Promoting Scotland Worldwide
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2806, in the name of John Swinney, on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee, on the committee's first report of 2005, "An Inquiry into the Promotion of Scotland Worldwide: the Strategy, Policy and Activities of the Scottish Executive".
I welcome this debate on the report of the European and External Relations Committee inquiry into the promotion of Scotland worldwide. The committee decided on its extensive inquiry in September 2003, before I became its convener, so I pay tribute to the committee for its vision in embarking on such a task. I also thank the committee's members and clerks and the witnesses who contributed so much to the final outcome. The committee's decision to approach the task in such detail over 18 months is a mark of how concerned it was about the nature and scale of the Executive's approach to the promotion of Scotland.
At paragraph 7 in the report, the committee characterises its conclusions as "constructive criticism". In his published response, the minister acknowledged the spirit in which our views were expressed. However, I am disappointed that he chose to reject a number of the committee's central recommendations, which were made in that spirit of constructive criticism. Nonetheless, the committee takes the view that the establishment of the inquiry acted as a catalyst for the development of the Executive's thinking in this key area of policy. In short, the committee believes that the Executive would not have moved as far or as fast as it has on the issue had it not been for the way in which the inquiry focused minds.
Generally, the committee's report welcomed the Executive's initial work on the promotion of Scotland worldwide, including the publication of its European and international strategies during the inquiry. Despite the publication of the two strategies, the committee had two main, significant criticisms of the Executive's approach in this area. First, it concluded that there was a need to tighten the focus of and co-ordination among the various agencies involved. Secondly, it believed that there was scope for the Executive to demonstrate greater ambition in the promotion of Scotland.
The committee welcomed the progress that the Scottish Executive has made, especially the development of the international strategy, but recommended that the strategy be reviewed after general consultation and that a revised strategy be published before the summer recess. The committee believes that a revised strategy, putting greater emphasis on co-ordination among agencies, strengthening the delivery of initiatives and achieving higher ambitions is required. Ministers have chosen not to take that course. I hope that Mr McCabe will set out why the Executive takes the view that a review of the strategy is not necessary.
To assist in the development of the strategy and to give much-needed focus to the Executive's international activities, the committee recommended that, without increasing the number of Executive ministers, the responsibilities of existing ministers should be reallocated to enable the appointment of one minister with responsibility for all European and external affairs issues. At present, seven Executive ministers have some responsibility for an aspect of external relations issues, with Mr McCabe in the lead. The problem is that Mr McCabe's remit is not sufficiently comprehensive and that other ministers have significant leadership responsibility for major activities that fall within the area of external relations.
The committee finds it difficult to accept the defence of the current position offered by Mr McCabe, who told us that
"it is important that we retain within one portfolio the ability to take an overarching look at all those activities and to assess the total sum of that activity."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 7 December 2004; c 1016.]
Given the significant domestic responsibilities that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has, we do not believe that he can provide the necessary focus in such an important area of policy, no matter how hard he works.
The committee recommended that ministers undertake a review of civil service and agency structures, with a view to improving co-ordination and implementation of policy in the area. Part of the lack of focus in implementing the Government's strategy comes from a lack of focus in the civil service and agency organisation, where complexity often comes ahead of streamlined, effective decision making. The same point was made in relation to the Scottish international forum, which, to be charitable, includes absolutely everyone imaginable who could be involved in external relations. To describe it as a talking shop would be a generous compliment. I am glad that the minister has signalled his desire to re-examine the forum. We look forward to monitoring progress in that area.
The committee recommended that the Executive review all its current overseas offices and representations over a two-year period, to create a more inclusive structure that enables greater co-ordination. We see opportunities to build a greater common identity and platform for the promotion of Scotland by comparable marketing and promotion through offices, regardless of whether those are led by the Executive, Scottish Development International, VisitScotland or another agency. I am pleased that the minister has signalled that the Executive intends to travel in that direction. The committee is also pleased that the Executive has welcomed our view that, where additional representative offices can add value and be a cost-effective means of implementing the Government's international, European and economic development strategies, consideration should be given to putting them in place. The committee extends a warm welcome to the establishment of an Executive office in Beijing, to build on the experience and achievements of the Washington office.
No debate on the promotion of Scotland would be complete without some remarks on Scotland's image. The committee was keen to ensure that the Executive settled on the use of an identifiable logo that would promote Scotland in a consistent fashion throughout the agencies of Government. We recommended that the logo should consist of the saltire or incorporate it into a contemporary statement. I am glad to see that the Executive is pursuing that. Without getting into a stylistic debate about logo design, which is an immensely dangerous prospect for any of us, I welcome the direction that the Executive is taking.
Some of the fruits of that work emerged in the past few days, in Councillor Eric Milligan's report of the review of first impressions of Scotland, published by the Executive. I hope that the steps that have been taken and announced by the minister in the past few days will be entrenched by further initiatives in due course.
The committee felt that more ambition could be demonstrated in the promotion of Scotland in the field of external relations. We have a heaven-sent opportunity to promote Scotland. We have an historical identity that is much admired around the world. We have traditional icons that other countries would die for. We have a new Parliament that attracts worldwide attention. We have contemporary icons in the fields of industry, innovation, sport, culture and the artistic world that can create a tremendous blend. We hope that those great virtues will be given focus and support by the Executive to guarantee the effective promotion of Scotland worldwide. That is the task on which my committee has focused and I hope that the Executive will now act to deliver for Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the recommendations contained in the European and External Relations Committee’s 1st Report 2005 (Session 2):
An Inquiry into the Promotion of Scotland Worldwide: the Strategy, Policy and Activities of the Scottish Executive (SP Paper 297).
In this second session of our new Parliament, Scottish ministers have made it a priority to promote Scotland's place in the world. We have shown our determination to build on the confidence and enthusiasm that our maturing constitutional arrangements have created in Scotland and to take advantage of the interest that has been generated outwith our border. So we have aimed, and we will aim higher. We have taken and we will take action to make our activity more strategic. We have worked and we will work hard with partners to make it more effective.
I give just three specific examples that benchmark our activity not even as far back as 1999, but since the European and External Relations Committee launched its inquiry into the promotion of Scotland worldwide in 2003. We have published strategies showing how we will pursue Scotland's interests in Europe and internationally. The First Minister has launched the Scotland's international image initiative to promote modern Scotland overseas, as well as the fresh talent scheme to attract talented people to live, work and study in Scotland. Most recently, as John Swinney rightly mentioned, on Friday last week, the First Minister and I launched a new advertising campaign for airport and other arrival gateways, designed to promote Scotland to visitors arriving here and to ensure that Scots know that tourism is everyone's business and that we all have a duty to welcome visitors to Scotland.
Scotland has great international advantages. We have a powerful international image, which is the envy of many other countries. We have a reputation for international engagement and achievement and a tradition of trade and international investment. Those advantages serve Scotland well, but we know that there is no room for complacency. We need to tell the world about our traditions, but we also need to promote contemporary Scotland. In so doing, we need to demonstrate that a devolved Scotland is increasingly outward looking and engaged in Europe and the wider world.
The range of activity shows how internationally engaged Scotland is. The breadth of the activity undertaken by the Executive and its agencies ensures benefits for Scotland. That is demonstrated in a number of ways: by our co-operative relationships with other countries and regions of Europe; by our offices in Brussels and Washington and the forthcoming office in Beijing; by the increased presence of staff in SDI offices overseas to develop Scotland's business relationships; by the plans that we have developed to show the best of Scotland to the delegates and journalists attending the G8 summit in July; by our work with British embassies and consulates to celebrate St Andrew's day on every continent; and by an intensified focus on tartan week in the United States, including events to promote Scottish science, business, education and culture.
As members might know, we have commissioned an external analysis of our activities during tartan week, and are actively considering how we can sharpen our focus within the United States. That means thinking about how we improve the profile not just of our country's traditions, but of what our country can offer academia and business in the US.
Further afield, we have allocated £12 million over the next four years to promote the traditions of Scotland's involvement with sub-Saharan Africa and will ensure that that money is used to best effect in complementing the United Kingdom Government's on-going work. As the First Minister's forthcoming visit to Malawi demonstrates, the process has already begun.
The European and External Relations Committee's report is a constructive contribution to the process of finding out how we can do more—and better—in this area. As John Swinney has rightly acknowledged, we are acting on a number of the committee's recommendations and look forward to continuing to work with the committee and the Parliament towards achieving the high ambitions for Scotland that they share with us.
Before I call Richard Lochhead to open for the Scottish National Party, I advise members that time is now much tighter and that four minutes in this debate will mean four minutes.
I, too, congratulate the committee on its report. As I sat on the committee for much of the evidence taking, I have paid close attention to the matter. However, it is a pity that we have been given only four or five minutes to speak on a report that has taken a year and a half to put together.
There is cross-party agreement that we must promote Scotland effectively. As has already been mentioned, doing so has huge benefits for tourism and the wider economy; enables us to foster cultural and social ties with other nations around the world; and gives us political influence over some of the decisions that shape our lives. Moreover, having a positive image overseas can help to foster self-confidence and give us a positive self-image in Scotland.
Of course, the SNP believes that independence is the best way of supporting our country overseas. After all, that would give us status, respect and a voice on the international stage and would allow us to build an overseas infrastructure through which to make representations on behalf of our national interests. However, now that we have our own Government and Parliament, the SNP and others agree that devolution offers us tremendous opportunities to promote Scotland overseas.
The key is to capitalise on the enormous international good will that exists towards this country. Indeed, members who travelled overseas to take evidence for the inquiry were struck by the reservoir of warmth that they encountered in the countries that they visited. I visited Paris and Dublin and other members visited other places. The great warmth for Scotland is clear to anyone who travels overseas.
However, there is a feeling that, as far as representing Scotland overseas is concerned. Government ministers over the past six years have been too timid, overcautious and willing only to put their toes in the water. Much of the feedback that the committee received suggested that we are not capitalising on or exploiting the good will that I mentioned. For example, people sense that there has been a lack of co-ordination among many Government initiatives. Up to now, we have had Scotland in Sweden, Scotland in the Netherlands and Scotland in Catalonia and low-key, low-level trade agreements have been made with places such as Tuscany, Bavaria and other German Länder. During the inquiry, many organisations, particularly those in the business community, asked the committee about the overriding theme of all these initiatives; what they were trying to achieve; what has been achieved; and who follows up these visits and agreements. I am pleased that the committee report addresses those questions in some detail. Now the minister, too, must do so.
As John Swinney said in his opening speech on behalf of the committee, the sensible way of addressing that lack of co-ordination is to have a dedicated European and external relations minister. Heaven knows what overseas representatives think when the minister with responsibility for these matters and his deputy are introduced as the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. Indeed, our minister with responsibility for international development, who I believe is Patricia Ferguson, is the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. Instead, we should follow other sub-national countries or stateless nations such as Flanders and have our own ministers for European affairs or external relations. Such a move would offer political leadership and co-ordination.
If we want to have a distinctive message and image, we need a distinctive overseas presence. That is what stateless nations elsewhere do. In the same way as there are Ireland houses and Flanders houses, there should be Scotland houses that would act as a one-stop shop, raise our profile and bring together everyone who represents Scotland overseas.
The overwhelming feedback is that, over the past six years, we have been too cautious. Huge opportunities for Scotland remain untapped. We can exploit them to the full, for the good of our economy and our own self-confidence. I urge ministers not just to dip their toe in the water as they have done in the past six years, but to jump in and make a splash on behalf of Scotland overseas. If ministers choose to do that, even with the limited powers that they have under devolution, they will have the SNP's support.
As John Swinney and Richard Lochhead have said, this was a protracted report, worked on over a fairly lengthy period—16 months. Much happened during that time, but perhaps nothing was more important than the publication of the Executive's international strategy. John Swinney mentioned that too. I believe that the work of the committee hastened that strategy. However, the strategy is not set in stone; if it is to have value, it will have to be continually monitored and revisited.
I want to use my time to concentrate on some evidence that the committee heard that was not greatly highlighted in its report. One evidence session dealt with the demise of Scotland the Brand. That organisation was doing quite well. It had 400 members and was promoting around 19 million items. The committee heard that the reason for the organisation's demise was that there was an overlap with Government thinking. A change of direction at the centre undermined Scotland the Brand's ability to continue in its role. We lost something pretty successful, and that seems a shame. Perhaps the organisation was promoting Scotland's traditional image, but it was finding value in so doing.
In evidence to the committee, Alan Wilson of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry asked:
"Are we making the most of our limited resources and obtaining value for money? Are project and initiative objectives clear and outcomes openly evaluated? Are projects and links openly evaluated in monetary cost and economic value terms? Do all stakeholders … fit into the process? Being kind, the answer is we don't know. Being realistic, the answer is no."
Those comments, coming as they do from the SCDI, are cause for concern. However, if the committee's report and the minister's reaction to it lead to something concrete, and if we can work together to set realistic objectives that bear fruit, the work will have been worth while.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh noted that there was a need for more co-ordination among organisations across the board.
I was most interested in the evidence that was given by Shirley Bell of the Robert Burns World Federation. She was looking towards 2009 and the 250th anniversary of Burns's birth in Alloway. She complained that there was no joined-up thinking on the event. Mr McCabe says that he has decided not to promote the idea of having a minister for Europe, and he justifies his comment by saying that the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport has a role to play in that area. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we will have some reward for our recent interest in Burns's cottage in Alloway and I hope that people will get their act together by 2009.
I have much more that I would like to say but other members will no doubt pick up on various points. I will make a final point on the fresh talent initiative, which our report refers to. There may be no need to go into detail at the moment, but the committee is determined to continue an investigation into fresh talent. I welcome that and hope that the minister will too.
We move to the open debate. Four members wish to speak and they have a strict four minutes each.
When it comes to the subject of how Scotland is promoted, certain things stand out. First, the Executive is undoubtedly moving in the right direction. It has a European strategy and it has an international strategy. Like all such documents, sometimes they can be long on platitudes and short on detail, but they show a welcome awareness that the promotion of Scotland is an issue that we need to tackle in a positive way. We should welcome the Executive's stated objective
"to position Scotland internationally as a leading small nation."
Secondly, there is a challenge in fulfilling that objective—the challenge of how Scotland, as a small nation that has a parliamentary legislative body, but which operates within a devolved framework, can find its place in the world. That is a new challenge.
The example of Ireland is often cited; I think that Henry McLeish dealt with it at some length in the evidence that he gave to the committee. I do not mean to be confrontational but, as soon as Ireland is mentioned, people who have a different perspective on nationalism sometimes suggest that the Irish case proves that objectives to do with a country's promotion can be properly achieved only within the framework of independence. I do not accept that, although I understand the argument's superficial attractiveness. If, for a variety of reasons, nationalism is not the right way forward—which, of course, is my belief—I hope that we will all accept that the challenge for us now is to improve the promotion of Scotland in the existing situation; in that regard, I was glad to hear what Richard Lochhead said. All of us accept that that can and needs to be done.
Thirdly, even within the existing strategy, it must be accepted that we could do more and that we should do what we do better. The criticism that we received from a number of sources is worth considering. There were complaints about a lack of proper evaluation and a lack of control. Some people complained that the strategy was too bitty and a general criticism ran through the evidence—which I re-examined today—that there was an absence of proper joined-up thinking. Oddly enough, I do not take all that as being major criticism. I accept that we are making a start, although I am sure that the minister and the Executive would in turn accept that much requires to be thought through and put into practice. I hope that the minister will also accept that all the criticism that we received in evidence was genuinely constructive and was made with a great deal of good will.
What can be done? There is my boring, oft-repeated request for a dedicated minister; I am not suggesting that Tom McCabe is not dedicated, but I agree with our committee's convener that we should have a minister who is responsible solely for such matters rather than one who tries to deal with them as part of a massive portfolio. I do not expect Tom McCabe to agree with that, but he knows that that is what I think.
There are ways of giving encouragement outwith the Executive. I will make a 20-second plug for the Scotland Funds, which is a company of which I am a director, so I declare an interest. The Scotland Funds is a non-political company that seeks to tap into the Scottish diaspora. If members want to know how non-political it is, I can tell them that its directors go from Alex Neil to Murdo Fraser—one cannot find a much more non-political outfit than that. It is unashamedly copying the hugely successful Ireland Funds, which has raised huge amounts of money for projects in Ireland from the country's wealthy diaspora. The Scottish diaspora in America is the wealthiest group of immigrants in that country. Our efforts are being made with the blessing and the help of the Executive and with the support of private industry based in Scotland. I think that the Scotland Funds will make an important contribution to the work of promoting Scotland. The company is an example of how Scotland must advance using a variety of initiatives.
Positioning Scotland in the wider world is a difficult task, but I believe it to be important and worth while.
When the G8 comes to Scotland in July, two things will happen within seven days. The first is that Scotland will see an influx of hundreds of thousands of people into Edinburgh, other cities and the countryside; however, my point is not about the protests. Simultaneously, millions of people around the world will log on to websites to find out what is happening in Scotland. They will go to all sorts of websites, including those of ZDNet, Indymedia UK, Democracy Now! and the BBC. During that week, Indymedia UK will provide live stream from Gleneagles, Dungavel and the streets of Edinburgh, where we hope there will be a carnival atmosphere.
A preoccupation of the report is the angst-ridden crisis of identity—the preoccupation with how people see us. It is fair to say that most of the millions of people who will log on to the websites will not have heard of Scotland—they will not know where Scotland is.
I have been in the same position when logging on to find out what is happening in other parts of the world where events or protests are to take place. In fact, given the publicity that the G8 protest is getting on the websites I mentioned, perhaps VisitScotland should take a pop-up advert on them with a wee map that shows where we are and the VisitScotland e-mail address.
When I was part of a group that met the minister to discuss the matter, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that, although VisitScotland might not be totally on the ball, it is offering a package to protesters. Certainly, we seem to be moving with the times.
In his opening remarks, the minister said that we must answer the question of what Scotland's place in the world is. We need to show people what contemporary Scotland is like. I want to ask how Scotland will be seen during and after the G8 summit. As yet, the penny has not dropped about how much focus will be on Scotland in the seven days of the summit.
I hope that Scotland will be seen as a progressive country that welcomes the type of people who will come to our country at that time. I hope that our reputation will be that of a country that is progressive on issues such as justice and world poverty. It is important that we are seen in that way. Indeed—dare I say it—the people who will come to Scotland in July are part of an emerging market. They are part of a movement that numbers millions of people and makes pilgrimages to places in the world that are viewed as being progressive, whose people fight for poverty and welcome the ideas that the movement represents.
I am thinking of cities where the world social forum has met, such as Porto Allegro, Mumbai, Paris, London and Athens, all of which now have that recognition factor. I would like to think that Scotland will come out of the G8 with that recognition factor, too. I hope that we will be seen as a welcoming place that this huge umbrella of a movement will want to visit. I also hope that Scotland will be seen as a place that can host and organise the sort of event that the movement needs.
Who belongs to the movement? It includes Nobel prize-winning writers, scholars, scientists and ecologists—all sorts of people are involved in it. I make the serious proposal that Scotland should consider holding the next meeting of the world social forum. One hundred thousand people were in Mumbai and in Porto Allegro—indeed, the meeting that was held in Porto Allegro put it on the map internationally; people know where it is on the map and they want to go there. I want Scotland to emerge as that sort of place. The 21st century presents Scotland with the big opportunity of taking its place as a country that has embraced that type of progressive identity.
I am sure that Gordon Jackson and others will be pleased to hear that I will not go down the constitutional route in my speech. My views are well known in that respect; I do not have to rehearse them in the debate today.
I want to address my remarks to the report, which is one of the most significant that has been placed before the chamber in the history of the Parliament. Some of its recommendations are essential for the reputation of the Parliament, including what may happen at the G8 summit, to which I will return.
The committee started with the question how we should promote Scotland in the international community. I became fed up with some of the witnesses who kept saying that we have to get away from tartan, shortbread, haggis and whisky, the producers of which happen to be major employers in my constituency.
I am proud of the fact that, everywhere I go in the world, produce from my constituency is sold at airports. The question is how we combine tradition with the new. Tom McCabe was accurate in saying that we need to combine our traditions with what is new. We should be proud of what is happening in Scotland and of our vibrant contemporary culture.
We are the newest Parliament in the whole of the Commonwealth and yet we have already made a major contribution to the international debate. The combination of the traditional and the new is the real challenge to which all of us—not solely the Executive, but all of us—must rise. We do not want a Brigadoon image, nor do we want to ignore new opportunities. We have to combine them.
I pay particular attention to the recommendation in paragraph 218 on page 29 of our report, on international development. I am glad that the minister with responsibility for international development is in her seat. All of us who attended the meeting in the chamber on Monday realised what a watershed it was for this Parliament, not just because of Sir Bob Geldof—emotional and inspiring though he was—but because of the contributions that were made by representatives of civic society from throughout Scotland and the world.
We can make an improvement. The previous debate was about structural changes. John Swinney and Gordon Jackson referred to the fact that seven ministers have various responsibilities in the international field. It is important that we examine that and try to tighten it up. We have an excellent external liaison unit in this Parliament, whose people work hard and do a great deal with inward and outward delegations.
In the context of the G8, this Parliament should recognise that the countries that have already donated 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product are small northern European nations—Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. I hope that this Parliament will give the minister additional powers to ensure that we achieve that objective too.
In his covering letter to the Executive's response to the European and External Relations Committee's report, Tom McCabe stated:
"The work of promoting Scotland is not a project we can ever regard as complete."
That is the proper attitude, and it obviously pervades the Scottish Executive. While we should never feel that we have completed the project, our collective efforts must never be diminished. Time will tell, but we have already demonstrated that the committee's inquiry and production of a report were useful exercises. The report should not be read in isolation, but in conjunction with the Executive's response.
There is no need to revisit the points that members made in the previous debate about the importance of properly promoting Scotland—in a hugely and increasingly competitive marketplace—in such a way that all our communities benefit. However, one highlight should be mentioned in relation to recent success in promoting Scotland as a must-visit and accessible destination, and that is the air route development fund. That fund has been welcomed by all parties, with the noble exception of the Green party, which frankly was all at sea in the previous debate.
The air route development fund is a substantial fund of around £13 million and we are already reaping its fruits. We must continue to invest in our air links to ensure ease of access to our main hubs. As the numbers who come through the hubs increase, all parts of Scotland benefit. As a member who represents a constituency that is a few hundred miles west of this place, I know that it is essential that Glasgow and Edinburgh—I had better include Prestwick, as I am in the presence of Irene Oldfather—are increasingly busy gateways to Scotland.
I bring to the minister's attention the fact that the air route development fund has never been used for intra-Scotland routes, but that is actively being pursued as a means of opening an air link between Aberdeen and Stornoway. That is of primary importance to my constituents, but it would also benefit the tourism industry. If the main hubs are busy and continue to grow the number of people who come through their arrival gates, by definition more people can potentially be dispersed to all parts of Scotland. I endorse what Susan Deacon said in the previous debate about the importance of Edinburgh and Glasgow in that regard.
I turn to our recommendation
"that Ministers review the relationship between VisitScotland and VisitBritain and the agreement on their respective roles in the promotion of Scotland overseas."
That matter is well in hand. We appreciate that VisitScotland's marketing budget increased by 28 per cent last year. International passenger surveys for 2004 show that European Union and non-EU visitor numbers have increased by 13 per cent more than the UK average. A few members are always squeamish when they hear the words "Britain" or "British" in the name of any organisation that is charged with promoting the United Kingdom and Scotland, but I am delighted that VisitScotland and VisitBritain have agreed their new arrangements, which came into effect last April. VisitBritain is right to focus its promotion on the emerging long-haul markets such as China and India, which allows VisitScotland to focus on promoting our distinctive Scottish brand in mainland Europe and other places that are closer.
I will make a brief reference to Richard Lochhead's obsession with offices and headquarters, which was a feature of his convenership of our committee—thankfully that feature has not continued under John Swinney's convenership. Given that we need a prudent and commonsense approach to spending valuable resources, we must continue to make good use of the 234 Foreign and Commonwealth Office embassies throughout the world.
It is heartening to note that the Executive's response to most of our recommendations began with the word "agree". I cannot think of a better way of bringing my speech to a close.
I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. The reason why I am on my feet is this debate's link to the previous one. I put on record my praise for John Swinney and the other members of the European and External Relations Committee for what is a thoughtful report—it is clear that a considerable amount of deliberation went into it.
As a highlander, I sometimes, in my darker moments, resent the fact that our tartan, whisky, hills and glens are used to advertise Scotland. On the other hand, I think, "Why not?" If Scotland wants to stand tall—as we should—the world should see us as a liberal, international, generous and thoughtful nation. We have great foundations on which to build. In the city of Mumbai—or Bombay, as it was—in India, one of the central streets is Lamington Street, which is named after Lord Lamington, who was governor-general of Bombay in his day. In my home town of Tain, we have a Lamington Street. I mention that because it shows that Scotland's imprint is all over the world.
Frances Curran said that many people will ask, "Where is Scotland?" or "What is Scotland?", but, with all due deference to the member, I am not sure that that is the case. As other members have mentioned, we have an invaluable cast-iron image. When people hear the word "Scotland", they think of whisky, tartan, silver bagpipes, music and the hills and glens. That is fine in my book, but we should work and build on that image. I suspect that, given the gist of the debate, that sentiment is shared by all members. We agree that it will not do to look back and present an image of Scotland based on Harry Lauder with his crooked stick. However, we also agree that, if we build on the foundations of the past, we can forge ahead.
My one comment about John Swinney's excellent speech is that, although I understand the Scottish National Party's wish to brand Scotland with one logo, one saltire and one map, as a highlander from the north of Scotland, I take issue with that. That goes back to my argument in the previous debate about the facets of a diamond. People in Caithness take issue with people who lump them in with Scots speakers, because the Caithness dialect is different. If the Scottish National Party recognised the differences, I would be better disposed towards that idea.
I ask Mr Stone to reflect on the fact that I was merely representing the conclusions of the European and External Relations Committee, which were unanimously agreed by members of all political persuasions. I was not making a point on behalf of my party.
That is a worthwhile reply—I applaud it in the spirit in which it was offered. However, to become the more feral member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I must ask where Scotland is within the world community. I point out to the members of the Scottish National Party that my comment that we should be liberal and international flies in the face of the independence movement. We live in an increasingly one-world situation with an increasingly international or global community—it is a bit like chaos theory in that whatever is done on one side of the globe can affect what happens on the other side.
If mankind and the world are to survive and prosper, the nations must link hands and work together—that might not be music to Phil Gallie's ears, of course. That is why, I am afraid, that the jury is out on the Scottish independence movement. I have worse news for my friends in the Scottish National Party. They should ask themselves which way the young people they met on the doorsteps during the election campaign were going. They might not necessarily have been going in the direction of the Liberal Democrats but they were certainly not going for separatism. That is something that will have to be readdressed by the SNP. I know that we should not believe everything that we read in the papers—just look at the debate that is being had around the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party leadership situation—but the issue that I raise is a valid one.
If Scotland is to have a context in the world, it is to do with holding out the hand of friendship and co-operation to other nations. That is, possibly, a debate that we should all have in due course.
This Parliament and, indeed, all Scots have a habit of selling ourselves short. For example, Mr Salmond used a great Scottish word when he said that he was scunnered with the Scottish Parliament building. Why can Mr Salmond not just rest that issue? As has been rightly said by members of the SNP benches, this is a building of which we should be proud—look at the visitors that we have had this very day. We should not sell ourselves short or cheapen the product. What we have is excellent and first rate. We should be bold enough to live up to what we inherit and what we shall have in the future. That is Scotland's future in the world.
To come back to the issue of Scotland's image abroad, I take the opportunity to thank all those who have contributed towards the preparation of this report. Not being a member of the committee, the issues in the report were new to me when I read through it briefly in advance of this debate. Perhaps what I take from it is somewhat different from what is taken from it by those who have applied themselves to its preparation over a considerable period.
The first thing that I take from it is that no political party or organisation has a monopoly on the solutions to the question of how we ensure that Scotland is perceived as a modern, dynamic nation. Yes, we have our tartan and shortbread image, which is something that we must play on; we can turn our back on no advantage. At the same time, however, the Conservative party has always believed that, to make Scotland's presence abroad as strong as possible, we must have an image of being a modern and dynamic economy. That is why I will return to the criticism that we have levelled in many other debates on many other subjects and suggest that the best way to ensure that we have that image is for the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scotland has that modern and dynamic economy, which we all want it to have.
Some of the recommendations in the report are things that we should all understand. Having listened to Richard Lochhead's contribution, much of which I agree with—although I will never agree that independence would make things better for Scotland because I suspect that it would have exactly the reverse effect—I believe that it is important that we and the Executive accept the report's recommendation that we actively encourage United Kingdom organisations that have a significant part to play in how Scotland is perceived to understand what there is to promote about Scotland and to go out and actively promote it. We need to ensure that those organisations do that because, as an active participant in the UK, Scotland pays its taxes and should expect such bodies to work for us as well.
There is always an argument against duplication. In the context of this debate, I would say that duplication can be a problem when we seek to promote Scotland in ways that should really be managed by the UK Government. Again, I do not believe that Scotland needs an embassy in every capital and perhaps some more besides, but we need to concentrate on how Scotland is promoted abroad. I was interested to read an article in the Daily Express that concerned Jack McConnell's attempt to promote Scotland by claiming that it is the best small nation in the world. I am happy to support Jack McConnell in that—we aspire to be the best small nation in the world, even if we are not quite there yet. The irony is that that story highlighted some of the ignorance that exists abroad. I was interested to read that a Mike Tait, a spokesman for the Jersey Tourist Board, suggested that Jersey was also an important place because it had some great cows and some very tasty potatoes. My experience is that Scotland also has some great cows and some very tasty potatoes; perhaps we need to promote those in Jersey as well as the other way round.
The potatoes are rubbish.
I object to the intervention from the man seated in the centre of the front bench today, saying that our potatoes are rubbish.
No, I was referring to the Jersey potatoes.
I thank him for that clarification.
As we have gone through the debate, we have covered not only a number of issues that are relevant to the report, but a number that, although they are not in the report, are equally relevant to the subject. In particular, I mention Frances Curran's comments on the G8 summit. She went to great lengths to suggest that Scotland's image might be affected by what goes on during that summit. I am particularly concerned about that too, but perhaps for a slightly different reason.
As a member of the Church of Scotland and one who believes that it has done some excellent work over the years, I believe that Scotland's image is pure when it comes to work on poverty, particularly in places such as Africa. We have an awful lot to offer on that subject during the G8 summit and the debates that it will stimulate, but I worry that the image of Scotland that is portrayed during the summit might be one of loud reactionaries out on the streets making points that are more relevant to their own prejudices than to the traditions of the country. For that reason, I hope that we will take advantage of the summit in the right way and not end up damaging the image of Scotland that we want to portray abroad.
The Scottish National Party came into the debate fully supporting the report and it still does, but I am rather surprised that some members have spent more time attacking the party's policy, which is not on the agenda, than supporting the committee's work, which is on the agenda. Our position was outlined eloquently not only by my colleague, Richard Lochhead, who advanced it, but by John Swinney, who put forward a consensus to which we are happy to sign up. The committee's work is not the Scottish National Party's view per se, but we are happy to support it as it is an advance on the current situation.
John Swinney was right to point out two key matters: we must be tighter, better focused and more co-ordinated; and, perhaps most important, we need greater ambition. I was disappointed that we had from the minister a mantra of further strategies, more advertising and the fresh talent initiative. Those are all praiseworthy to some extent, but I remain to be convinced that they will deliver. Even if the minister is not prepared to accept the view that the SNP expresses, I ask that he take into consideration the many valid points that Mr Jackson made. Those points were part and parcel of the committee's report and we are happy to sign up to them.
Mr Jackson also commented on the SNP's position, which is clear: we believe that Scotland would be better as an independent nation and would be better served by being represented abroad, as are the Republic of Ireland and other independent nations. However, that is not currently on the agenda. The SNP is a democratic party and accepts the current constitutional basis, but it believes that the country can and should do better and considers the activities of other legislatures, such as those on which Mr Lochhead commented, that are doing far better—whether that is Quebec with its légations or Flanders with Export Vlaanderen.
Some of Mr Stone's speech was rather bizarre. He mentioned our chamber, which is a wonderful auditorium, but it should be much more than simply a venue for Sir Bob Geldof, much as we welcome him.
Will Mr MacAskill give way?
Not at the moment, I am sorry; time is constrained.
Neither should the chamber simply be an auditorium for the leaders of the G8 to parade around. The minister and I have debated the cost-benefit analysis of the G8 summit, but it is coming and we must get the benefit of it. It is not simply about the venue that we provide; it is about how we as a nation participate in the world.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
Our responsibility as a nation is not just to do what we can within the devolution settlement to make Scotland a better nation at home; it is about how we allow our nation to participate abroad. We must enhance what we have at home in the way of export and trade because we are a small nation that requires to trade to survive and we are situated on the periphery of western Europe and of a major trading bloc. Our responsibility is also about how we participate in the matters that were highlighted this week by Sir Bob Geldof. We cannot simply be spectators in the 21st century. It is our duty and obligation to participate in such events. We must raise our game. We can and do accept the constitutional arrangements—those are subject to debate at future elections and constitutional referenda or whatever other occasions—but we can do better.
I accept some of the points made by the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform that there has been progress. As far as Scotland is concerned, the glass is certainly half full, not half empty. Mr Morrison was quite correct to say that the air route development fund has been an exceptionally good thing for Scotland. There has been an enhancement to tartan day—it is getting better. We can dispute its Brigadoon image, but it is clearly a magnet for bringing in people from the Scottish diaspora. There have been improvements, but we can and should be doing more. We can do things better and we should be reaping the rewards; other countries do so, and benefit, from a far lower juncture.
It is about being able to participate. We do not have to recreate offices here, there and everywhere but, leaving aside the influence of Susan Stewart, structure and strategy are clearly important. One of our major failings in the United States is that we do not have the structure in place there. We do not seek to expand the bureaucracy per se, but one person cannot operate in isolation. The Executive should consider the points made by the former First Minister, Henry McLeish. Structure is as vital as strategy. We need to have a strategy, but we also need the structures to allow it to operate successfully. Susan Stewart was isolated. I believe she was much maligned—I never saw her do anything wrong. We must ensure that we have the apparatus that goes, perhaps not with a nation state, but with a devolved legislature that wishes to play a successful role in the modern world.
As is usual on such occasions, we have not had enough time to discuss a very important subject. The European and External Relations Committee was particularly thoughtful in drawing up its report, which took so long to produce, and the committee's deliberations were themselves thoughtful and lengthy. I and the Executive very much appreciate the committee's work. I personally appreciate very much the way in which the committee convener has gone about his work. I accept what he says about the need for constructive criticism. The Executive recognises that it should be able to take on and absorb constructive criticism, and it is important to put that on record.
Gordon Jackson said that we are at the start of a process. I deliberately started my earlier speech with the words:
"In this second session of our new Parliament".
Six years into devolution, it is important that we put this in context. We are at the start of a process. Our constitutional arrangements are maturing; our standing in the world is improving; and our efforts to improve that standing in the world are increasing all the time. I hope and think that, when I spoke earlier, I demonstrated the range of activities that are now taking place, with the offices in Washington, the future office in Beijing and the other things to which I referred, which illustrate how the breadth of our activities is increasing all the time, as it will continue to do. Alasdair Morrison was right to say that we will always develop. That is the point that I am trying to make. This country is at the start of a very exciting journey. Our constitutional arrangements will transform our standing in the world and the opportunities that are available for our people. The Executive recognises the critical importance of sticking to the task and improving the situation.
Sometimes, we hear surprising and revealing things during debates. I heard Frances Curran talk about, and accept, that there is a market out there. The idea that she has been converted to the realities of a market-driven world is very special. We should mark that in the debate.
Richard Lochhead mentioned that independence might increase our representation abroad, but the debate is in no way about our constitutional arrangements. If anything has struck me as I have travelled on the Executive's behalf, it is the tremendous support that we receive from our embassies and consulates and the wide variety of United Kingdom offices around the world. There are 827 United Kingdom bodies worldwide and we have access to every one. We have access to a range of consulates and embassies that are among the highest regarded of any country. If we are serious about our ambitions to expand Scotland's role in the world, it would be lunacy to disengage ourselves from that critically important network.
In the report, the committee says that the Executive should remind the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of its responsibility to promote Scotland as part of its general activities. How does the Executive monitor the effectiveness of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the many other agencies that it talks to in promoting Scotland overseas?
We engage constantly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That dialogue is important. It is important for us to understand that department's enthusiasm. I tell members in all sincerity that I have never met a representative in any of our consulates or embassies around the world who is not enthusiastic about the opportunities that devolution offers and who is not willing to help us to promote those opportunities. We will continue to progress the dialogue with those offices around the world. I know from experience that they are keen to do that.
Mr Swinney raised several issues about the recommendations that the Executive did not accept. It is important to mention them briefly. We did not accept the recommendation that the international strategy needs more ambition or should provide more detail, simply because of the inherent recognition that it is a living document. We accept that the aims in the document will always be subject to review. We will always be alive to the fact that when change is needed, it will take place.
There is no shortage of ambition. As I said, we have shown that from the range of activities in which we have engaged and from the resources that we have applied. I assure members that the multiyear delivery plans that support our detailed co-ordination of Scotland's activities will ensure that our ambition is driven forward for our engagement throughout the world.
We also rejected the recommendation to appoint one minister for European and external relations issues. I say sincerely that what matters is not a minister's title, but the actions that a minister takes. If we as a small country are to achieve maximum impact for our work, it is critical that every minister in the Executive plays a part in promoting the country abroad. That is the approach that we will take. The aim is not to create silos or empires, but to drive forward Scotland's position and standing in the world. The Executive believes that that will be best served by every minister knowing that they have a role to play in that activity.
The strategy that we have produced, the activities in which we are engaged and in which we will engage in months and years to come, our co-operation agreements with Bavaria, North Rhine Westphalia, Catalonia and Tuscany and the work that we are prepared to do on the United States will advance the country's standing in the world. That will not only attract tourists, but promote the work of our universities and the opportunities that are available for our people, attract people to bring work here for our people and convince the world that we played a marvellous part in its development in the past and that we intend to play an equally marvellous part in future.
The debate has been constructive and has drawn together just under two years of work by the committee. As committee members have said, a great deal of progress has been made during our deliberations. An international strategy has been produced and there has been a commitment to international development. As a number of members—Gordon Jackson, John Swinney, Alasdair Morrison and Margaret Ewing—have said, those moves have been welcomed by the committee and the Parliament.
I am one of the few original members of the committee and have to reflect on how far the Parliament has travelled on such matters. I cannot imagine such a debate happening six years ago—it is important to reflect on what the minister said about our being at the start of the process in the second session. I hope that the committee's inquiry has demonstrated in some small way the Parliament's ability to be forward looking and outward looking. I welcome the minister's commitment to aim higher. The committee report wanted that to happen.
We would all agree that we are dealing with work in progress—I think that Phil Gallie mentioned that. From the debate, I get the sense that today should not be a conclusion, but should mark the beginning of initiatives that can take the promotion of Scotland further.
The points that members have made can be put into three categories: Scotland the product, structures and looking to the future. I hope that I have enough time to deal with all those categories.
A number of committee members posed a question that we asked at the beginning of the inquiry: what kind of Scotland do we want? That was one of the key questions with which we grappled and members, including Margaret Ewing, have reflected on it this afternoon. In the evidence that the committee took, the Welsh and the Flemings said that we had clear advantages in image marketing through having a distinctive product to promote. Scotland has distinctive icons, such as bagpipes, tartan, heather and castles. Some of us may ask whether such icons should be used to promote Scotland, but outsiders looking in clearly see Scotland as a nation that is rich in culture, steeped in history and heritage, renowned for poetic and literary genius and blessed with landscapes and countryside of remarkable natural beauty. It also has its own language—Gaelic. Therefore, we have much to promote.
Scotland is also a modern country. It is dynamic and welcoming, with first-class universities and a highly motivated workforce. As the minister said, we need to promote Scotland's past and present and we have demonstrated that we can do so. We have hosted the MTV awards and the annual T in the Park music festival is seen on television screens across the globe. We will host the G8 summit and the UK presidency of the European Union is approaching. There is much to welcome.
The devolution process and constitutional reform have acted as a catalyst for many developments. We need only consider the location and expansion of the consular corps in Edinburgh to recognise the contribution that the Scottish Parliament has made to progress.
I turn to structures and will reflect members' views and the views in the report in a spirit of constructive criticism. Improved co-ordination of initiatives and actors and the lack of joined-up thinking are themes that ran through the evidence, even that from the most enthusiastic participants. Phil Gallie highlighted the evidence of people such as those from the SCDI and the Robert Burns World Federation, who said that, as stakeholders, they were not sure where or how they fitted into the bigger picture. That prompted the committee to conclude that reform of the Scottish international forum is necessary and desirable. I welcome the fact that the Executive has agreed that the forum should be streamlined and that the minister will report back to the committee on his discussions with the forum.
A number of members—John Swinney, Phil Gallie, Richard Lochhead and Gordon Jackson—spoke about ministerial accountability. The Executive and the minister disagreed with the committee about ministerial accountability, but I ask the minister at least to keep an open mind on the matter in the months and years ahead, as we recognise the importance of mainstreaming European matters across all departments. Witnesses made it clear that lines of accountability are important; it is important that outside agencies know where responsibility lies and who should be contacted.
I will conclude with a few words about the future. The minister has given a commitment to be open about what works and what, in the light of experience, is seen to be less effective. Inevitably, that means two things, the first of which is continued partnership with the committee. That is something to which we look forward, as the minister has been very constructive in engaging with the committee. The second thing is clear monitoring and analysis of the strategies, which several members have mentioned this afternoon. Paragraph 40 on page 10 of the committee's report notes the Executive's commitment to that. The committee wants concrete results from those regular reviews, so that we can all be clearer about what works.
I thank the committee clerks, past and present, for what was a mammoth task in processing the contributions that we received to our inquiry. We received so much evidence that we had to leave much of it online, as we could not produce a printed volume of it all. Committee members would also want me to extend our thanks to all those who gave of their time during committee visits abroad, when a huge amount of good will was exhibited towards us.
It was with sadness that I learned of the recent death of Professor George Blazyca, a specialist in eastern European affairs who gave evidence to our inquiry and who engaged with the committee on several occasions. I express the view of all committee members in saying that Professor Blazyca will be sadly missed.
I hope that the committee's report and the Executive's response will continue to act as a catalyst, within the Parliament, for discussion and debate on the promotion of Scotland as a must-visit place. Today is a day for talking Scotland up. I live in Scotland not because I was born here—in fact, my husband's family and most of my family live in the United States—but because I wanted my children to grow up here, as I think that Scotland is the best small country in the world.