European and External Relations Committee, 16 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Official Report 290KB pdf

---

Promoting Scotland Worldwide Inquiry

The second item on the agenda is the next stage of our promoting Scotland worldwide inquiry. Again, the committee will take oral evidence from a panel of witnesses; today, we will hear views from the academic world.

I will introduce the witnesses in the order in which they are sitting. I am delighted that we have with us Professor George Blazyca from the University of Paisley, Dr Gregg Bucken-Knapp from the University of Stirling and the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, Dr Alex Wright from the University of Dundee and Professor Michael Keating from my local university, the University of Aberdeen, and the European University Institute in Florence. I welcome all of you to the meeting and look forward to hearing your views.

As you know, the inquiry is the committee's major inquiry for this year. We began it a couple of weeks ago. We do not intend to take opening statements, but I would like you to introduce yourselves and perhaps mention your area of expertise to help committee members with their questioning. Professor Blazyca might like to start.

I am the director of the centre for contemporary European studies at the University of Paisley. The centre is a small research centre that specialises in central Europe. My interest is in political, economic and social developments in Poland in particular.

I am from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and am currently on leave at the University of Stirling. My field of expertise is the politics of labour migration. I have spent the past two years working on a book on labour migration in Sweden and have interviewed a number of key policy makers and representatives of interest groups about their attitudes towards whether Sweden should implement labour migration as a way of counteracting a declining work force.

I am from the department of politics at the University of Dundee and my specialism is Scotland's relations with the European Union. I am part of the devolution unit monitoring team for the whole of the UK, although my specialism is simply Scotland's relations with both the UK Government and the EU.

I am from the University of Aberdeen and the European University Institute. I have worked on regions in Europe for the past 20 years or so and on Scottish politics for even longer than that. I think that my role here will be to try to put Scotland in an international comparative context.

Thank you. I invite questions from members.

My questions relate to tartan day and are for the two gentlemen who introduced themselves last. Dr Wright specifically mentioned tartan day in his submission. Can you give us an overview of the effectiveness or otherwise of the tartan day experience over the past few years? Secondly, can you contextualise for us the damage that has been done by the involvement of dodgy characters such as Trent Lott in tartan day?

Tartan day is a tricky issue. It is important that Scotland reconnects with its diaspora in America and globally—doing so has been quite a powerful thing for Ireland. However, in its briefing material, the Executive points out that tartan day is essentially an American rather than a Scottish celebration. There is therefore a difficulty about the extent to which it can be capitalised on from a Scottish point of view. That said, anything that highlights Scotland in a market as big as America must be a good thing.

I have not researched the efficacy of tartan day, so I simply do not know what results it produces. However, if it at least highlights once a year to people in different parts of America that Scotland is there, that it is a beautiful country and that they have some sort of connection with it, things might flow from that, which is all that could be expected from events such as tartan day. It is very ephemeral.

I belong to a generation that was brought up to regard tartanry with a little reserve. The Trent Lott business shows the danger of investing too much in purely symbolic things that one does not know much about. When one is getting one's foreign relations together, one must be careful who one is going to deal with and how one is going to be exploited and used on the other side, as there will be two sides.

What Alex Wright said about the diaspora is absolutely right. The Irish have used the diaspora extremely effectively, as have the Basques and other stateless nations of Europe. More substantively, it is important that the promotion of a nation must blend economic and cultural images—it must blend the past and the present. Whether tartan can be used for that is one thing, but the projection of Scotland as a dynamic culture and a culture with its own tradition looking to the future is absolutely critical. That has been the secret of success in many other cases.

Is your question on tartan day, Dennis?

Yes, it is related to that. According to a recent survey, which I think was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, when people overseas were questioned about the image that they had of Scotland, they conjured up images of tartan, haggis, shortbread and castles in the mist. There might be nothing wrong with that in itself. The VisitScotland people will tell you that people come to Scotland to see castles and all that, thereby contributing to the Scottish economy. I think that there is general agreement, however, that we want to broaden our international image. What specific measures does the panel think the Scottish Executive should be taking to broaden out the image of Scotland so that people overseas will have a truer reflection of Scotland and will—hopefully—see Scotland as a modern, 21st century, multi-ethnic, multicultural democracy with a modern knowledge economy?

Such a broadening out is of great interest to me. As a specialist dealing with a part of Europe that was until recently invisible, I know that things are changing fast. I know that Scotland does not have the visibility in central Europe that we might hope it would have. Broadening out is therefore something that we really need to do; it is an idea that we need to connect with. The Executive is trying to achieve such a broadening out in many of the initiatives that it is undertaking, with which the Parliament and various other public sector organisations are also involved. We are all trying to do that, but I do not know how effective we are being.

To turn to my own institution, I hope that members know about the forthcoming event in Paisley—I think that I wrote to everyone about it—that we are organising for the end of April in order to celebrate the enlargement of the European Union. It has been a little frustrating, however.

With regard to Dennis Canavan's question about broadening out, my interest is to ensure—in a rather parochial way, you might think—that we connect with the new Europe. My colleagues might have expertise with some of the older continents, if I may put it that way, but it seems to me, at any rate, that enlargement represents an opportunity, and we will try to crystallise that at an event on 1 May. I have been a little bit surprised about how difficult it has been to drum up interest for it, both here, on our side, and elsewhere. Despite that, I think that we are doing the right things; we just need to do them and co-ordinate them in a more effective way.

Coming from the narrower field of labour migration, I think it is necessary to take a step back first and engage in some form of benchmarking exercise. As we try to market any country to economic migrants, it is imperative to know how that country stacks up against other nations on a number of issues. Aside from wondering how we might move away from the ephemeral notion of castles in the mist, we should also be coming up with answers to questions about how we can show that it is easier to get a work permit in Scotland compared to other potentially competitive national settings. People need to be aware of whether that permit, once granted, allows for permanent residence or for earning permanent residence over time, or whether permanent residence is simply not allowed. They need to have a clear understanding of taxation and salary levels in a comparative setting.

We need to be aware of the shortages in the labour market and of the sectors that they are in. The question whether employers are willing to hire non-nationals is a big problem for policy makers in Sweden when it comes to attracting people to that country. There is a great deal of data showing that Swedish employers are not interested in hiring non-European citizens. We need to have an understanding of what it is that Scotland has to offer in those various areas where it needs to compete. That information then needs to be disseminated very widely. The availability and affordability of housing stock near where the jobs are should be made known, as should information about health care systems, welfare provision, and educational and leisure opportunities.

This is quite a difficult question. On the one hand, we can think of the universities as being fairly fundamental, as they encourage people to study in Scotland. There is an increasingly large pool of international students and we are competing with other countries to attract them here. Universities in Scotland have not done badly on that score. If we are talking about specific initiatives, there are difficulties associated with setting up offices in other countries. The Washington office of the Scottish Executive exemplifies those. As I recall, the cost of the office is £200,000 for just two people. I am not having a go at the Executive, but such offices cost money. Scotland has a devolved Executive—it is not a country in its own right—so its resources are relatively limited.

When one talks about mountains, tartans, mists and so on, one needs to bear in mind the sort of people who may have been asked the question. My comments are not meant to be derogatory, but that may be the perception that those people wish to have. If one were to poll people from a younger generation, they might have a much more dynamic view of Scotland by virtue of the trips that they have made here with colleges and schools. There is a stereotype. If members of the committee were asked about another part of the world in a poll, they, too, might fall back on stereotypes. There is always a danger that we will underplay Scotland, which is a fast-moving place, rather than one of castles and mists.

When I travel around Europe, I notice that Scotland has tremendous name recognition, which is a huge asset. Everyone knows where Scotland is, although they do not know quite what it is. The point was made that we should project the plural Scottish culture. Much is now being done in that respect and it should be encouraged. Scotland can also promote the fact that it is a model of democracy. People are amazed that we have a stateless nation that very peacefully has changed its constitutional status without anyone having been hurt or killed and that we are experimenting with different ways of making policy. That is an export that has economic consequences, because it will get people interested in Scotland.

We also have a model of economic development that pays attention to social inclusion and a consultative form of democracy. In the face of international competition there is enormous temptation to cut social costs and to go for the cheapest model of development. The consensus in the Scottish Parliament is that we should not go down that road. Other people are extremely interested in that. If we can get things right here, other people will be interested in what we have done. That will draw attention to Scotland as precisely the kind of modern, dynamic society that you describe.

I found the two written submissions very helpful. In particular, I liked the way in which they addressed the broader strategic issue—not the nitty-gritty, but the idea of how Scotland takes its place on the wider European and world stage. A number of issues came to mind, although I will stop if the convener tells me to. On several occasions in his submission, Professor Keating returned to the idea that we need initiatives, not just by Government, but by wider civil society. That is a motif running through the submission. How well do you think we are doing with such initiatives? Do we need other structures to be put in place? How do we achieve what I took to be the important aim of approaching this issue in a pluralistic fashion? Do we lack structures for doing that? Do we need more and better structures?

We lack such structures, which is important for a number of reasons. Gordon Jackson has mentioned some of those. In addition, when we have Government-to-Government structures there is a tendency for politicians to get very excited about them for six months but for them then to fade away, unless there is a follow-up. It is not the politicians who follow up, but civil society, business, universities, local government and so on, which engage in mutual learning. It is important that Government should facilitate that.

The approach is exemplified very well by how things are done in Catalonia. There are almost no offices of the Government of Catalonia. Instead, there are offices of the cultural agency, public-private partnerships and business-led groups. If initiatives do not work, the Catalan Government closes them down and moves on to something else—it is constantly shifting. In the paper last week I read that it is thinking of shutting down its office in Rome, which was intended to influence the Vatican over the appointment of Catalan bishops. It does not need to do that any more, so it is moving on to something else.

That work is not expensive, but it requires quite a lot of political investment and encouragement. It requires some funding for the bodies that follow it through, and a commitment on the part of the business community. That commitment has not been present in Scotland; the business community in Scotland is not being internationalised as one would expect. There is also a duty on the other actors, such as cultural groups and the universities.

How would the Executive facilitate the pluralist approach that you discuss in your paper? I understand what you say about its value, but someone has to set it up. The Executive is, after all, our interest.

The Executive has to draw in the parties that are involved, talk to them, find out their needs and encourage them to get involved. It does not have to provide a lot of funding, but it has to provide some funding. It must not only project Scotland from the outside but bring Europe and the rest of the world into Scotland, and it has to identify the dynamic things that are going on. If they are worth backing, the Executive should back them. If not, it should abandon them. The role is a promotional role—that sounds vague, but the area is not one in which one can simply run a programme. It is a matter of having the intelligence to work out what is going on and how to back it. That should be done not through Government, but through funding not-for-profit private or public/private organisations. Money should be put through such vehicles; the choice of vehicles becomes important.

May I pick up on an aspect of the second point, which might be connected? At another point in your paper, you say:

"Politicians can have a short attention span and without sustained leadership from the top, paradiplomacy is difficult to sustain. Personal leadership seems particularly important … as there is little institutional momentum".

I have sometimes wondered whether the Executive does not have that proper focus, because the responsibility for Europe keeps changing. As your papers indicate, at one time it was the First Minister's responsibility. It has also been the responsibility of the Deputy First Minister and it now lies with the Minister for Finance and Public Services. One is left with the feeling that the finance minister has rather a lot to do to maintain the momentum that is necessary for European matters. I am interested in your comments on that. Should there be a change? Is there a lack of focus that would create what you have been discussing?

In my comment, I was referring specifically to bilateral partnerships such as those in Catalonia and Tuscany. They are great for publicity, but they often have no follow-through. We hope that there will be follow-through, but it is too early to know that. However, it is not for the politicians to follow through, but for the other groups that I mentioned. It cannot be done by the First Minister or in a single place in the Executive. It must be done wherever the need exists; any area that is Europeanised has a need to liaise with Europe. A structure is needed at the centre, but it should be a light, promotional structure that will assist other parts of the Executive and other parts of Scottish society to make links.

Other members want to ask questions, but do the other witnesses want to comment on the Executive's focus on overseas issues?

The discussion relates to a point that I was reminded of today on the train from Glasgow. John Edward, who is sitting in the public gallery, wrote an interesting paper a couple of years ago on the need for a Scottish centre for international studies or European studies—I might have the title slightly wrong. That idea is worth revisiting; times have changed and the idea has perhaps become more pertinent than when John Edward wrote his paper. At that time, the centre was conceived of along the lines of the Irish model—the Dublin European Institute or the Centre for International Studies—as a networking device to raise discussion on policy matters. Perhaps we need something like that—it would do more to connect with other aspects of Executive strategy such as the fresh talent initiative. To return to the point that Dennis Canavan made, that device would raise Scotland's visibility in Europe in a number of interesting ways, and it could help us to fulfil a number of objectives. For one reason or another, it has not been developed, but I ask the committee to consider whether the idea is worth returning to.

The committee has expressed support for that concept. Perhaps we should put it back on the agenda.

I would like to come back on that point. There has been an all-singing, all-dancing approach to the ministers' portfolios for Europe. Initially there was no minister. Then we found that it was Donald Dewar and the Deputy First Minister Jim Wallace. Then, sadly, Donald Dewar died. Henry McLeish then ran the show; he had a portfolio for Europe and so did the Deputy First Minister. At the same time, Jack McConnell was appointed, with Nicol Stephen as his deputy. Then, when Jack McConnell became First Minister, it became Jack McConnell and the Deputy First Minister, with, apparently, nobody being assigned the portfolio. Now, after the election, we have Jack McConnell, the Deputy First Minister and, suddenly, Andy Kerr—which was not on the website.

And Tavish Scott, Andy's deputy.

Yes. It is a real issue, and it must have been a problem for the civil servants.

The Executive finds itself walking something of a tightrope under the existing constitutional arrangement. These issues are reserved and, if the Executive has a minister with responsibility for Europe, there is always the danger—as Henry McLeish himself discovered—that it can appear to be setting up some kind of alternative foreign policy. I looked at Henry McLeish's memoirs today and I see that he makes that point. He found it impossible to square the circle.

Margaret Ewing and Irene Oldfather have questions.

I agree that we should not dismiss stereotypes. I represent the area that has Walkers Shortbread Ltd, 50 distilleries, Baxters of Speyside Ltd, of course—

And some midges.

No, we do not have midges. I have not been in any port across the world where those have not been greatly promoted. Those products are well supported and, obviously, very successful.

A point was made about funding of promotion of Scotland abroad. Professor Keating spoke about light structures. Politicians always have to think about money; taxpayers put the money in and we have to decide how to spend it. Do you feel that all agreements with Europe should be bilateral or should we be looking beyond bilateral agreements?

I am one of the people who bought Henry McLeish's book and read it. Would it be worth asking him to come along and give evidence to the committee on his role in trying to promote Scotland in the world?

There were three questions in there. Who wants to pick up on Margaret's questions on funding, Henry McLeish and bilateral agreements with other countries?

I want to make a small comment on funding and—without meaning to be cheeky—I will throw something back to the committee. I was looking at the evidence that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office submitted to the committee. One of the FCO's problems when its embassies were promoting Scotland abroad was that there were not really sufficient funds for the embassy posts. The embassies wanted some seedcorn money from the Executive. There has to be money going from Scotland to the embassy posts if such promotions are to be successful.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, in many other nations and regions in Europe—and in Quebec and elsewhere—a huge amount of money was spent on such matters. Much of that spending was not justified and many of the posts abroad have been closed. People did not know how to target the money. However, it is now the other way round; there is underspending on such posts. Spending priorities will always compete with one another. We do not have to go back to the notion that we have to have our own foreign policy and an embassy in every country, but we do need to have a certain amount of resources.

Partnerships do not have to be bilateral. The most important thing about partnerships is not whether they are bilateral or multilateral but whether they are sectoral—that is, whether they bring together people who have a common interest, wherever they may be. That notion can sometimes be lost. We may sign an agreement with Flanders or Catalonia or wherever and we may assume that we have common interests across the board, but we will not, because we will be competing with those people. In many cases, we will be on opposite sides; although, in other cases, there may be things that we can do together. A lot of exploration is required into exactly what the other region or nation will give us. Are there complementarities and, if so, what are they? If somebody else wants to join the club, what can they contribute?

A certain amount of learning from mistakes will take place. In the past, many things were overdone; hundreds of agreements were signed in the 1990s. We know a lot more now: the Scottish Executive knows what has happened and is being fairly discreet. It is not running around signing agreements with everybody, but is being careful about choosing its partners and about what it can contribute.

I will follow that through to see whether I understand you. You spoke about Tuscany and Catalonia, which are two regions that have different legislative powers. Given that, is institutional structure really not important? Are drive, co-ordination and cultural identity the important matters? What are the key drivers? It seems that parliamentary powers are not a key driver. Have I interpreted that incorrectly?

For Government-to-Government collaboration, powers are critical. Often, things fall down because one Government has a power that another does not. The Belgian communities and regions have enormous powers; others have signed agreements with them on which they cannot deliver. When civic society is involved, powers are less important and complementarities are more important.

Much of what is happening is being driven by the legislative regions agenda, whereas the driver a few years ago was economic development. The next driver will be the European constitution. At other times, the vehicle has been the Committee of the Regions, the Assembly of European Regions, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe and the regions of industrial tradition. Now, it is the regions with legislative power. The agenda keeps changing.

It evolves.

Yes.

That is a positive spin.

The situation becomes confusing, so it is important to think strategically about where to invest resources. I am not convinced that Regleg will be the flavour of the month in two years' time—it may be something else. However, as the Scottish Executive pursued the constitutional agenda in the convention and in the follow-up to the white paper on governance, it is following the Regleg process. That is one reason why it has teamed up with Catalonia and Tuscany, which have been among that concept's promoters.

I would like to move away from the institutional aspect and return not to tartan day—we have established that it is of limited value—but to the principle of reconnecting with the diaspora, which has been referred to. As we know well, there are Scottish people in the most unlikely places for the most unlikely reasons, some of which we might not want to say too much about. If even a tiny fraction of that diaspora began to identify with Scotland, as Irish people do with Ireland, and visited as tourists, spent a bit of money on Scottish goods or took an interest in Scottish institutions or academia, that could be valuable. Reconnecting with the diaspora is a good idea, but how can it be achieved?

I am on the other end of a diaspora and not the end that John Home Robertson has in mind. I do not know how best to reconnect. Many initiatives are being undertaken, of which tartan day is one. However, from the other end, I am struck on my trips to Poland by how strong the Scots influence was at one time over there, although Poland has no Scottish diaspora. I am reminded of lugless Willie of Gdansk and of Jock Baildon. I used to pass a sign that said "Baildon" outside the steelworks in Katowice and—shame on me—I had no idea for a while what it meant. Then I discovered that Jock Baildon established the steelworks there in the 1880s.

The connections are rich. It is not a direct answer to Mr Home Robertson's question, but something can be built on even in the part of international affairs with which I content myself.

Exactly—that is one of the points that I tried to make. Potential connections exist all over place in every part of Europe and every other continent. The trick is to find the way to make those connections.

May I continue on that theme? I want to make a connection with the fresh talent initiative, which is commanding some attention. Is that appropriate?

Sure—that is part of the debate.

I was struck that "New Scots: Attracting Fresh Talent to Meet the Challenge of Growth" is interesting but incomplete. It is full of worthwhile ideas. People who work in the universities sector would be the last to say that the initiative should not be taken, because there is a lot in it for us. I am pleased about that, and we can give much back in return. However, the initiative misses the mark by losing sight of the fact that we need young people to move out and then to return. That may sound odd in the context of fresh talent.

It is almost a picture of Scotland as the Gulag. We want to get people coming here and we want to keep them. I know that it is not put across in that way, but what we should be interested in—the word came up during the previous evidence session—is flux: inward movement and outward movement. We are not doing enough to encourage the outward movement that will help us to reconnect with traditions that have existed in the past, in which Scots were very visible. To give a micro-example, we have exchange relationships at my university—I am sure that other colleagues have, too—with institutions in Poland. Two or three students from Poland come to us every year. We try to get our students to go out to Poland, but I can assure the committee that doing so is very difficult. That is a universal phenomenon in UK higher education and we need to consider why. Those people are also our ambassadors in making the connections, reconnecting, and breathing life into old traditions and old stories that we only read about in "Stone Voices: The Search for Scotland" and other histories.

Does Dr Bucken-Knapp have any comments on the fresh talent initiative?

On outward flux, Scandinavia is a group of nations that has an incredibly high rate of outward travel of university students. It is commonly understood that one must, as a part of one's university education, go abroad. However, that does not translate into an ability to draw people in. That brings me back to a central point of my opening remarks, which is that there is a need to ensure that permits are available to bring people in. I have heard it argued that the fresh talent initiative is highly interesting but that it is incomplete, but I see it as being incomplete in a very different way. The tone of the fresh talent campaign is that potential economic migrants are being asked to come and bet on a long-term future in Scotland. If that is a fair portrayal, those migrants need to have a clear sense that the choice to come to Scotland will provide them with long-term stability sooner than would be the case if they opted to settle in other countries.

The clearest way to achieve that is either to offer permanent residency immediately or to offer it more quickly than other countries. That would make Scotland an attractive choice. Take, for example, Germany, which in 2000 had a green-card programme to attract highly skilled information technology professionals. That programme allowed for only five years of residency. As a result, it was extremely unappealing to a number of Indian IT experts, who realised that if they came, they would not have the opportunity to stay. Recruitment was vastly below what was expected.

Germany is a worst-case example; the best-case example would be Canada. Canada's independent class economic migrant programme brings in more than 50,000 people a year on the basis of a points system, where Canada says "These are the skills we want, and these are the age groups we want." The reward for having the right set of skills to fit into the right set of job classes is immediate permanent residency. It is profoundly important to economic migrants to know that when they go to Canada they will have the chance to stay or—at least—that Canada will spell out to them how they could stay. I realise that those comments will open up a can of worms. If I am going to boil down the matter to one suggestion, it is that you should ensure that you have control over which people you want, and that you can issue them with the sorts of permits that you want and that will benefit you.

We have made a bit of start on that, but we have come a long way. This is all very good stuff, but can we get back to the diaspora somewhere down the line, please?

The fresh talent initiative is relevant as well—that was a very interesting response. Do you want any of the other panellists to respond to your point?

I am still looking for an answer to my question about connecting with the diaspora.

My answer is not directly linked to the diaspora, but it is relevant. Some places—Quebec and Catalonia are two examples—do not just promote inward investment; they promote outward investment. The idea is to become internationalised. If Scottish firms do business in other places, they create a diaspora that has a relevant economic interest in Scotland beyond the cultural aspect. In Scotland, we have not talked about the importance of internationalisation in both directions.

Like Gordon Jackson, I found the brief submissions from Dr Wright and Professor Keating to be stimulating. Professor Keating made a point about the way in which the Executive conducts its external relations. He gives examples of the models in Flanders, Quebec and the German Länder, which are more structured and have more specific objectives than the much looser model of the Generalitat of Catalonia. We are somewhere in between them. I ask Professor Keating whether we have got it right or can we draw from others who have greater experience of conducting external relations?

I want to hear from Dr Wright about the direct representation of the Belgian sub-national entities and the German Länder on the Council of the European Union. Towards the end of his submission, he repeats his point about constitutionally entrenching the Executive's powers because we might not always share government with Westminster. How do we get to grips with the strategy of advancing, drawing on best practice from others and safeguarding our position?

We do not want to promote the Scottish Executive abroad. The Scottish Parliament would not see that as being valuable or worth spending money on. That is a political—

I meant the way in which the Executive conducts external relations.

Some of the examples that you gave were highly partisan examples of promoting abroad a Government that has a political strategy.

It is important to have consensus: some people want an independent Scotland and some do not, but we can all share the notion that Scotland should be projected externally. If we do not, however, the situation will become highly politicised. Politics is all very well and healthy on the domestic agenda, but it becomes a problem when external relations become politicised. That has happened in many cases that I know about. There is greater consensus in some examples, such as Catalonia, than there is in the conflictive situations in Quebec and Flanders. We have avoided that to a degree and the Scottish Executive is doing the right thing.

The major concern is about economic development and how we can enhance Scotland's economic position in the world. As I said, that is not just a matter for Government; it is a matter for society as a whole. If there is a weakness, it is in the societal response. The Scottish Executive has a responsibility for that—it cannot create such a response, but it can encourage it. I identified the business community as being problematic, but one could also say that the universities and other sectors have not responded as they might have. Academics draw the distinction between proto-diplomacy, which is the highly politicised kind, and power diplomacy, which is more consensual and which is really what we have.

With great respect to Professor Keating, I take a slightly different view, although I deeply respect his point of view. There is a dilemma in that the governmental arrangements that predated legislative devolution were inherently flawed—not in relation to day-to-day policy making, but in relation to matters that were of strategic interest to Scotland. The difficulty with the current constitutional arrangement—as it pertains to the European Union—is that there has been a continuation of pragmatism, which is inherent in the concordats of the joint ministerial committee on Europe and in the memorandum of understanding.

The fundamental question is whether there will be a rerun of the kind of strategic matters that went wrong before devolution in 1999 and, if so, whether the current arrangement can prevent them from happening. I do not think that it can. We now have a Parliament that can protest, but political authority vis-à-vis the European Union still rests largely in London. We live in a kind of paradox whereby, on one hand, a Parliament has come into existence but on the other, a good number of its policies that are not reserved to Westminster are affected by decision making at the European Union.

The question that arises is that—if one prefers the status quo—does it matter if strategic issues do not go Scotland's way? After all, that is politics. On the other hand, is the matter of sufficient concern that we should ensure that the constitutional arrangements are perhaps more robust? If so, is some form of constitutional entrenchment the best way of doing that? Otherwise, we will be in a free-flowing situation. I agree with Michael Keating that it is very easy to become political while we are trying to be constructive.

For example, I do not want to speak against the Conservatives, but as far as fluidity is concerned—Conservative committee members will correct me if I am wrong—I believe that their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections proposed a royal commission on the constitution, a legislative base for the concordats of understanding and a stronger role for the Secretary of State for Scotland on European affairs. We find ourselves in a very funny and tricky situation because, with the current set-up, aspects of how Scotland is represented globally can change quite a bit.

I am very interested in this subject. Earlier, the witnesses mentioned that the Scottish Executive has to walk a tightrope if it wants to represent itself in Europe without falling out with its Westminster colleagues. However, it was also pointed out that the day might dawn when things will not be as they are at the moment. Indeed, history shows that that always seems to happen. As Keith Raffan said, we might have at Westminster a Government of a different complexion from the Government in Scotland. That is not just a problem as far as Europe is concerned; it is a problem for devolution itself. After all, the challenge of devolution is that it will have to work in such a context, no matter whether we are talking about health, justice, European affairs or whatever.

Obviously, one solution to that problem is independence. However, what about those of us who acknowledge that there is a problem but do not think that independence is the right solution? What other form of constitutional entrenchment would deal with that matter? I, for one, think that we must find out how to deal with the problem if the devolution settlement is to work in the way that I, and others, want it to.

I have to be very careful here because I am not a lawyer. Basically, we would need some form of federal arrangement; however, the counterargument is that there is at the moment no consensus in the UK in favour of such an arrangement.

I have reflected on this subject because I thought that somebody would ask me about it. Indeed, what would be the point of having us here otherwise? If it wished, the Parliament could play a role in declarations of intent. Indeed, the report on the promotion of Scotland in Europe contained several proposals, such as the creation of a regional affairs council, that were really declarations in principle. That is the optimum solution for improving Scottish representation in Europe.

Although it falls to the political parties and the people to decide on the particular arrangements, Parliament could suggest that powers that relate to Europe should to some degree be constitutionally entrenched. It would then be up to wider society to consider the matter and, in the end, to vote for the parties that would deliver that. Of course, another conundrum is that the issue relates to Westminster and not to the Scottish Parliament itself. As a result, any change to the Parliament's constitutional status has to be carried out in London, not in Scotland.

It seems to me that this is a question of confidence; the Scottish Executive does not act with confidence on the big current issues. On the humble business of organising a conference in Paisley to mark and celebrate enlargement, I found that it was not so easy to connect with the Scottish Executive on the matter. I know that, with such comments, I risk cutting myself adrift from the Executive with all sorts of terrible consequences, so I should say that I am grateful that we managed to secure the attendance of Andy Kerr, who will speak at the conference. It is, however, important to say that it was not easy to do that. I felt throughout the whole process that there was a lack of confidence.

I must also say that it is not easy to find out from the Scottish Executive website what is going on to mark 1 May. I find that bizarre, because this is a historic European event. As I said, it all comes down to a lack of confidence.

I just want to allow Keith Raffan to ask his last question, before we move on to Phil Gallie.

We have the vertical hierarchy of the UK Government and Brussels, but there are many lateral links, particularly with other regions in other parts of the world, not just in Europe.

I want to challenge what Professor Keating said about the Executive's choosing carefully with whom it signs bilateral agreements; maybe he was referring to the Executive's current position. In my view, there has been a pretty scattergun approach in the past. I could not agree more with the point about politicians—including me—having a short attention span.

What were we talking about?

There was sudden enthusiasm for the Eastern Cape, but nothing has happened. There are the bilateral agreements with Catalonia, Tuscany, North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria. Some minister probably also went to Ireland, the Czech Republic and Estonia, said something and something happened, but it has probably not been followed through. We have refused to become a member of the Nordic Council.

Can I ask you for a question?

All that suggests the use of a scattergun approach, so I wonder whether we are choosing our agreements carefully. We must be focused because of our limited human and financial resources. We are not being focused; we need priorities. Where is the strategy?

To whom are you directing your question?

Professor Keating, in the first instance.

I have a taxi waiting, so I will answer very quickly. There is something in what you say, but there is always a certain amount of redundancy in such initiatives. Exploration is necessary; the important thing is to drop something if it does not work rather than just carry on. That is a general comment.

On Alex Wright's constitutional point, I know of many cases in which nationalist parties have been in power at sub-state level and life has gone on. Life would continue in three ways. First, there could be constitutional change that would entrench the powers of the Scottish Parliament in Europe, although I do not think that that would happen. Secondly, the European constitution is changing—the Regleg agenda is about entrenching powers of sub-states at European level. Getting consensus on some kind of arrangement there would not satisfy both sides in the debate here, but it would satisfy most people. Thirdly, there is politics. If there is a change in Government, the position of the Foreign Office will not continue to be so accommodating, so the rules would have to change. I do not believe in the doomsday scenario in which the devolution settlement would not withstand such a change. There are many cases in which such changes have been withstood. Politics will get around any such situation.

I agree that the Scottish Executive has not been assertive enough. It is so keen to remain a Whitehall insider that it is being hyper-cautious in taking the policy lead in Europe.

Would having a dedicated minister help? Robin Cook said that there would be a minister for Europe. You have given us the history of the portfolio, which is a story about passing the buck. I hesitate to get too deeply into personalities and structures, but would it help to have a dedicated minister who could draw everything together?

No, because that would simply mean that Europe would be parked in the portfolio of that minister. Europe affects everyone; it affects domestic politics.

Do we not need someone to co-ordinate across the Executive?

Yes, that is important, but Europe must be the responsibility of everyone. If we study the comparative experience of those nations and regions that have done things best, we find that they ensured that the whole of the Government was Europeanised, not just the European section.

Thank you for appearing before us.

I had been tempted to go through Professor Keating's submission, particularly the part of it in which he suggests that a recent visitor to the committee, the representative of the European presidency, lives in some kind of fantasy land, but I will not go down that line.

I have a very simple question about external relationships. We have the world of academia before us today. In the professors' experience, how are the Scottish universities seen throughout Europe and the wider world? What are the universities doing to promote themselves in the international world of academia?

Professor Keating has had to leave for a flight, but we still have three witnesses who I am sure will want to answer that question.

I am sure that Phil Gallie knows that there is no doubt that the higher education sector in the UK and in Scotland is one of the most successful sectors in the economy.

If you were to judge us by any standard of productivity—net export, or inward students, for example—you would find success pretty much across the board. If we visit any university in the UK today—this holds true for Scotland—we will find huge swathes of international students. It is interesting that that population is changing; there are now Chinese students in many universities and it is likely that, if we connect properly with the new Europe, we will be able to do very well in attracting students from the accession countries, because there is a demand for what we provide. We do not have any trouble in selling ourselves. We must be alert, of course, because the competition never diminishes, but we have a good track record and we can continue to work well. The fresh talent initiative contains interesting things for us in terms of resources to enable universities in Scotland to continue that work. That is all very positive.

However, as I said, we are missing out because we are not properly connecting in terms of getting our students to face the outside world and connect for us. We ought to consider carefully the reasons why students are not doing that and we ought to ask where the barriers are. We are not properly considering languages—it is interesting that that point crops up in the document, "New Scots: Attracting Fresh Talent to Meet the Challenge of Growth", one paragraph of which suggests that people would feel more at home in Scotland if more people could welcome them in their own language.

Language teaching is in crisis in the UK. There was a story in last week's The Times Higher Education Supplement—you will be pleased to know that it is not a Scottish story, but it is a sad one, all the same—that said that De Montfort University in Leicester is considering closing down languages teaching altogether. My colleagues and I find that to be very disturbing. The problem is deep and demands careful consideration. I do not know the answer. However, as those issues are raised in the fresh talent initiative, that brings us back to the incompleteness of the initiative. Unless we follow such matters through, I doubt that the initiative will work.

A lot of good things are going on in the university sector—I am sure that, deep down, Phil Gallie knows that. That can continue if universities are supported in the right way.

I teach at the University of Stirling, through its bilateral exchange programme with Gothenburg University. Once a year, Gothenburg sends a faculty member from its politics department to Stirling to teach an advanced undergraduate unit. That is a regular exchange. Undergraduate students also go back and forth between the two institutions.

Perhaps I will put a slightly different spin on the issue, but in Sweden our problem is that we cannot offer sufficient courses in English to provide a space for faculty members from British universities. We also do not run sufficient courses in English to allow undergraduates from Europe and elsewhere in the world to study and fulfil their university requirements. Although it is lovely to hear people say that they must ensure that they are able to learn the languages of the countries where they will go to study, those of us who come from smaller European states—Sweden's population is just under 9 million—must acknowledge that we must make it easier for your students to spend time with us. We have to facilitate access to our classrooms for students and scholars, and the best way of doing that is to begin to offer more courses in English.

I was wondering about outposts. For example, the Stockholm School of Economics has a centre in Riga, in Latvia, which attracts 300 of the best economics and politics students from the three Baltic states and flies professors back and forth weekly. That kind of outpost gives those three states a head start, does it not? Should we not be doing that kind of thing?

Absolutely. Outside academia, there are examples of Sweden doing quite well in that kind of activity in relation to the labour force. For example, there has been fantastic success at county level, where there are nursing shortages that are comparable to the shortage in Scotland. To deal with the problem, Sweden has done what you described in relation to academia: it has gone to the Baltic states and forged close relationships with teaching hospitals and medical schools and it has arranged for special exemptions from the standard work permit rules, so that individuals can come to Sweden for up to 36 months and, after they have learned a sufficient amount of Swedish, be allowed to practise in counties where there are shortages of nurses, doctors and dentists. There is almost a sense that a field of talent is being created and integrated into Sweden.

Phil, are you happy?

Yes, I am relatively happy. A lot of comments were made that I would like to ask about, but they seemed reasonable.

It is on the record that you are happy.

He is relatively happy.

I have a quick question on the fresh talent initiative, which some of the witnesses have mentioned. I agree that it has great potential for building up good relations between Scotland and other countries. Academics or students coming here and student exchanges and so on are all very well; however, outside academia, what are the prospects of attracting a significant number of overseas workers to Scotland, particularly from the European Union accession states, which will join the EU in a few weeks' time? What specific measures could the Scottish Executive take to try to ensure the success of the fresh talent initiative?

That issue has been filling the newspapers over the past few weeks and raises all sorts of delicate issues. There may be some underlying exaggeration of the possibility of success—we ought to be aware of that. First, even skilled workers do not move unless their prospects are clear, as my colleague mentioned. The movement is likely to be much less significant than anyone expects it to be. Secondly, although the region of Europe that we are talking about is relatively underdeveloped, with a relatively high level of unemployment, we have heard from the Deputy First Minister that it is the region that will attract the bulk of Brussels assistance in the future. It is the region in which growth will be fastest in the future.

I have always believed that what will happen, albeit slowly—perhaps imperceptibly, to begin with—is that the centre of economic gravity will shift eastwards. The fact that economic activity in the countries that we are talking about will pick up at probably a much faster rate than we expect means that the possibility of finding the kind of workers who would be welcome across the board, without there being any of the delegate problems that I have mentioned, might be much less likely than the British Government or others believe.

The perception that unfortunately has been created in the period of heated political debate in the United Kingdom over the past few months has not gone unnoticed in the countries that we are talking about. Workers are likely to be deterred by the idea that they might not be welcome, and signals to that effect have suddenly appeared from the United Kingdom Government, whose previous position had gone down very well in countries such as Poland. The United Kingdom, Sweden and Ireland were three of the few countries that said that there would be no derogations on labour flows after 1 May; however, they then shifted position, and the signals have been noticed.

For a number of different reasons, the flow of workers is likely to be far less significant than anyone expects. There might even be a question mark over whether the Executive can tackle some of the serious demographic problems that it believes it faces. At the very least, conflicting signals are being sent out and, as long as those conflicting signals exist, solving the problem will be very difficult.

It is absolutely true that we will see a much smaller number of EU citizens from the accession states coming here. Study after study has shown that only a small number of them have any interest in coming to a traditional EU state and staying for the long term. At best, they want to stay for a few years before returning home. Plenty of newspaper polls on the subject were conducted in Poland, which showed that only 15 per cent of workers wanted to take up employment in a current member state. Of those 15 per cent, more than 80 per cent indicated that they were likely to return home after a few years.

The question is how we get the individuals to come. Putting aside the permit mantra, we must also begin thinking about how to ensure that individuals have a clear sense of the opportunities that are available to them. In that respect, Scotland has taken a lovely first step by beginning to talk about websites that will show lists of job openings that are available. That idea is still very much in the developmental stage in Sweden, where people have not been able to come to agreement on it.

In addition to setting up websites, we should say, "Here are the jobs." During its extensive labour migration in the 1950s and 1960s, Sweden set up Swedish Labour Market Board offices in targeted foreign countries, where it was able to present packages of jobs that were available, to promote the sectors in which there were shortages and to attempt to arrange for blocks of individuals to apply and be admitted. We should explore the possibility of setting up offices in other countries to promote existing job shortages. It is likely that we will need to establish such offices in states outside the EU.

There is an evolving regionalism agenda across Europe. I agree 100 per cent with what George Blazyca says about Poland. The country is an economic development challenge, but there are tremendous opportunities, which I hope Scotland will key into. I see Poland as one of the key players. It has the capacity 20 years from now to be the new Germany in terms of economic development.

We have not really discussed the Committee of the Regions, whose significance depends on what we are looking for from it. In the past, Alex Wright has been critical of it, but it offers the potential for tremendous networking opportunities. Would he like to comment on how that may play out in 10 or 20 years' time? I agree that there needs to be structural reform, but some of the key players are involved in the Committee of the Regions. In his submission, Alex Wright mentions the fact that the First Minister influenced the agenda for the convention. Tuscany does not have the same legislative powers as Scotland, but people such as Claudio Martini are playing a key role. Opportunities have been created by the election of Pasqual Maragall as President of Catalonia. What is the potential for developing that agenda, which is contrary to Keith Raffan's point about having a minister for Europe?

As the member knows, I am ambivalent about the Committee of the Regions. I was very optimistic about it when it was established. I attended virtually its first meeting in Brussels as an observer and thought that great things would happen. The crucial thing about the Committee of the Regions is that its establishment marked the point at which the European Union recognised that the regions have a formal role to play. The draft constitution may run into the sand—God forbid—but at least it refers to the Committee of the Regions, the European Court of Justice and the idea of prerogatives. Potentially, the committee has a safety role to play when the Commission uses its powers improperly. Incrementally, it has moved on from being simply a consultative body to being one that has the role of safeguarding the regions collectively. It is not all doom and gloom.

I have not had a chance to ask a question, so to finish off the session I ask each of the witnesses to summarise briefly what impact they think devolution has had on the promotion of Scotland overseas and whether it has met their expectations.

In the part of Europe with which I spend most time dealing, devolution has not yet had a noticeable impact. That may be a result of the fact that, when the devolution settlement was established and the Scottish Parliament came into being, it was still pretty clear that the part of Europe with which I am mainly involved was not the centre of attention for the UK and Scotland. Things are moving fast, so perhaps that situation will change. Until now, devolution in Scotland has done very little to increase the visibility of Scotland in eastern and central Europe.

I am by no means a Scotland specialist, so I will not say much about the impact of devolution. As someone who has spent a great deal of time examining Sweden, a society that is attempting to erect as many barriers as possible to economic migrants, it is enormously refreshing for me to spend time in a society that has come to terms with the necessity for such individuals to be here and that understands the genuine contribution that they can make. I hope that devolution continues to unleash that spirit.

Devolution has made an enormous difference. We cannot compare what was happening prior to 1999 to what we have now. What we were considering in the early 1990s was Ian Lang's multipronged approach, which, to all intents and purposes, was the external affairs agenda for Scotland. We really cannot compare the two. We have moved on massively. When I read some of the submissions, it seems that other parties do not make that kind of connection. They obviously want more, but they do not realise how much progress Scotland has made in the past four years. So, good for the Executive.

On that positive note, I bring this session to an end. I thank the witnesses for appearing today and for spending so much time answering the committee's questions. It has been extremely interesting. I am sure that many of their comments will make their way into the committee's report. It was remiss of me to forget to thank them for their written submissions earlier.

There is a space for committee debating time in the chamber on 22 April. I need guidance from members on whether they would like me to put in a bid for the committee. Many other committees have used debates to consult Parliament on some of their big inquiries. Our inquiry might be a potential subject for a debate in the Parliament on 22 April.

Is that the first day back?

It is the Thursday of the first week back.

We have an opportunity and, although we might not get the time to debate the subject of our inquiry and to hear the Parliament's views, as convener I could bid for it. It is a tool that has been used by other committees, and it might be worth while. The inquiry seems to be an ideal subject, but I will take guidance from the committee.

It would be helpful if we could reflect on that. The date is in the week before enlargement and if we had a slot on that date, there might be an opportunity to debate enlargement. That might be quite a nice gesture.

That is a good idea—it is related to the inquiry.

Perhaps we could reflect and get back to you by e-mail within the next 48 hours.

Can I take it from the committee that it wants me to bid for time?

In case I do not get back to you by e-mail, I support what Irene Oldfather said. Particularly with the proximity to 1 May, focusing on enlargement would be a priority.

Shall I take it from the committee that we should bid for a debate on enlargement, and that we can agree on the terms of the debate later? Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—