the coming months, we will want to look at that area particularly closely because there are good opportunities there.
I can tell you a limited amount about the Saltire Foundation. In my previous role, I was at its launch by the First Minister and Scottish Enterprise somewhere in this city. From a briefing for that event rather that for this morning's meeting, I recollect that it is an initiative that is being promoted by Scottish Enterprise to allow young, potential future entrepreneurs from Scotland to experience business placements in US-based companies for a limited period of time so that they can build up personal connections and experience commerce on that side of the Atlantic.
Does it cover old parliamentarians?
I am not sure that there is an age limit on it.
I have a line of speakers waiting to come in, but could Leslie Evans clarify this point? Are you reviewing the geographical focus or, more generally, the US strategy? Have you not yet decided on that?
We are looking at how we proceed with the next stage of our US activity. As everyone around the table will be aware, it has not been that long since we consulted heavily on the previous strategy, so we do not want to throw all that in the air when we know that quite a lot of what was being talked about for the previous strategy is still pertinent, particularly the focus on sustainable economic growth for Scotland. We thought that it would not be appropriate to suddenly start producing another piece of paper. It would be more appropriate for Robin Naysmith and the team to have a chance to survey the land and his new role, and to take time to listen to views on Scottish Government activity. Undoubtedly, we will want to review and refresh the plan.
We also want to look at where we get fresh baselines from which to work. So we will not just be considering Robin Naysmith's new role and what it means for our future US activity; it will also be about how we evaluate the added impact and value of his role and the team's role out there, particularly through co-ordination with SDI and VisitScotland, as well as with other organisations that work out there, including the Scottish Arts Council and creative Scotland, about which we can talk a little bit more in a minute.
Thank you for coming to the committee. You might be aware that a previous committee report looked at the promotion of Scotland and that we visited the United States. The report recommended rolling out the strategy a bit further because we found that there was a lot of engagement in Washington and New York, probably because of the SDI connection, but not as much further west, where we thought that there would be a lot of opportunities. Although at the time there was a regional focus on the states mentioned earlier, very little was happening anywhere else. You have said why there is a focus on those states, but is anything happening? There are connections there, but what is the level of engagement now?
We have SDI offices in most of the priority areas that were identified by the previous Administration's strategy. Those offices have sales forces of varying sizes—they have between two and five staff—and they are out on the road every day selling Scotland, talking about business opportunities, knocking on doors and trying to tease out opportunities. Those opportunities come from all directions and sometimes the gestation period between knocking on the door and delivering jobs in Scotland can be long. There can be 18 months to two years of courtship, if you like. A lot of activity is being done out of those bases. Although I have not really been around long enough to form a judgment, the people who are there would probably say that the activity has proved the value of having those bases in those locations. That is not to say that if we were going to re-examine the geographical focus in future, as we might well do, we would not also want to consider the deployment of resources.
That feeds directly into Irene Oldfather's first point. In an area the size of the US and Canada, we are always going to be constrained by the amount of resource that we can deploy and the return on that. Inevitably, that will force us to prioritise where we think the best opportunities lie. We might get those choices right, and we might get them wrong.
Whatever strategy we have for the future—whether it has a geographical focus, a sectoral focus or a combination of both—we must have enough flexibility within that strategy to be able to respond to unexpected opportunities. It would be most unfortunate if the chance of a lifetime passed us by and we did not chase after it because that was not in our strategy or we did not have the resources on the ground to be able to do that. I talked earlier about adding value, and there is an area of my role that I would like to develop. I am not a salesperson and I am not there to do SDI's job for it—that would be silly—but what I hope I can do is bring a broader strategic focus and say, "Okay, we need to look at that, we need to crash on with the sales figures and we need to get our results in, but we also need to keep an open mind about other areas that might develop and other policies that may be developing on this side of the Atlantic that could have an impact on how we want to present ourselves in the US and Canada."
In addition to the activity that Robin Naysmith talked about, there is some activity over which we do not necessarily have direct control—why would we?—but which we know is going on and which we know is helping to promote Scotland. One example of that, which we fund, is "Black Watch", which has had enormous success. The National Theatre of Scotland did 47 performances in the States, and played to 20,000-plus people in New York and Los Angeles. The Traverse Theatre, Stellar Quines and Citizens Theatre are all visiting the States over the next few months—there is a role for Robin Naysmith to play in supporting that kind of activity. The National Galleries of Scotland has been working with Pittsburgh on its recent exhibition of Andy Warhol. Apart from the direct activity that is taking place in the States, there is a range of other activities to promote Scotland to a different section of the community, which Robin can link into and help to support and promote.
One of the other areas that we picked up was the lack of connectivity between policies. Robin Naysmith mentioned that there is a presence in each of the states—I assume that it is an SDI presence—yet the strategy is also about increasing tourist potential. We identified that people are not talking to each other enough to get that connected-up and co-ordinated approach. I hope that you will bear that in mind in the review that you are undertaking.
That is very much part of the thinking behind my post. Mr Neil made a point at the round-table session on 22 January. Historically, there has been a fair amount of activity by Scots agencies of one sort or another, in which they all get off the plane somewhere in America and rush around trying to generate the right kind of business for Scotland. The question that has not really been asked hitherto is just how connected that is and how much it represents good value for money. Part of my job is to try to see those bigger opportunities and to try to connect things up a little more efficiently, so that we have a consistent story to tell and make the maximum amount of impact with what inevitably will always be limited resources.
I have to dash off to another meeting, but I wanted to take part in the dialogue that you are inviting on the parts of the United States and Canada on which you might concentrate. You are a lucky man—you have a great job. I have lived in and spent time in America and Canada, so it occurs to me that Toronto could be viewed less as a Canadian city than as a United States city. I have lived and worked there, and it seems to me that Toronto relates much more to New York, Boston and that triangle than it does to the rest of Canada. I counted the names beginning with "Mac" in the Toronto telephone directory and there are more there than in the Edinburgh telephone directory. However, that is by the by.
What is also interesting about Canada is the diaspora in the north-east, such as in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Cape Breton Island in particular is massively important, perhaps not economically but culturally, given that Gaelic remains there. Economically, it is interesting to keep an eye on Athabasca and Alberta, given the oil and gas developments there, which links very much with what is happening in Houston.
You are right about Toronto, and its close proximity to the US. It is no accident that the US is Canada's biggest trade partner by miles. Behaviourally and culturally, Toronto and the US are probably very similar. I am going to Toronto and Ottawa in a couple of weeks, so perhaps I will get a more informed perspective this time around.
Equally, I share Ted Brocklebank's views on the Alberta opportunities. Last week, I met the Canadian high commissioner in London. He was enthusiastic about my appointment and the opportunities for a closer partnership between Scotland and Canada, not in a dewy-eyed, diaspora-related way, but on the hard-nosed basis that Canada has a thriving energy industry and we have some first-class companies with a wealth of expertise. The opportunities for trade are obvious, particularly—but not exclusively—in the energy sector. Places such as Calgary may well become part of my itinerary in the future.
In my experience, there is more to do in Canada than read the telephone directory.
In relation to Washington state, its proximity to Vancouver and British Columbia is worth bearing in mind. You might be able to kill two birds with one stone in that respect.
I want to talk about Scotland week—or tartan week as it was known before it was rebranded. Before I do so, I should declare an interest, in that I think I am the Liberal Democrats' nominee-elect to be part of the Scotland week delegation this year.
What is the role of your office in relation to Scotland week and how do you see it developing? How is the Scottish Government intending to review Scotland's direct involvement in tartan week? Those of us who go on behalf of the Scottish Parliament will be looking to see what the Parliament's role is, to ensure that we are doing something useful.
Ministers have yet to sign off formally their programme for events this April. They will do so and, at that point, they will announce the priorities and how this year's event will differ from previous tartan weeks. What I say in answer to the question is based on dialogue that we are having with ministers and on what we expect to achieve.
Scotland week is a good example of an event to which my role can add value. Historically, various programmes during tartan week have been sponsored by parts of the public sector. As well as money coming centrally from the Scottish Administration, money has come from VisitScotland to a substantial degree, and from Scottish Development International to a lesser degree. It will be no surprise that the astute promoters of events in North America have been clever about dealing with each of the constituent parts individually and coming to separate arrangements, which cannot possibly represent best value for Scotland, in my view.
One of the changed approaches to this year's event is that I have overall responsibility for co-ordination of the programme and for the involvement of the various agencies that will be promoting events. VisitScotland will be involved, as in the past, but there will also be more activity on the part of SDI. That is not only because it is a resource on the ground but because there has been a shift in emphasis in the purpose of the celebrations.
It is worth pointing out that tartan day does not belong to us; it is a North American holiday. Therefore, any plans that we have to rebadge our activities cannot affect tartan day, as it is established by Senate resolution and so on. It would be counterproductive to start trifling with that. However, we can present our programme of activity more broadly in order better to represent what Scotland has to offer. By that, I mean that I expect an increasingly sharper focus on the business opportunities. It is great to go to the USA for tartan week or tartan day and it is great to celebrate our culture there, but it would also be good to do some business at the same time. That means that we need to be more hard-nosed about the events that we sponsor and those that we do not.
As I said, a huge amount of good will exists towards Scotland. Many of the 1,000 or so Scotland-affiliated organisations will do their own activities for tartan day, whether we are there or not—it is perfectly right that they should. We should perform the trick of getting alongside those organisations without trying to do their jobs for them or spending some of our resources duplicating activities in which they are as well placed to engage as we are.
In relation to the business sector in particular, there are some areas on which we might want to focus a bit more, such as how we involve businesses and locate that activity within the programme of events. For reasons that the committee understands better than I do, a limited amount of ministerial and parliamentary time is available to be deployed on the other side of the Atlantic, so it is important that we make the best use of it.
In previous tartan weeks, most of the activity has been focused on New York, for a variety of reasons. I expect that there will still be a significant focus on New York, not least because a number of the big events that have become part of the tartan day/tartan week/Scotland week calendar are, and will continue to be, organised by other organisations. We support that. However, subject to ministerial signing-off of the suggestion, this year, as part of our wider strategic objective of extending our reach, we will make a significant effort to spread the reach of the Scottish Government's programme well beyond New York city.
I have another question on the ownership of tartan day. There is a perception in Scotland that the Scottish Government has created tartan week, but that is clearly not the case. I have heard feedback from friends in America that the impact of tartan day is on-going. Does the Scottish Government intend to audit the impact of tartan day and what it leaves behind? Does it plan to find out how much American, as opposed to Scottish or UK, money is spent and what benefits flow back to Scotland from that? My question has two strands: what we in Scotland get out of what happens in America and how we could engage with people in Scotland to lift the profile of our activities in America. Many Scots are extremely sceptical about what happens during tartan week—they think that it is just about ministers and MSPs going to America and turning up in kilts. They do not know enough about what happens during that week and after it. I realise that I have asked several questions; I hope that you will be able to field them all.
I will begin with the final point. Although I understand the scepticism, to a degree, the fact that America and Canada have chosen to recognise Scotland on a particular day in the year is a massively significant opportunity for us. I could not imagine the Irish Government ever deciding not to fund St Patrick's day activities on the ground that it did not think that they would provide good value for money. Tartan day represents a huge opportunity that we would be unwise to squander.
I accept that there is a need to demonstrate the added value of our activities in the USA and Canada. I hope that we will sharpen our focus as regards the purposes of our engagement, while recognising that organisations that are based in those countries will continue to do what they do. Without putting any distance between us and them, we might need to make a clearer distinction between what we the Scottish Government, through the taxpayer, is funding and why, and what events are being held in the US or in Canada because people there choose to hold them.
Through better co-ordination of our—by which I mean Scottish Government-related—activity, we will be able to evaluate more closely what we spend and how it relates to our objectives. Evaluations of previous tartan weeks have been carried out and published, and I expect that we will continue to do that in the future.
Part of that process will require us to be more focused on what we see as the outcomes. We may not necessarily measure them by way of survey data of awareness of Scotland, as was the case in the past. Such data can be variable, depending on the size of the survey, the time at which it was taken and so forth.
In our evaluations hitherto, we focused more on organising and running a tartan week, but not on the longer-term benefits of awareness raising, promoting trade, and encouraging people to visit Scotland or study here. We need to take a more strategic look at what we are trying to achieve and how we can measure that meaningfully.
I turn to the question of what the Americans and Canadians do with their money and what that does for us, which is much more problematic. North America's fairly open tax regimes give us access to quite a lot of information on companies, charities and the like. That is one route that we could go down, although it is difficult for us to go to some organisations—friendly societies or whatever—and audit what they are doing. I am not sure that we have the locus to do that.
Fair point.
Can I come in on another area, convener?
John Park is waiting to put his question, so I call him and return to you, Gil.
If I may, convener, I want to pick up on something that Robin Naysmith said. Last year's survey on tartan week made specific recommendations on how we might look in the future at measuring the economic impact of tartan week, particularly given the difficulties of pinning down impacts. We need to look at the nature of our data collection and the time over which we monitor it. We cannot in a week establish whether we have made a major economic impact. We have to consider that when we plan the events and evaluation process for this year's Scotland week.
I had a meeting yesterday with the Pittsburgh regional partnership. Given the city's 250th anniversary this year, partnership representatives are in Scotland to look at the links between Pittsburgh and Dunfermline, particularly the links that Andrew Carnegie, John Forbes and so on made. Given the size of Pittsburgh, I was struck by the question whether it would not be more feasible to link it with the east of Scotland or the whole central belt. The city is huge compared with Dunfermline and I wonder how wide the appreciation of those differences of scale is. There is a regional and state aspect to consider. How will we ensure that expectations are managed?
We want the USA to have a wider understanding of Scotland's priorities and place in the world. The official whom I met had gone round a number of organisations—including local government, enterprise companies and so forth—meeting the movers and shakers, but was unaware that the Scottish Government had a US strategy because no one had mentioned it to him. That shows the need for awareness raising. How do you plan to promote the strategy more widely in Scotland?
I have just made quite a good pitch for Pittsburgh, but I will make one for Carnegie, too. Like Gregory Burke, who wrote "Black Watch", Carnegie was from Dunfermline. We could exploit more widely Fife and Dunfermline's historical, industrial and business links. Certainly, Carnegie is a name that is widely known in America in terms of philanthropy and industrial progress over the past 150 years. Does that form part of your thinking?
I will respond in two or three ways, if I may. First, we will bank the pitch on Pittsburgh with pitches that have been made for Seattle and other cities. The point on scale was a good one, particularly in terms of managing expectations. I alluded to that at the outset when I spoke about the opportunity of taking a fresh look at Canada and what we do there. Part of the challenge in doing that is managing expectations. As Mr Brocklebank said, the strong Scottish connections mean that there is a huge reservoir of goodwill and enthusiasm for Scotland in Canada. However, we still have to manage expectation in a way that allows us to make significant progress in areas without disappointing too many people at the same time.
Carnegie is an iconic figure in North America, whom people like me can use almost like a calling card. People may not have heard of the Scottish Government or of other aspects of our modern culture, but they have all heard of Carnegie. The chances are that there will be a building somewhere in the vicinity with his name on it.
The point about the official from Pittsburgh not being aware of our involvement flags up an important issue for us, which is that we have missionary work to do on this side of the Atlantic. We are taking a new approach, and it will take a little bit of time for various areas of the public sector to become aware of it and recognise its benefits. I have work to do on that, but my colleagues in Edinburgh also need to do work on that for me that involves trying to make connections on this side of the Atlantic that, I hope, can provide a conduit for communications with me and my colleagues in North America.
My final observation is that you have a big job ahead of you. Members around the table have certain expectations about your work in the USA, but you have so few people at your disposal to do that work. Given the capacity that exists in the United States—never mind Canada—you can do little. Because the task is so great, I am not sure that you should split your resources. However, there are oysters waiting to be harvested there, so I wish you good luck. I hope that you can come back with some pearls.
Thank you.
What will your relationship be with the British Embassy in the USA and the British High Commission in Canada?
My office in Washington is in the British Embassy. The team in the Scottish affairs office have been in the embassy since 2001. They are my colleagues, with whom I do business every day.
I am going to Ottawa on 19 February to meet the high commissioner, before going down to Toronto to meet the consul general. The visit is partly to establish working relationships: I do not, for two reasons, anticipate that that will be a problem. First, I have received nothing but support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from the British Embassy during my period in Washington; secondly, there are well-established working relationships between SDI and the consul general network throughout North America. SDI has offices in the same places as six of the nine consulates across North America. That good fit is not accidental—the United Kingdom trade and investment arm is co-located in the consulates, and SDI does a lot of daily business with it.
This question is for Leslie Evans. The existing strategy has seven targets for achievement by 2010. Has an analysis been done on measuring progress?
Do you mean on the US strategy?
Yes.
That is one of the areas in which we have put in place processes that have been agreed with our analyst colleagues. When we consider rolling out or refreshing the new strategy, we will want to report on what we have achieved and what evidence base we have on the achievements of the previous strategy.
I have a final question, but one of my colleagues may have another—there are still a few minutes to go. The committee heard at its round-table discussion a couple of weeks ago, to which you referred, that there is a difficulty in promoting one brand for Scotland and Scottish values through a strategy that adequately reflects the objectives and roles of all Scottish agencies operating at international level. Do you have a view on that situation? How do you intend to accommodate it in your work in North America?
The nation brand concept is an umbrella under which sectoral interests are represented. VisitScotland will develop—I know that it spoke about this at the committee meeting last week—its own brand interest for the tourism market. The sets of images and texts, and the kinds of promotions that they use will be honed and developed for the tourism market. Similarly, SDI draws on promotional material for work with the business community, as does the fresh talent initiative when it speaks to students overseas.
The nation brand is supposed to be about a set of values that represent Scotland's interests—it tells the story of Scotland. Our role and that of the Scottish Government is to put in place an umbrella of values and narrative under which the sectoral interests can operate and draw on images and resources that we have at our disposal for them, including the www.scotland.org website. It will be important to ensure that we keep closely aligned with them on that process, that there is no confusion and that people understand how the pieces fit together in the jigsaw. That will be particularly important for Robin Naysmith in presenting a joined-up picture of Scotland in North America. That is one reason why his role and job have been described as they have.
There are no further questions. That was a useful and informative session, and I thank you for coming along.
Meeting closed at 12:50.