Official Report 535KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in 2015. I make the usual request that mobile phones be switched off or turned to silent.
We have a packed agenda this morning, so we will move swiftly on. The first item is to discuss the Scottish Government’s international framework. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs; Colin Imrie, deputy director and head of European relations at the Scottish Government; and Ian Donaldson, deputy director, international division. Welcome back to the committee. We are looking forward to hearing from you this morning. I understand that the cabinet secretary has a short opening statement.
Yes, I do, convener. Thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee this morning.
I know that over recent months the committee has been considering how the Scottish Government and its agencies engage internationally as the first strand of its connecting Scotland inquiry. I provided written evidence on behalf of the Scottish Government to outline our international engagement.
As I notified the committee, we published “Scotland’s International Framework”, “Scotland’s International Policy Statement”, and “Scotland’s Action Plan for EU Engagement” at the end of March. At the heart of those documents is the commitment and belief that Scotland is an outward-looking nation and that the Scottish Government is committed to membership of the European Union. The documents set out the strategic framework and priorities for the Scottish Government, its agencies and public bodies, and the wider public sector going forward. They will guide our priorities for specific countries, regions and sectors and seek to embed internationalisation in all that we do.
I want to outline the context of, and background to, the publications. “Scotland’s Economic Strategy”, which was published at the beginning of March, sets out internationalisation as one of four interlinked priority areas that will help deliver the Government’s central purpose of sustainable economic growth to enable all Scotland to flourish. That supports the aims and ambitions in the First Minister’s programme for government.
Aligned to all of that, on 25 March we published the revised international framework, which for the first time, was accompanied by a ministerial policy statement. The policy statement sets out current Government policy priorities. We will update it as our priorities and the external environment change. The framework itself is high level and is a step change in how we collaborate to work together across the Government, public sector and third sector in support of our internationalisation agenda and our strategic international priorities.
The framework sets out our ambitions for Scotland, its people, businesses and institutions. There are four strategic international objectives, which are enhancing our global outlook; strengthening our relationships and partnerships; increasing our reputation and attractiveness; and engaging in the European Union.
Our internationalisation agenda must address two interlinked challenges. First, it must address capability at home, through helping our people, institutions and businesses better understand the international environment. We must support them in developing the skills that they need to engage, and to create and benefit from opportunities overseas. Secondly, we must support the development of relationships and partnerships outside Scotland to ensure that Scotland and our international partners flourish and that opportunities to influence global systems are maximised.
Shortly after the publication of “Scotland’s International Framework”, on 27 March, we published “Scotland’s Action Plan for EU Engagement”. That sets out how we will protect, strengthen and further enhance Scotland’s place in Europe. Our objectives under the action plan flow from the international framework and are being a committed partner in Europe; promoting effective and meaningful reform in the EU; actively participating in the EU to secure investment, innovation and inclusive growth; and strengthening partnerships with European member states and regions. Securing more jobs, tackling inequality and creating wealth are at its heart. The action plan commits the Scottish Government to promoting the benefits of EU membership while encouraging EU reform within the terms of the existing EU treaties.
It is important to stress that, although it is aligned to Scotland’s economic strategy, our international work is not only about economic gain. Scotland will continue to act as a good global citizen, promoting stability and equality and continuing our advocacy of human rights.
Over the coming months, we will publish refreshed country plans for India, Pakistan and the Americas. We will be developing an international trade and investment strategy and we will continue to look for ways to ensure that our international development programme maintains and intensifies its impact.
We are also reviewing how we engage with our diaspora, and the role of existing governmental and non-governmental networks in promoting Scotland. We are keen to broaden the notion of diaspora beyond the traditional sense to include those such as recent students with an affinity for and knowledge of contemporary Scotland.
We are looking beyond purely economic indicators of international reach to include greater emphasis on soft power and cultural diplomacy, and we wish Scotland’s relationship with our diaspora to be a genuinely two-way relationship.
Finally, as I am sure that the committee is aware, the First Minister’s programme for government included a commitment to develop international one Scotland partnerships and innovation and investment hubs over the coming year and years, and further detail will be made available as planning is taken forward with our stakeholders and partners.
As always, I will inform the committee as we publish further documents. I hope that these brief introductory remarks have been helpful in giving you some context and informing you of our prospects in relation to taking the international agenda forward. I look forward to answering your questions.
That was a comprehensive statement. I have ticked off the first two questions that I was going to ask, because you have already answered them.
You mentioned the four priorities and then detailed the subsections of those priorities, talking about relationships and partnerships. Could you give us any practical examples of how that has been developed and where you have done some work on that? I know that you have recently done some work in the United States to build on and reinforce some partnerships there.
The one thing to make quite clear is the fact that the international framework was developed through a process of engagement with a range of people in Scotland. This is not a Scottish Government document; it is for the whole of Scotland—business interests as well as other interests.
I can give you a practical example from the United States concerning our universities. Our universities are becoming more connected—indeed, connect Scotland is a programme that runs across all the universities, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and other relevant agencies. The issue of how we can work to better co-ordinate that activity will be important in the future. As I am sure you saw in the US, convener, the extensive reach of people who are alumni of our universities is a great opportunity for us. Obviously, as individual institutions, universities might be quite protective of their alumni base, particularly in relation to fundraising activities, but they are now identifying the benefits of co-ordinating some of that activity and they have developed a Scottish alumni programme that runs across all the universities. That comes back to my point about the diaspora being not just people who were born in Scotland but those who live elsewhere. We now have a tremendous cohort of people who have had an amazing experience while studying in Scotland and have returned to their countries with knowledge and understanding of Scotland and a feeling of good will toward Scotland. That can be mobilised to help new businesses that are starting.
The one Scotland partnerships are not just about public agencies; we must identify how we can mobilise other interests. However, the first stage must involve better co-ordination of our public agencies in this country. Obviously, each one will be different—perhaps we will come to that—but we have to mobilise all the skills and talents in Scotland, and I think that education is one of them.
I absolutely agree. I had the pleasure of attending an event in New York that was run by Glasgow Caledonian University and which was attended by alumni of nine Scottish universities and colleges who studied here and have subsequently gone to live in the States. It was a successful event. There is a lot of potential there.
You mentioned that building relationships and partnerships and building our international reputation was important for securing jobs. However, another key element is tackling inequality and promoting equality. Will you give your thoughts on the potential threat to the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act 1998 across the United Kingdom?
The Scottish Government is quite clear in its opposition to the proposal from the UK Government to abolish the Human Rights Act 1998. Our belief in the importance of human rights is embedded in our activity and in our international positioning. Human rights are not just to do with international security and the rights of people across the globe. There is a very practical application that affects everyday life in relation to employment rights—people’s terms and conditions of employment and how those operate. The act is also about a sense of justice and of the type of country that we are. Human rights have been central to our international development framework, for example, and are also part of how we approach our different country plans. There is a respect for Scotland and its approach and that has a value that could quite easily be diminished by the proposal from the UK Government to march this country out of the human rights agenda.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. Jamie McGrigor, do you have a supplementary question on that point?
Could the cabinet secretary elaborate on the reforms that the Scottish Government would like to see in the EU?
We prepared and published “Scotland’s Agenda for EU Reform” some time ago and sent it to the committee. We have been very active and responsible participants in looking at the previous UK Government’s “Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union”. By and large, our findings, which were very similar to those of the UK, were that the balance of competences between the EU and the UK was fair and proportionate.
However, there are issues that need reform, particularly in relation to a greater focus on providing jobs and services, which regulations must meet. We should improve subsidiarity in relation to decision making where we can and where it is practicable. In some areas, competences are clearly cross-border—the environment was a very clear one where competences made sense. In terms of decision making, we think that there are practical things that can be done and I would be happy to send the Scottish Government’s plans for EU reform to you again and refresh the committee on our thinking in that area.
You have that document among the papers for today, Mr McGrigor.
I know. It is also one of our questions for today.
Okay, I will come back to you on that.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Yesterday, the First Minister said that Scotland’s relationship with the UK cannot possibly be the same as before the events of last week and the general election. Do you see an opportunity to review and refresh our action plan for EU engagement and our international framework in that context to gain greater influence for Scotland within the EU and beyond? Do you look at our plans and see an opportunity there to strengthen Scotland’s position in Europe and the world?
The plans set out what we want to do, such as our ambitions for the economy and influencing decision making. The opportunity that the results of the recent UK general election provide us with is to consider how we do that. The Smith commission proposals are very basic and cursory in this area. There has to be a respect agenda that acknowledges the strength of Scottish feeling about the importance of enhanced powers and enhanced influence.
Having the Scottish voice heard at Westminster is not just about Westminster itself; it is also about being heard in Europe. Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, was in Europe again on 11 May arguing the Scottish Government’s position. We are very aware that, within the current operation of the UK Government, when we go to Europe—and I am due to be at council to discuss audiovisual matters on 19 May—our position has to be agreed with the UK Government.
There is absolutely no reason why we cannot lead a UK delegation where we have experience, positions and priority interests in particular areas. Examples would be the environment council, some of the energy issues, and other issues that members have been interested in. That position is now unquestionable, and it would be folly indeed for the UK Government to deny Scotland’s voice being heard, not just in Westminster but in Brussels.
09:15
Issues that have come up in the committee during the period in which I have been a member include fishing negotiations, common agricultural policy reform and post-study work visas, the last of which has been of interest to Scottish members in particular. However, on the issue of branding Scotland internationally, which sometimes happens through the doors and under the auspices of UK agencies abroad, do you see any chances to develop those opportunities for Scotland and get a wee bit better at branding Scotland internationally?
Absolutely. In fact, that is what the one Scotland partnerships and the innovation and investment hubs are seeking to do. As far as promoting the country is concerned, I should say that we punch way above our weight in the influence that we have. As we have previously discussed, the fantastic year that we had in 2014 has given us an enormous platform, and the past week’s electoral experience has drawn great attention to Scotland. We have strengths in, for example, our universities, and I have already mentioned our investment in innovation. In certain areas, we are world leaders, and it is important that we brand that work.
I have been very interested in and have been monitoring the committee’s work on what is happening in other nations and regions, and I feel that there is a great deal more that we can do in that area. It would be foolish of the UK Government not to recognise the calling-card strengths of the Scottish brand, but we must ensure that we mobilise all our resources. Until such time as we have full control of the resources that we might need in that respect, we will work constructively and in partnership with our UK colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK Trade & Investment or whoever.
Finally, I want to take a more local look at what is happening in Scotland. Later on, we are going to hear from someone from the west of Scotland European forum. How are our national action plans and strategies for Scotland impacting on those kinds of local organisations, and how would, say, the west of Scotland European forum develop things and work with the Scottish Government to take forward the agenda at a local level?
My colleagues will let me know whether they were involved in some practical way in the framework’s development, but part of our aim was to produce a strategic document that would allow everyone across Scotland who was outward-facing—the partnership that you mentioned or other agencies—to see that we were all pulling in the same direction.
Another issue is the networking that we can do within that. There is always more to do in that respect, whether we are talking about public agencies working in the international space or whatever. An important point that is identified in the international framework is that, as part of our internationalisation agenda, we need to get equipped at a domestic level in order to work better together and we need to create not just the appetite but the networks at home as well as abroad. That is where I think the focus on everyone’s expectations has certain strengths that will make a big difference.
Thank you for that.
The Flemish Government says that it uses something called the Flanders model, in which all the different aspects are brought together in one office. Has the Scottish Government given any thought to adopting the Flanders house model to ensure that the international, political, economic and cultural interests in each location are linked and located in one building?
We are very interested in what is happening in Flanders; in fact, I have met Minister-President Bourgeois in recent months. I think that the Flanders example is interesting in many different ways, not least because of the five-tier system of constitutional responsibilities for the country’s different state aspects.
As for the Flanders house or one house idea, we already bring together the different cultural, economic, political and governmental aspects in our presence in Brussels, but the challenge that we now face is how we can do that better. Our Toronto office is a bit more mixed with Government and Scottish Development International presence, and I am keen to have more co-ordination and to bring together the activities of all the different public agencies. Of course, the approach will be different in different countries, because we might have more of a cultural focus in one, more of an economic focus in another and more of a governmental focus in yet another. Given that we are about to go into a spending review, such a mass physical change in our offices will be a challenge.
The one Scotland partnerships that we want to evolve will do exactly what you are saying—improve the way we bring together different agencies. It will not necessarily be wholesale—we want to identify particular places where we can do that sooner rather than later. I think that there is a great benefit to be had from that. It will involve some adjustment and change for the agencies, but it is an interesting model and one that we have looked at.
The Scotch Whisky Association has suggested that
“More could be done to ensure SDI has an appropriate, well-resourced presence in new emerging markets”.
It says that it welcomes the fact that that is starting to happen, particularly in places such as sub-Saharan Africa and Central and South America. Is that happening? What is the geographic extent of your intention for SDI to be able to help groups such as the Scotch whisky industry, which is obviously something that everybody recognises as Scottish and which is very important to Scotland?
There are different aspects to that question. For one thing, when we are refreshing our Americas plan, it is to make it just that—an Americas plan. It will bring in emerging areas in Central and South America and not just cover North America—the US and Canada. That gives an indication of the Government’s thinking behind the refresh of these plans.
In relation to SDI, I would cross-refer this committee to the other committee of the Parliament that is looking at this area. I think that it was only yesterday that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee published its plans, which contain the detail that you are looking for and which might be helpful for you to look at.
In answer to your question about geographic extent, I note that SDI has opened up offices in Brazil, Ghana and Nigeria, as I understand, as part of the development into parts of Africa and also into Central and South America.
In relation to our energy interests, as an example, the President of Mexico and umpteen different ministers came to the UK and specifically wanted to have an event in Aberdeen in order to meet people from the oil industry there—not just the producers but people from the oil services industry. SDI was very much involved in that event, and I met the ministers as part of the Scottish Government’s reception for them during the event. Those are practical examples of how we are extending our contacts.
The Scotch whisky industry is well financed, although it has faced some challenges regarding export figures in recent times, but the big challenge for internationalisation is not so much the large companies that have successfully promoted themselves; it is the smaller companies.
The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has been looking at this as well. We need to increase the capacity for smaller companies that have not exported—this is what the capability at home issue is. Companies that are involved in the export market are more likely to innovate, and innovation is likely to be a success factor for sustainability. SDI helps not just the Scotch Whisky Association to promote its activity overseas, but smaller companies as well.
Thank you. I have another question, but I can come back in later.
Thank you, Jamie. Hanzala Malik has a supplementary question.
Cabinet secretary, you mentioned that you are refreshing the areas that are represented in the Americas plan, but I have a more general question. We have offices or representation in various countries dotted around the world. At the moment they are primarily based where we are trading, but we do not have deep cultural links in some of those places. Are we intending to develop such links? Also, are we exploring new sites where we want to have representation? Could you shed some light on that?
In our economic interests, we are constantly refreshing where we need to be and our locations. I have just given a couple of examples of that in my answer to Jamie McGrigor.
As you will appreciate, my responsibilities are for culture, Europe and external affairs. In relation to our cultural reach, I feel very strongly that, whether we use soft power or cultural diplomacy, the reach and range of what we can do in terms of understanding is very important indeed. In recent weeks, Humza Yousaf has been developing cultural connections in the gulf states, for example. In the United States, we have a greatly expanding range of reach.
The reach is there; the issue is whether we need a physical location in order to use it. When the National Theatre of Scotland’s fantastic production of “Dunsinane” toured, our American office held events surrounding its activity in Chicago. It is about to do the same for the Scottish Ballet’s US tour of “A Streetcar Named Desire” and “Highland Fling”.
The question is whether we have a physical place or make the most of international touring. Despite the difficulties that will be caused by severe pressure on future budgets, we need to maintain international touring because we need to make sure that we have that reach and range, and it helps in a number of areas. Top-quality cultural experiences have an impact.
It is also about exchange. For example, one of our final Scottish Ten is the Nagasaki crane in Japan. We have had tremendous feedback that offering Scottish cutting-edge technology in the digital sphere along with understanding and respecting the industrial heritage of our own and other countries has an important impact and range. Indeed, at the Ryder cup I discussed the Nagasaki crane with representatives of Mitsubishi, which is a major investor in Scotland. They were very appreciative of the work that the Scottish Government had been doing.
One thing that I have picked up from previous evidence is that some regional Governments in Europe have international connections of their own outwith those of their national Governments. Will we learn lessons from them and have such representation, perhaps even in partnership in areas where there is already a British presence? Will the Scottish Government look at replicating that approach to enhance opportunities for better trade and cultural links?
We are certainly doing that in different areas. I will give you two examples.
We have had about nine two-way ministerial visits with Ireland since last autumn. There may be opportunities there to explore the wider international reach and what we might do to help promote common interests.
Procurement was quite interesting. I have spoken to companies that have worked in procurement across Europe about partnering Scottish and Irish energy firms; the expertise of one complements the other. That is a practical example of what we can do and how we are trying to enhance opportunities. That is why we have had Irish trade ministers here, and I have been in Dublin.
The other example shows that we actually lead quite a lot of this activity within Europe. The committee might like to have a briefing on the vanguard initiative, which is probably more familiar to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. It brings together high-growth regions in Europe—my colleagues will remind me of the numbers involved in the different regions—that exchange and drive agendas.
It is quite an interesting perspective. I met a number of representatives in March when there was a major vanguard initiative meeting here. I spoke to the deputy mayor of Tampere, Finland, where entrepreneurialism and enterprise are very strong. Those representatives want to work with people whom they see as like-minded as well as alike in experience to grow the Europe-wide economy. When I talked to European Commission officials, it was interesting to find that they recognise that resourcing and supporting nations or regions can be more effective in making better use of the economic value of the money that comes from Europe to drive particular projects,
Within the vanguard initiative, Scotland is perceived as a leader in that area. The places that are involved in it include—I think—Milan, south Denmark, Baden-Württemberg, Saxony, Silesia and Catalonia. We can provide you with a list of all the areas.
09:30
Are we hoping to enhance that number? If so, what are the possibilities?
I am not sure that it would be up to us to enhance it. People want to have partnerships with areas that they recognise as key and strong economic drivers. If you broaden such things to include everybody, you might have to move at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy. You want the powerhouse motors of economic growth to be powering ahead and you want to share that experience. Members of the vanguard initiative group have been selected because they can drive it forward. I assure you that, from the discussions that I had in March, I know that we are recognised as being a key driver.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The international framework states:
“We will seek to influence the external environment and communicate our shared interests through engagement in multilateral forums such as the European Union and the United Nations.”
How will we go about doing that, given that we are a sub-state Government? In particular, how will we do that in the context of the big show that is coming up: the UK’s in/out referendum on Europe? The Scottish Government has a particular viewpoint on the referendum and there will be negotiations between the UK Government and the EU. Do you see the Scottish Government as a player in those negotiations?
On that second point, we did not wait until we knew whether there would be a Conservative Government or, indeed, an in/out referendum before arguing the case for the importance of continued membership of the EU. We have been arguing that point domestically and making sure that our colleagues in Europe and internationally know about it. As you might be aware, prior to the results of the Westminster election, we produced a document called “The Benefits of Scotland’s EU Membership”. The election result makes the issue more acute, as clearly there will now be an in/out referendum.
We will strongly argue the case for Scotland’s outward-looking self-interest and the need for connections with Europe for jobs and our economy. It is also important to argue the case for Europe in relation to peaceful co-operation. I have just been talking about the opportunities for economic growth. We would not be able to have all the partnerships that I have just been talking about, such as the vanguard initiative, if we did not participate so fully in the EU. We need to bring the argument back to jobs, services and the protection of basic human rights, which are as much to do with employment as the rights of those who are seeking help internationally. That is essential.
The UK Government has already conceded and acknowledged the importance of the Scottish voice in relation to EU reform. That is why it invited us to take part in the balance of competencies review, in which we have participated constructively to provide evidence for what we think can be improved and what should remain the same.
The UK Government’s ambitions for treaty change and its ability to achieve that will be under great scrutiny. It will be very challenging. We must have a role and a voice in what happens in those discussions, not just internally in the UK, but directly in the EU, so that our voice and interests as a devolved Government can be heard in Brussels. We want to ensure that that can happen.
That is not something that is about to happen; it is a position that we have already been discussing with all the international visitors that the Government has had in this city since the referendum, for example, and in my international visits, which I will continue.
On international institutions, the United Nations will also be an important aspect of our involvement, much of which will be on a practical, basis. For example, Scotland will continue to be recognised as a world leader in the area of climate change and we will position ourselves as such. We will continue to take opportunities to influence UN forums, and we have already been recognised at UN level for that activity.
Yes, it is well recognised that Scotland has a distinct stance regarding its relationship with the EU, not least as a consequence of the First Minister’s statements during the recent general election campaign about what would happen if Scotland supported continued membership of the EU and the rest of the UK, particularly England, voted to get out. That has clearly been established among our various partners in Europe. I heard Mario Monti being interviewed on “Newsnight” during the week. He emphasised that point, and it seems to me that Scotland’s stance on the matter will influence the negotiations between the UK Government and the European Union. Should those circumstances not give us a wee bit more leverage with the UK Government and indeed the EU? Is that something that you are aware of?
As I have made clear, we have been arguing the Scottish Government’s position on EU membership for some time. We did not wait to find out whether there will be a referendum. The merits of Europe have to be argued on their own points. That has the impact that you have referred to: people are quite aware of our position and it might well have a bearing and an impact.
It is critical to point out that the proposal for a double lock—the idea of a double majority—is familiar to other countries. Should the referendum result one constituent part of the UK voting to leave the EU but not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, that should not allow the UK to leave. The point that the UK should not leave if the people in one of its constituent parts say that they wish to stay is not unusual in constitutional politics. I am thinking of other areas and countries such as Australia and Canada, and even the United States, given some of the constitutional issues in relation to its construct. The UK will have to decide whether it wants to remain a country that has constituent and respected parts with equal membership, or whether it wants to railroad people against their will.
The case for membership still has to be argued and won in relation to what the public thinks, but we will continue to advocate and articulate the self-interest of many people in this country and the common interest of European membership, not just in the United Kingdom but internationally.
So the Scottish Government will be heavily engaged with the UK Government on that particular point.
We already have been in many different ways. I have yet to have a conversation with either Philip Hammond or David Lidington, who are continuing in their posts under the new Government, but the position has changed. Previously, it was not the UK Government’s position to have a referendum, because one partner in the coalition did not want to have it. It is now a majority Conservative Government, which puts things in a different light, but I look forward to having constructive dialogue and discussions with Philip Hammond and David Lidington.
Good morning, cabinet secretary and panel members. Given what you have said and what you have set out in the international strategy about what you are aiming to achieve, can you tell us how you will assess your progress on that?
The Government has established an assessment programme—the national performance framework—to which we contribute, as does all of Government. That is where measurement can be effected and the economic and other impacts can be identified.
The biggest challenge for the international framework lies in judging intergovernmental success and cultural soft-power diplomacy. That is far more difficult to do. I noted some of the evidence that you have received from other sub-states on that. That is more of a challenge.
It is clear that there is an opportunity to bring about an economic impact. Interestingly, the export figures are particularly important—there has been a 40 per cent increase over the past six years. The big challenge lies in increasing the number of companies that are supported in their export activity. That number has significantly grown in recent years, but we will be considering that point.
The issue is not just about inward jobs or the investment and jobs that are created as a result of other companies and countries investing in Scotland, although that is still important and Scotland is still performing extremely well in that regard. Outside London, Scotland is still the best in the UK at attracting inward investment and jobs.
As I explained to Jamie McGrigor, there has been a change in focus on the internationalisation of smaller companies in Scotland that have not yet engaged in the export market, and I think that that will be a big test of our proposals. We are on the right trajectory—we are improving significantly—but, for the country, that will be one of the big ways of measuring the success of what we are doing. That is only the economic aspect, however. As I said, the international framework covers intergovernmental, political and cultural aspects, too.
You mentioned smaller businesses. What kind of support are we giving those businesses to branch out and reach out to other countries?
A lot of that involves the advice on entry markets that can be provided here. I refer to the inquiry that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has just conducted—that is an area on which it is probably best placed to comment. Companies that come through business gateway, for example, can be identified as potentially having export opportunities, and they are contacted by SDI. Briefings can be given, and there can be cross-sector international trade missions. There can be trade missions to countries for people who are interested in the areas concerned.
I can provide a more recent example. I know that the committee has taken an interest in Poland, and I spoke at an event with the ambassador for Poland. It was a business conference for people who were interested in exporting to Poland. Again, that is about building capacity here. A lot of it involves preparation and understanding how things work.
There are opportunities to put companies in touch with global Scots who are operating internationally in a given sector or geography, who can give advice. That is how it works. I recommend the work of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which has focused on those areas in its inquiry. That might help you to get an overview of what already happens.
We are trying to make things a bit more co-ordinated in country. There are two aspects to that. There are the one Scotland partnerships and there are the innovation and investment hubs, which are more for focusing on digital, food and drink or a particular area of expertise. They will be different for different sectors and different countries. That will not just be a Government initiative—many companies and, in particular, universities will have a key interest here.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned the one Scotland partnerships. Is there a timeline for those to formally—
I would like to say yes, but we would have to proceed on a practical basis, country by country and sector by sector. We want to make progress on the one Scotland partnerships in the very near future, but I would be a hostage to fortune were I to guarantee that we will have X, Y and Z by a certain time.
It is really important that the one Scotland partnerships bring together the different public agencies in a way that is appropriate for each country. Each country will be different. In some countries, governmental influence is very important institutionally, and the status that comes from that will provide opportunities that otherwise would not be available. In other countries, that is less the case, and there will be a greater amplification of trade and SDI involvement. It will vary from country to country, and I do not want to give you a timescale that I cannot guarantee. However, I will ensure that John Swinney and I keep your committee and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee informed of progress.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have dealt with many of the points that I was going to raise, but I want to refer to a comment by the British Council on the international framework. It suggested that
“the Scottish Government’s ability to achieve significant impact across the portfolio of actions encompassed by the International Framework is restricted”
because of the size of the budget, and that there is a danger of spreading limited resources “too thinly”. Do you have a general comment to make on that?
09:45
The British Council was involved in the development of the international framework and, obviously, we recognise it as a partner that we work extensively with. That is probably a request from it for more support for the things that it does, and I would not blame it for that.
There is a point about focusing on which countries to work with. We always have that issue. There can be a demand from parliamentarians who ask, “Why aren’t you working in that country?” There can then be the response that we might be spreading the jam too thinly.
Culturally, we are doing very well. Our national companies have an international outlook, and I continue to support that. The James plays were extremely successful last year, and we hope that they will have an extended run. Members saw the National Theatre of Scotland’s role with “Black Watch” previously. There is that kind of cultural activity.
There is also quite a good alignment in what we focus on. Let us take the example of Celtic Connections, which takes place in Glasgow in January. It is very important for tourism in Scotland. It is very international and transatlantic, and different partners are picked at different times. There is the India connection, for example. I was in Rajasthan when we signed the agreement between the Rajasthan international folk festival and Celtic Connections. There has been a focus on India. There are focused years, and obviously there is quite a focus on Australia and New Zealand.
The British Council would acknowledge that it is important that we go with the partnerships and connections that already exist in artistic and cultural areas. As far as the idea that we can enforce a top-down approach and say where we will be and what we will do is concerned, much of what happens has to evolve from the sector itself. We have a very strong and vibrant artistic and cultural sector in Scotland.
On music in the US, we support on a strong basis South by Southwest, for example, and we are always looking for other opportunities. However, it is wise counsel to be careful that we do not do too much in too many areas. We should acknowledge our budget.
We must recognise that culture is very much a calling card for Scotland and its brand. That has been talked about. It is non-statutory in many regards, unlike service provision in other areas that the Parliament has an overview of, but it is very important to have a vibrant and healthy cultural sector.
I think that the British Council was warning that there are limits to what can be done within restricted budgets, but I would not like to see all our cultural activity being just domestic. It is important for cultural relations and soft-power diplomacy that we have exchanges and understanding. We cannot do business with a country that we do not understand, and we understand other countries through their culture and heritage.
On a slightly different issue, “Scotland’s International Framework” refers to the development of
“a Trade and Investment Strategy that sets out our approach to international trade and investment”.
Will you develop that a wee bit more?
At the beginning, I tried to give members some context on how all those different aspects are interlinked in what we do as a Government. There is the programme for government, the economic strategy, which indicated that we would develop the international trade policy, the international framework and the European action plan. The next thing will be the international trade policy. They are all part of the suite of strategies and plans that we are taking forward. The international trade policy flows from the economic strategy. It should be borne in mind that we have just produced the economic strategy. A lot of that policy will be informed by how we do things in relation to the innovation and investment hubs, for example. As I explained to Anne McTaggart, that is in development.
We are still not sure about the timetable for that. Are you not going to commit yourself to a timetable?
No, I am not, because I know that you will write to me and ask whether I have done it.
Jamie McGrigor has a final question. I hope that it is quick, because we are up against a timescale.
On the cultural front and Scotland’s international profile, we already have the reputation of having what is probably the best international festival in the world—the Edinburgh international festival. Could more be done to develop the visual arts scene, which is very strong in Glasgow in particular, by having an arts festival on the lines of the Venice biennale, for example? I am sure that that would be enormously successful in Scotland.
Glasgow has a very strong international arts festival, so I will ask the organisers to invite you to make sure that you see it.
Your point about whether we can make more of the visual arts scene is right.
That is what I feel.
It is a fair point. Having the Turner prize in Glasgow this year is a strong recognition of the contemporary art scene that we have not just in Glasgow but in Scotland as a whole.
We should remember that one of the biggest impacts that we had was from the “Generation” exhibition, which was in 60 or 70 locations in Scotland as part of the Commonwealth games cultural programme. It was a retrospective of 25 years of the country’s contemporary art. Given the work that has come out of Scotland in the past 25 years, I am not sure that many other countries in the world would be able to produce an exhibition of such quality.
It is not just about heritage and our traditions; we have a reputation in contemporary visual art. I would like to see what we can do to take up your interest in promoting not only the international festivals that take place in Edinburgh but the profile of Glasgow and the rest of our arts scene.
We have Glasgow City Council’s international officer on the next panel of witnesses, so perhaps that is a question for her.
Cabinet secretary, you and I were in the States for Scotland week. “Outlander” is huge there, which I did not expect it to be—I am on book 5; I am a total fan. Jamie McGrigor asked about the visual arts, but our film and screen industry seems to be gathering pace as well. Will you tell us about some of the advances that have been made in that?
Another committee is considering that issue. There are great opportunities, although there are undoubtedly challenges. It is not just about trying to secure a permanent studio. We have a temporary studio, which is filming “Outlander”. The spend on “Outlander” represents the biggest inward investment that Scotland has seen in screen. The audience impact in the US is huge. The visitor numbers at Doune castle, which is Castle Leoch in the production, have increased substantially and there are tours in Fife and, indeed, my home town of Linlithgow because of Blackness castle and Linlithgow palace.
The knock-on impact of location is important. However, as I said in answer to a question in the chamber last week, it is not just a question of location. The other week, I met international film producers and studio representatives in Glasgow. The skill base that we have is strong and I want to ensure that those people can do work in Scotland rather than always having to leave to do it. That is one of our ambitions.
As I have discussed with Lionsgate, which produces “The Hunger Games” series as well as “Insurgent” and the other films in the “Divergent” series, the more we use Scottish locations, the greater the knock-on effect. For example, the Glencoe scene at the end of “Skyfall” had a big impact—people wanted to go and see that vast, atmospheric and amazing scenery in real life.
We have not talked much about our co-ordination with VisitScotland on the tourist side. Scotland is authentic in many ways, from the quality of its education and the integrity of its governance to its welcoming people and its built and natural heritage. Those are wonderful assets, but they also provide authentic experiences for people who come to see the country. In a globalised world and a world of film, in which people see things, they want to experience them as well. That gives us great opportunities for the future.
Thank you very much for coming along to the committee. I am sure that we could have talked all morning, but we have another panel of witnesses. I look forward to working with you again in the future.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
09:53 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance