Scotland International
The next item of business is an independents group debate on Scotland international.
Internationally, Scotland is recognised for exporting its talented people over centuries. Some Scots decided to feed their own desire to travel and explore, as well as to help others; Dr Livingstone was one such Scot. Others left because they saw better opportunities of progressing their careers outwith Scotland. Sadly, others left against their will to make a new life in the colonies. The saddest feature of our time is the fact that we train young Scots who then cannot be employed in their own country because we have no jobs for them.
For some time, I have been intrigued to find out about the international persona or internationally perceived character of Scotland and the Scots. In 1959, I was first made aware of how Scotland is perceived when I travelled in Germany with three friends before going to university. One day, I decided to visit Heidelberg Castle on my own. During the visit, I was befriended by a couple and their son. When Herr Witte knew that I came from Scotland, he astonished me by saying, "Oh, you are Scottish. I was a prisoner of war in Scotland. I have such good memories of the Scottish people."
On another occasion, we arrived at a large youth hostel in Cologne where we had booked beds only to be told that we had not. However, as the manager glanced at our youth hostel cards before returning them, he saw our Loch Lomond youth hostel stamp and said, "Oh, Loch Lomond! Are you Scottish? I was a prisoner of war there. Come with me." He gave us the privilege of brushing out some rooms and found us four beds in the centre of a huge dormitory. We were so grateful to him; it was the end of our holiday and we had very little money and no bed. It was a good job that the Scottish people treated him well or our outcome would have been very different.
If we are to maintain our international character, we need to be careful about the way in which we treat and deal with people from other countries, just as we should with one another at home. We should also preserve our home-grown skills. Our talented people are needed to enable Scotland to grow as a nation. Until now, we have managed that quite well.
A few weeks ago, I attended a retiral lunch for one of the consultants at Stobhill hospital. I was surprised to find that he had an east African connection. From the 1980s, with other professionals, he pioneered a musculo-skeletal unit in which all forms of arthritis, backache and chronic pain were treated. The unit made use of training nurses and physiotherapists, as specialists in the field, to work as a team alongside specialist physicians and radiologists. All worked within walking distance of one another. That made things easier for patients, who were seen more quickly and treated better as a result. That consultant rheumatologist was responsible for setting up the first musculo-skeletal unit in east Africa and for training people there, thereby exporting Scottish skills. Many of my colleagues worked in parts of Africa, including Malawi, doing their electives. Some of them even examined for the royal colleges.
In general, Scottish-trained doctors and nurses are held in high regard all over the world just as, for example, our teachers and engineers are. Many Scottish teachers generously give five to six weeks of their time to work with teachers and pupils in Malawi. Some retire to Malawi; for example, Janet Chesney has retired there to work in a school and work towards funding and building her own school. Our churches work in all countries, but the Church of Scotland congregations alone give about £100,000 to Malawi every year.
Every time we go on holiday we are ambassadors for our country. The tartan army of football supporters is welcome wherever it goes.
Scotland has a proud tradition in its Scottish regiments. Our soldiers have fought and died for their country all over the world and their sacrifice has been acknowledged. I recently learned that the Flemish Government wants to erect a monument to the Scottish soldiers who died on Flemish soil but is having difficulty raising funds for the project, which is sad.
We must not forget the Territorial Army. A field hospital from Glasgow was the first to be sent out to Iraq in the 90-day war. The health visitor in my practice was an officer and while she was looking after soldiers the loss of expertise in the practice was brought home to me. I also realised the danger that she was in.
On a lighter note, a friend who is an artist is doing his bit for Scotland international with an exhibition of his work entitled, "Around the world in 80 pictures". He invited ambassadors of the countries to attend the exhibition and received an excellent response. The Peruvian ambassador wants him to go to London to show his pictures of Peru. If they have time, members will be able to see the pictures in Gourock, where the exhibition will run for a month from next weekend.
Apart from being internationally known for our expertise in various fields, we are particularly known for our friendliness, fair play, generosity and ability to get on with all nationalities. Many people have become Scottish—
Does the member agree that we are also known for our modesty?
Some of us are.
How do we nurture the international character—modesty and all—that is so valuable to us? Whether we are talking about a country, a school, a hospital or a business, the whole is made up of individual people. That reminds me of my patients, who used to tell me, "Other hospitals treat us well, but Stobhill treats us like people and not medical cases."
Last night on television, I watched children from Our Lady of the Missions primary school in Thornliebank in East Renfrewshire being interviewed, after their school had been named the best in Scotland. Some children were beaming and holding up their gold stars and others were full of joy to be at school. They loved their teachers and playground friends—no fear of bullying there, I hope. The school's excellent character oozed out of the screen and left us in no doubt.
If we want to retain our international image and hold on to our gold star, we should treat one another as we would like to be treated. That includes how employers and Governments treat their people. We need to maintain standards in our country if we are to help others and we should work hard to block the drain of young and fresh talent. On the front page of today's edition of The Herald, we are all glad to see the headline about tourism and the picture of the child with the gold star, but we do not like the headline "Trained physios left without jobs as NHS waiting lists hit 28,000".
I thank colleagues in the independents group for promoting a debate that helps us to explore and celebrate Scotland's international links and reputation.
Not only has devolution raised Scotland's international profile; it has given Scotland the opportunity to seek out engagement with other countries around the world. Our devolved Government has seized that opportunity, not only because it is right to respond positively when the hand of friendship is extended but because it is essential in the globalised, interconnected world in which we live.
Scotland has much to offer the world. We have much to share and much to learn. We are a modern and vibrant country and we lead the way internationally in important areas such as the life sciences and new technologies. Our life sciences sector employs 30,000 people in 600 organisations throughout the country and has attracted inward investment from around the globe. It is a true success story for Scotland.
I will set out some of our other initiatives that may lead to further success. The importance of a fast-changing China in a fast-changing world is not in doubt. When the First Minister paid his first visit to China in 2004, he realised that establishing the right relationship with China was crucial to Scotland's continuing prosperity. We have since established a Scottish affairs office in Beijing and Scottish Development International has expanded its team in the area. During my most recent visit, in August, I launched our strategy for stronger engagement with China and signed a long-term co-operation and friendship agreement with the province of Shandong. Those are concrete steps to deepen and broaden Scotland's relationship with China. Only last week, the Deputy First Minister was in China to develop the countries' collaboration on renewable energy.
During tartan week each year, we celebrate a long relationship and historic ties with the United States, which is the world's foremost economy. As with China, but for different reasons and with a different historical context, the United States will be pivotal to our prosperity in the years to come. The First Minister launched our strategy for stronger engagement with the US last week during a visit to Los Angeles. The document sets out strategic objectives towards which we will work with stakeholders. I hope that the Parliament, which is a prominent part of Scotland's modern international identity, will play a full part in that task. Alongside our activities in China and the United States, we will shortly launch our Germany plan, which will show how we will build on our relations with Europe's most populous country and Scotland's major trading partner.
Those initiatives say a lot about Scotland, as does our fresh talent initiative, which says that we are ambitious and welcoming and that we want people to succeed. More than 12,000 customers from about 160 countries have registered with the relocation advisory service since it was established in 2004 and more than 2,300 overseas students from about 80 countries have chosen to stay in Scotland after graduation because of the fresh talent: working in Scotland scheme. The policy is working and it has tremendous potential to assist our worldwide economic engagement. A classic example of that is how it can assist Scottish companies to develop their financial services joint ventures in China.
I am absolutely supportive of the fresh talent initiative but, if the recent talk in Westminster of extending the scheme to areas in England or all of England—I am not sure which—is realised, would we have any advantage from the devolved Government creating a policy that suits our particular needs in Scotland?
That is a relevant point and I am glad to confirm that we have the advantage because, although the scheme that has been launched south of the border is similar to ours, it involves only a one-year permission to stay rather than the two-year permission in the Scottish scheme.
Our universities and colleges continue to attract students from overseas to study in Scotland. The number has increased by more than 50 per cent in the past five years. A recent i-graduate—International Graduate Insight Group—survey that was funded by the Scottish Executive and the British Council Scotland gave positive messages about Scottish further and higher education. Nine out of 10 international students rated Scotland as a good place to be and 83 per cent said that they would recommend Scotland to others as a place to study.
Scotland has a responsibility to play its part in meeting the global challenges that the international community faces, which is why we have developed our support for the work of Scottish organisations in the field of international development, particularly through the co-operation agreement that is based on our historic relationship with Malawi.
I hope that the Parliament will agree that, since devolution, Scotland has made huge progress internationally. With the unstinting support of the United Kingdom Government and its embassies and consulates throughout the world, we have promoted Scotland successfully as a place to visit, live, learn and work. We will continue to do exactly that, to provide lasting benefit for Scotland and its people and to ensure their long-term prosperity.
The minister referred to the unstinting support from United Kingdom embassies and consulates around the world. I hope that, at a later stage in the debate, he can tell us how many Scottish events—say in the past 12 months—have been organised in those embassies. I suspect that the answer will be rather disappointing.
I cannot give a specific number at the moment, but I can tell the member that our embassies and consulates promote Scotland at every opportunity. From my experience of travelling on behalf of the Executive, I know that this country receives tremendous and enthusiastic support from the embassies and consulates throughout the world. In a few weeks' time, I will travel to Poland, in conjunction with our embassy, to help to celebrate St Andrew's day.
I thank the minister and hope that at a later stage we will get the figures that he does not currently have. I am sure that they will inform a continuing debate on the subject.
I begin by making an obvious remark, which is that Scotland touches the world and the world touches Scotland. Indeed, six days ago, a family in my constituency feared that it had lost one of its number to Nigerian bandits. Thankfully, today that family is complete again. However, the two Banff and Buchan oilmen who were held hostage knew that while Scotland touches the world—which, with the world's largest offshore oil base at Peterhead in my constituency, it frequently does—the world's touch on Scotland is not always a comfortable one. It is an interesting place out there, in all possible senses of the word. Of course, the difficulties that are experienced from time to time by individuals and by initiatives should in no sense discourage us from persisting.
To my certain knowledge and experience, Scotland has been engaged with the world for at least a millennium—more or less from the point at which Scotland became an identifiable country in its own right. As others have done—and as I am sure later speakers will too—I draw on some personal experience. During a visit to the west bank town of Hebron, I found a firm echo of Scotland's engagement with the world. A thousand years ago, the Scots crusaders travelled to the holy land to fight for their faith, rather like Scotland's football supporters make forays to countries throughout the world today. Some of those football supporters like it so much that they do not bother to come home. So it was with the crusaders in the middle east. As one walks down the street in Hebron, if one looks carefully enough, one will be struck by the number of red-haired, freckle-faced Muslim Arabs striding the streets of that west bank town. The reason is of course that the Scottish genes continue to survive a thousand years after our uninvited visit to another land.
A personal interest of mine is family history, so I find that example of the persistence of a connection that is based on genealogy and genes fascinating. I have about 2,000 names in my family tree and they perfectly illustrate—as will be the case for other families—the diaspora that is Scotland. I have hundreds of relatives in Canada and the United States of America. I have others in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and I have one or two in each of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Lebanon, Egypt and India. One of my cousins died in China. Politically, I find connections as well. I have a cousin who was an MP in the New South Wales Parliament, another cousin who was a senator in Canada and even—I say this with some hesitation—an English cousin who is a member of the House of Lords.
I want to do something slightly unusual in this debate without a motion, which means that we do not have to divide the Parliament or the people in it, and congratulate a Government agency—the General Registers of Scotland. The GROS is an important administrative part of the Government, which looks after records that go back to the middle of the 17th century. Its record keeping is some of the best in the world. It, more than any other agency or department of the Scottish Government, is most closely engaged with the Scottish diaspora—nowadays via the internet. It provides excellent services for genealogists across the globe. Such people are so committed to being engaged with Scotland that they pay for the privilege; we are not having to lay out our money to pay them. We should perhaps consider upping the ante with people who are interested in Scotland and persuade them to visit us and represent us wherever they are.
My calculation based on information from the Executive's website is that there are 58 consuls in Scotland. We have a strong brand, which is recognised throughout the world. We must be careful to reinforce it and not devalue it. Show anyone in the world a kilt and they will pretty certainly recognise it as being from Scotland. Show them a bottle of whisky from Scotland and we have a friend.
Scotland is a country with a terrific international reputation, but it does not have the position in the world that many other countries have and is limited in the way in which it can engage with the world. We are doing decent work in Malawi and other countries, which my colleagues and I support. However, it is time that we joined the family of nations. SNP members will continue to strive to achieve that.
I do not doubt that the "Here's tae us, wha's like us" or shortbread-tin image of Scots abroad will be painted as the debate goes on. The harsh reality is that, in many cases, that image could not be further from the truth. I will highlight a couple of examples.
Many Scots have succeeded abroad because they have displayed a ruthless streak that would not have been tolerated back home. The world-renowned philanthropist Andrew Carnegie was a ruthless, hard-nosed capitalist whose only god was money. He certainly knew how to capitalise on his ruthless steak as he relentlessly pursued his money-making goal.
Carnegie was even responsible for hiring 300 mercenaries to act as strikebreakers, who were used to great effect in the day-long battle at Homestead, when 10 men were killed and more than 60 were wounded before the Pennsylvania state governor obtained order by declaring martial law. That is all part of American industrial folklore. The blame for that was laid originally at the door of his partner, Henry Frick, but Carnegie, as controlling owner, took overall responsibility for the disastrous action, which was enough to make his name a hated by-word for years.
Carnegie eventually sold the Carnegie company to J Pierpont Morgan for $500 million in 1901, which gave him a personal fortune of $225 million. About that time, he realised that there were no pockets in a shroud and that he could not take his money with him. He then built up a reputation as one of the world's greatest philanthropists. The truth is that he was determined that the more indolently inclined members of his family would not enjoy the fruits of all his labours. Some 3,000 libraries were built, of which 300 were in the UK, and 10,000 organs were put into churches. Those were typically generous gestures from the erstwhile ruthless steel magnate.
Another Scot who went to the United States and made a huge impact, as well as a fortune, was the son of a Glasgow policeman. His father was crippled during a riot and in 1842, at the age of 23, Alan Pinkerton emigrated to America. He founded the Pinkerton agency in 1851 and became the head of intelligence for the union during the American civil war. He controlled the railway security network and undertook the duty of escorting strikebreakers during disputes. His agency's logo has been immortalised by the expression "private eye", as the logo was an eye with the message, "We never sleep".
The slave trade was a great earner for Scots and many proud families at home and abroad owe their prosperity to embracing this sickening trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. We Scots have much to be proud of in our heritage but, in a fair number of cases, there is a deep-rooted shame. We should recognise that.
To this day, Scots go abroad to seek and—in some cases—make their fortunes. There is no disputing the fact that there are at least 25 million first and second-generation Scots living abroad. The vast majority of them are a credit to our country, but we should stop the sentimental rubbish that is often poured out in relation to this topic. Never forget the harsh realities that have given some Scots abroad an image that they by and large neither want nor deserve.
Whenever I hear the words "Scotland international", my thoughts instinctively turn to great football matches, particularly at Wembley. My first international was at Hampden in 1945, when Scotland beat Switzerland 6-1—I say that from memory, but I am sure that that was the score. The great Tommy Walker of Hearts was picked up at the docks as he returned to Scotland from the far east on a troop ship—how is that for pre-match training?—and he starred at inside left and played a great game. Jimmy Cowan's game in 1949 was another memorable international. I also remember suffering through the nine-goal debacle against England, which is known as Frank Haffey's game.
That was a bad game.
Yes, but with 20 minutes to go, the score was still 3-2, so it was not as bad then as it turned out to be.
In 1980, Scots were banned from going to Wembley by the English Football Association. Ted Croker was the official who took most of the criticism from the Scots for that decision. I got my ticket from a West Ham United fan as I could not get one in Scotland. When we got to Wembley, the Scots had filled the ground and there was not an Englishman to be seen. The chant was, "You tried to ban us, Mr Croker". Wee John Robertson scored with a deserved penalty kick in the 72nd minute and the final result was a 1-0 hammering for our English opponents.
I often wish that I had bitten the bullet and emigrated to New Zealand in the 1950s—no doubt quite a few other people wish that I had done so, too. If I had done that, I would probably have found myself, in 2006, happily retired with an excellent citizens pension. New Zealand can be proud of its treatment of the elderly. We cannot say that about the UK. Those of us who stayed at home have still to achieve a good pension. However, that is no problem: grey power will eventually win through. We will get better treatment soon.
The person who is most responsible for promoting Scotland's international image is, without question, our national bard, Rabbie Burns. The only place where he fails to get the credit that is due to him is right here in Holyrood, which should have a prominently placed statue of Burns at its main entrance. Many of the stark, bare concrete walls would be brought to life if they were covered with some of the magnificent mural masterpieces by Alexander Goudie, which immortalise that epic poem, "Tam o' Shanter". Unfortunately, our bard will continue to be revered abroad and ignored in Holyrood until such time as those who are responsible acknowledge that, for £431 million, there should have been room for such an essential item as a statue of Burns. That would have been far better than some of the money-wasting embellishments that were instituted and which will never create as much interest as a proper tribute to Robert Burns would have done.
Could somebody please pass the shortbread?
As I follow John Swinburne, who started off in rather a negative fashion, I intend to be fairly positive. As a Dunfermline lad, I must defend Andrew Carnegie. Perhaps it could be said that he saw the light. Believe me, in Dunfermline, he is very much appreciated, certainly by my generation.
I note John Swinburne's comments on Scotland and the slave trade, but I point out that, after the union of the Crowns, many Scots backed William Wilberforce, an Englishman, in ending that terrible trade. There were Scots who could take some credit for that.
I agree with everything that John Swinburne said about Robert Burns, so I will not add to it.
When we consider Scotland and its international image, we must recognise that Scotland starts with a huge advantage over many other countries throughout the world. Our history is virtually second to none. We are looked upon with respect in the field of battle from the past, and in more recent times Scots have more than held their own under the British banner. In the field of invention—roads, bridges, railway engineering, ships from the Clyde, heavy engineering—Scots have been seen as a world force. We should all cherish that. The telephone and the television were born here in Scotland.
Stewart Stevenson talked about the brand—tartan, the bagpipes, whisky. We should never forget those things. We should use them to the maximum. They are a public relations man's dream because we can use them to promote our country. Few other businesses or countries have such things. We have hills and castles, rivers and glens. Others have those, but, once again, our history is built in to them.
In the past, we perhaps had a justice system that was regarded as second to none, but in my perception it has suffered in recent times. I will say more about that later. Jean Turner mentioned education in her excellent opening speech. She mentioned physiotherapists, who have been on site today. We must take on board and recognise the fact that our education system is good, but it needs to have a real purpose. It is pointless to educate people only for them to end up disappointed at the end of the trail.
When we consider Scotland's generosity and the support that it provides worldwide, we have much to be proud of. Jean Turner mentioned the Church of Scotland and its international involvement, and Stewart Stevenson spoke of Hebron. I visited St Andrew's church in Jerusalem a few years ago and saw the Scottish Christian presence there. When we consider Scotland's Christian heritage and think of Livingstone and Slessor, who went out across the world, and Eric Liddell in China, we realise that Scotland, once again, has much to boast of and much to build on in the future. We should never forget those elements of our culture. We should promote them in the future.
There has certainly been change. The fields of glory are perhaps diminished, but they are not totally lost. Tom McCabe mentioned our experience in the life sciences. Yesterday, in the European and External Relations Committee, we met people who work in the biosciences in Dundee. We can build on our experience in the life sciences; Scotland has been involved at an early stage and we can lead in that area. It is not easy to find a niche in the global economy.
In thinking about the global economy and Scotland's potential, I compliment the Executive. The slogan "a smart, successful Scotland" and the detail that is built within the programme of that name have much to offer. I only wish that the Executive would ditch the silly statement that Scotland is the best wee country in the world. That is rather demeaning, but "a smart, successful Scotland" has a meaning, and the words that lie behind that slogan give us hope for the future.
Looking at Scotland in an international sense and at Scotland's ability to look after its own affairs, I recognise that the Tories long opposed devolution, but the fact is that it has happened and we must accept and embrace that. The mission must now be to make devolution work to the best advantages of our citizens and those beyond our borders. To that extent, I find it a little strange that Labour, the Liberals and the Scottish National Party are so enthusiastic about Europe and that they wanted to sign up to the European constitution. In recent times, Scotland has achieved the powers to legislate on its home affairs to a large extent. If we were to go down the line of the European constitution, we would sell out those powers.
The same would be the case if we were to join the euro. I remember the nationalists claiming not so long ago that if a nation cannot control its own economic affairs, it is not a nation. The nationalists are keen to join the euro and give away to Brussels all the economic powers that Scotland and the United Kingdom have. That does not make sense. I am delighted that a Chancellor of the Exchequer who comes from Scotland and looks after the UK's economic affairs has placed a block on the folly of joining the euro.
It may be somewhat ironic, but when we talk about Europe and I think about John Swinburne's comments on Scottish football, I believe that there is a message. Under a European manager, the Scotland team was a manifest shambles. It failed totally. But where is Scotland today, under a Scottish manager? We are up there and rising, boys. Let us remember that when we look at Scotland in Europe and internationally.
A number of members have referred to their family history, and I will start by referring to mine.
My father had four brothers. All were born in Ireland and moved to the UK in the 1930s and 1940s. Of them, two went to the United States, and another brother—my Uncle Desmond, as it turns out—went to Australia. He lived there for the rest of his life, coming back two or three times. I will always remember asking him when he came back in the 1970s whether he considered himself to be Irish, where he had been born, English, where he had lived for a considerable period of his youth, or Australian, where he had lived for the previous 20 or 25 years. His response was that he saw himself as a citizen of the world. He thought that national identity was something to be proud of on one level, but that it should not be used to create barriers or enmity between different groups of people. In our approach to how we are seen in the world, we need a positive view of how we want to project ourselves, especially in the context of a changing and more globalised environment.
Some of the growth in national sentiment and identity must be seen in the context of a growth in people's religious, ethnic and cultural identity. Even a country such as Scotland is a mix of cultures, religions and identities far more than it was 20 or 30 years ago. We are much more diverse now. In that sense, national identity and how we project ourselves should not be antagonistic, resentful or something that is based on girning. In this world, we can earn respect rather than girn for it.
The perspective of our younger people—those who are going through primary and secondary schools—is fundamentally changing because of the people they meet in schools. Their awareness of different cultures, values and languages is greater than it was in the past. It seems to me that the idea of global citizenship and having a multilayered identity—of individuals being proud of being from Clydebank or Glasgow, but also of being Scottish, Muslim, European and whatever other identity they wish to attach themselves to—is not contradictory and that different identities can be combined. Scottish identity need not set a boundary between us and other people, but can be an expression of what we have become.
What Scotland offers to people in the future will not be just shortbread tins, whisky and the other things that are traditionally associated with Scotland. Look at the food and traditions that our ethnic minority populations are creating and at the increasing religious diversity in Scotland. In recent weeks I went to a terrific celebration in Glasgow of the Hindu religion that is based in the southern part of India, which has a different set of rituals from Hinduism in northern India. It is a minority tradition within Indian culture and our Indian population, but it is nevertheless represented by a significant population within our culture. Scotland now has the richness of a different mix and broader range of identities and values than existed in the past. We need to build on that. We should see it not as a problem but as an opportunity that creates links between us and other places. The south Indian group to which I referred has a shared identity with similar groups in other parts of the UK and Europe. Its historic identity, which comes from its religion and ethnicity, has been translated both to our country and to other countries.
Identity is no longer singular. In most countries in Europe, there is a significant variety of cultures and identities, which we must recognise and celebrate. National identity is not what it once was.
I find the member's speech fascinating. However, it occurs to me that, if we take his argument to its logical conclusion, people who have come from the subcontinent, for example, to many different countries in Europe and who retain much of their culture will create in all those countries a homogeneous society and identity. Is the member happy about the loss and diminution of the different national identities that already exist?
It is not a question of whether I am happy or unhappy about it. Rather, we must recognise what is happening and embrace it. If we assert a single national identity, based on what is proper for Scotland or anywhere else in the world, and say that it is frozen, fixed and rigid and that we must protect and preserve it, we are acting rather like King Canute, trying to stop the tide coming in. Our country is changing because of the people who make it up, how they see themselves and the way in which they want to develop.
The interconnection between our country and other parts of the world is increasing exponentially. The degree of political connectedness between Scotland and other countries has increased and will continue to increase. I do not think that trying to stop the clock or halt the tide is an option for us. Scotland in the world must project what is good about Scotland but recognise that it is part of the rest of the world. We are not in opposition to the rest of the world—the changes that are taking place here are part of changes that are taking place in Europe and throughout the world. In that sense, we are connected to what is happening. We are not an island unto ourselves, but are part of global change that is happening rapidly. Our national identity is all the richer for that.
I congratulate the independents on offering the opportunity to debate without a motion Scotland's international image. I am sorry if, unlike other members, I have to strike a discordant note, but there is a need for an honest appraisal of Scotland's reputation at all times. If we are honest, the one issue with Scottish involvement in the wider world today that towers over all others is the war in Iraq. The involvement of Scottish soldiers in Scotland's name, spending Scotland's money—billions of pounds of it—on the invasion and brutal suppression of another nation militarily and without legal or moral authority, degrading a people who did not want us to be there and who are now desperate and determined to see us driven out: that is our international reputation, at least in part, and it is one of which we should be ashamed.
We, in Scotland, are involved in a conflict that had no justification and which is now losing support even among its previously most steadfast supporters. We were told that we had been invited into Iraq by the Iraqi people to help to topple the hated tyrant Saddam Hussein. Of course, that was bunkum. The war in Iraq was America's revenge for 9/11. If Tony Blair and George Bush were motivated by the desires and wishes of the Iraqi people, why do we so despise their wishes now? Plainly, the same Iraqi people are expressing the clear wish to see us leave. Where is the consistency? Where is the respect for democracy, which is part of Scotland's tradition and international reputation? It is not only the powerless Iraqi people who want us out; in recent weeks, the political and military strategy and tactics that are being employed have been attacked not just by those in the stop-the-war movements across the world in their millions, but by British military chiefs of staff. British and American army and air force generals recognise the supreme folly of their presence in Iraq.
I recognise much truth in what Colin Fox says, particularly on the misinformation that lay behind the Iraq war. However, is it not the case that the people in Iraq turned out en masse for a democratically held election? Did they not elect the Government that they wished to govern them, and has not that Government asked our troops to stay, whether or not they will? I am not sure that it is wise for them to stay there, but did not the Iraqi people democratically determine that our troops should stay?
Mr Fox, I appreciate that there is no motion to speak to, but I ask you to remember that the debate is about Scotland international, not the UK. Please keep that in mind.
Indeed. I will bear that in mind throughout my speech, Presiding Officer.
I say to Phil Gallie that, as a democrat, I respect the wishes of the people of Scotland and abroad. Like the Conservatives, I have lost a damn sight more elections that I have ever won, and I have learned about democracy since I was knee high. The democratic wishes of the Iraqi people are plain and clear to us all.
It is important to recognise that the sands are shifting. Given the remarks of the military chiefs of staff—perhaps some members in the chamber have military experience—we can only guess at the much sharper and more frustrated attitude that is prevalent in the lower ranks when the generals are forced to speak out and, in essence, abandon their policy. I feel for Scottish troops. I listened to the "Today" programme with John Humphrys, on which the Scottish troops in Basra made clear the abject failure of the policy and the difficulties that they face. They told of how troop movements can take place only at night, with Scottish soldiers moving around in armoured personnel carriers, whereas in Basra—in the supposedly safe south of Iraq—top military personnel have not left their palace headquarters compound in months.
Most important, it is clear that the population at large in Scotland has given up on the war. The mood is the same in America. John Swinburne talked about Andrew Carnegie, Pinkerton and all those other great émigrés. Members of my family live in Ohio, New York State and New Jersey, and I am in contact with them every Christmas. I extend my best wishes to them and to other Scots abroad.
The anti-war movement and sentiment in America have produced a remarkable set of circumstances whereby, in the next few weeks, George Bush's Republican party is expected to lose control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, largely as a consequence of the war in Iraq. John Swinburne depressed me by speaking about the legendary strikebreakers and slave traders in America, so it might comfort him to know that on 7 November, America is expected to elect its first socialist to the Senate. A man called Bernard Sanders is standing in Vermont and is well ahead in the polls. He was previously a Congressman for that state and I am sure that all progressive members of the Parliament, including Phil Gallie, will hope that Bernard Sanders is elected and that the US Senate receives its first socialist. We can but hope.
As this Parliament well knows, the Scottish Socialist Party opposed the indefensible, illegal military aggression in Iraq from the beginning. We did not accept the opinion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; that was bogus. We did not accept that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq; that was bogus. They exist on the Clyde—that is a fact—but they did not exist in Iraq. Of course, the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida that were much heralded in the chamber were bogus then but, ironically, al-Qa'ida is now prevalent and running much of Iraq as a consequence of the invasion. The devastating political disaster for Iraq has seen the deaths of 655,000 people in excess of those who would have died since 2003. One hundred people are being murdered every day in a sectarian bloodbath; that is the equivalent of 36,500 people annually. That is nine times the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks.
That is the reality of what Scottish soldiers and the Scottish nation are associated with. Almost 3,000 American soldiers have died in that war and 120 British soldiers, too many of whom were Scots. That is part of the reputation that Scotland has inherited. I firmly believe that if this Parliament had had the opportunity to make such decisions, we would not have decided to send Scottish troops to Iraq. The Iraqis do not want us there; the majority of the people of Scotland do not want us to be there, and their voices will be heard on the matter in due course.
I thank the independents group for choosing today's debate—Scotland international—although I am tempted to rename it Scotland international plc, which has a nice ring to it. I will not rename the debate, but perhaps we can think about that in the future.
I also thank the minister for attending and responding to the debate. We seldom get a minister for such debates, and I am pleased that he is here. I take on board what he said about devolution, but how can Scotland be international if it is not independent? From my introduction, members will sense that I will talk about independence, which is closely linked with internationalism.
Tomorrow morning, Parliament is going to be lobbied by people who are against dawn raids and the destitution faced by asylum seekers in Scotland. If Scotland were truly international, would we be dragging people out of their homes at 6 o'clock in the morning, in some cases handcuffing them, taking away their medicines, and terrifying their children and locking them up in Dungavel detention centre? That would not happen in an independent international Scotland. We would have our own immigration and asylum legislation. The First Minister would not be sitting waiting for instructions from Westminster under his much-vaunted protocol, because we would have our own protocol. That is what I call true internationalism.
Would an international Scotland have taken part in an illegal war in Iraq? I do not think so. Would we be following America blindly and be her wagging tail? I do not think so. An independent Scotland could have played a role in the international community and been a voice of reason and justice against the scaremongering and warmongering that was perpetrated by Bush and Blair.
Would Scotland, as an international country, have allowed her airports to be used by rendition flights taking people to other countries to be tortured? Would we have allowed our airports to be used to refuel planes that were carrying to Lebanon the cluster bombs that killed a young child as recently as Monday? I think not. An international Scotland would not have put up with that at all.
I returned from Lebanon on Sunday. The warmth expressed to us there was absolutely overwhelming. Wherever we went, no matter whether we were speaking to the media, meeting people in the streets or speaking to Government officials, we were referred to and introduced as a Scottish delegation.
To pick up on Des McNulty's point about identity, he said that we are how we are seen in the world and we should not be antagonistic. It might not be the case in a British context, but in a Scottish context we are seen as being against antagonism. I am proud to have visited Lebanon as part of a Scottish delegation. We need to play to our Scottish identity. Scottish people are welcomed throughout the world regardless of what happens on the international stage. If we were truly independent, we could go forward on the international stage. I am sorry that Des McNulty is no longer present in the chamber, but we have nothing to be ashamed of in saying that we have an identity. We may all be internationalists, but until we put forward the case for an independent Scotland, we will not be able to be so in the international arena.
I am reminded of the debate that I saw on Monday between—I am sorry to take people's names in vain when they are not in the chamber—Jim Mather and Wendy Alexander. In the debate, which took place in a television studio, we were told by the interviewer that an independent Scotland would have no say anywhere as it would be outwith any international community. Why is it assumed that if Scotland became independent, England would take over all the powers of Great Britain? Is it not the case that England also would need to renegotiate as an international body within the international community? We should bear that in mind.
Scotland has always had a reputation as an international, outward-looking country. One reason why I have always harboured a desire for an independent Scotland is that we could do things internationally and help other people. We could promote our Scottish values, which are very much valued throughout the world, to other countries, without being part of a British state that simply props up America. Scotland could promote its values very well.
As I mentioned, when I was in Lebanon I saw some horrific sights, but I also met some very interesting and fantastic people. The resilience of the Lebanese people was overwhelming. Within 24 hours, people returned to bombed-out houses, looked into the abyss that had once been their house and scrabbled in the rubble for school books and family pictures. They were resilient because they want to have their own country. They want the freedom to make their own decisions without the interference of America, Israel and, to a certain extent, Britain.
I was honoured to visit Lebanon—I thank all those who organised our visit and took us to meet so many people—but I was ashamed when I saw the destruction that had taken place. It has now been proven that the plane that refuelled at Prestwick airport had cluster bombs, which are the bombs that killed that young boy on Monday afternoon. I am ashamed of that, but I was glad that I could say that an independent Scotland, as part of the international community, would have taken no part in that whatsoever.
I saw the excessive destruction that Israel caused in Lebanon, the economy of which is in tatters. Israel blew up bridges so that the north of Lebanon could not get supplies through to any part of the south. Cluster bombs were dropped on the banana plantations and olive groves from which the Lebanese make their money. An oil refinery was blown up, so two thirds of the beaches are now covered in oil and are unusable—although they are being cleaned up with help, I might add, from the European Union.
Women and children were killed. A particularly poignant incident occurred in Cana, which has suffered greatly over the past 20 years. A nine-month-old baby and all the members of its family were massacred by Israeli bombs. However, we heard not one word from our so-called Prime Minister Blair about the need for an immediate ceasefire or about the excessive force that Israel used. I find it insulting to be part of a so-called British community whose Government has issued not one word of apology to the people of Lebanon and the children of Cana.
Scotland has always had an international outlook, but until we achieve independence we cannot get it on the international stage.
Scotland's international reputation is very much influenced by the way in which we treat people from other countries. I strongly support the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative, which encourages people from other countries to come here to live and work. However, the Government's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers tends to undermine that initiative. Some refugees and asylum seekers have fled some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, but instead of being welcomed with open arms, in some cases they are incarcerated in places such as Dungavel or, in others, they live with their families in fear of dawn raids by immigration officials.
It is ironic that some refugees and asylum seekers have the very talents that are needed to build a smart, successful Scotland but, because they are denied the right to work, they do not have the opportunity to use them. Over the years, economic migrants have come to Scotland from many places, such as Ireland, Italy and the Indian subcontinent. Some, such as the Polish immigrants of the 1940s, came because of the upheaval of war; others, such as Chilean refugees fleeing from the brutal Pinochet regime and the Ugandan Asians fleeing from the barbaric regime of Idi Amin, came seeking refuge.
Half a century ago, some refugees came to Scotland after the unsuccessful revolution in Hungary. I recall meeting some of them when they arrived in my then home town—the mining community of Cowdenbeath. Some Hungarian refugees worked in the mining industry and made an important economic contribution. They also made an important political contribution by making many people rethink their attitude to Soviet communism. After the Soviet tanks invaded Hungary, I could not imagine how anyone could possibly join the communists—or, as they came to be known, the tankies.
However, some people—for example, our current Home Secretary—like tanks. I remember John Reid when he was a revolutionary communist berating Harold Wilson for allegedly being a right-wing extremist. Well, Wilson was not perfect but, when he was Prime Minister, he had the guts to stand up to the President of the United States and repeatedly refuse American requests to send British troops to Vietnam. I wish only that Blair, Reid and other Cabinet ministers had made a similar stand against Bush over the war in Iraq. If they had done so, many innocent lives would have been saved, including the lives of some of our own people in the armed forces.
We now have a Government that is waging war not only in other countries but against multiculturalism in this country. For example, young women face criticism and dismissal for daring to wear a veil. Moreover, our Home Secretary is still trying—as he tried so many years ago—to defend the indefensible. Yesterday, he announced his decision to impose severe restrictions on the number of Bulgarian and Romanian workers coming into the country, which could have damaging consequences for Scotland's fresh talent initiative.
The workers from the states that joined the European Union in the previous enlargement, particularly the young people from Poland, have been a great asset to Scotland, and I see no reason why workers from Bulgaria and Romania cannot be a similar asset when the countries become full members of the European family of nations. One of the EU's founding principles was freedom of movement of labour, and John Reid's proposal breaches that. As a result, I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will tell Comrade Reid to think again.
We should not be thinking negatively about how we can keep people out; we should be thinking positively about how we can bring people in and welcome them, so that they can help us to achieve the aim of an international Scotland where people of different ethnic backgrounds, cultures and faiths can live peacefully together as equals and can work together to build a modern, 21st century Scotland with an international vision that is summed up in the immortal words:
"For a' that, and a' that,
Its comin yet for a' that,
That Man to Man the warld o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that."
I have to say that the debate has been decidedly downbeat. As Margo MacDonald quite properly pointed out in an early intervention on Jean Turner's speech, we Scots have a good conceit of ourselves, and rightly so, but I found it a little disappointing that speaker after speaker sold Scotland and Scotland's historical contribution short. For example, John Swinburne's criticism of Andrew Carnegie must surely be the first time that anyone has been criticised in the Parliament for giving away £205 million for philanthropic causes. It is true, I accept, that Mr Carnegie did perhaps demonstrate a degree of ruthlessness in his business career, and it is also true that companies such as Jardine Matheson, which dominated far eastern trade, were involved in the opium trade during the 19th century, but the bottom line is that the Scottish contribution to the world and to humanity in general has been constructive and positive.
Businesses have been built up all over the world—not just in the United States or in the far east, but everywhere—as a result of Scottish enterprise and Scottish input. We should be proud of that and should be trumpeting it from the rooftops, rather than doing as we have done today and speaking about incidents in the past that were regrettable, to say the least. Every nation has in its history some episodes that are embarrassing and some episodes that are downright shameful, but Scotland stands up to fair comparison with any nation in that respect.
I cede to no one in my pride in Scotland or in my love for Scotland, but it was a contemporary Scotland, not all that long ago, that helped to nurture a number of people who went on to become successful African dictators. There are still one or two chinks in our armour.
I do not for one moment seek to deny that, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. If Margo MacDonald looks at the history of colonial Britain, which compares favourably with that of any other nation, she will see that Scots contributed to that history—of course they did—but they did so largely in a positive manner.
Will Bill Aitken give way on that point?
I must make progress.
We have heard some other interesting speeches. Tom McCabe was right to bring a more contemporary aspect to the debate by talking about what we need to do. We need to recognise that Scotland has a role to play in the world, and Scotland must recognise in turn that old alliances are breaking down and that there will have to be change. We must look to the future with regard to China, and we must consider the way in which the world economic power blocs are changing. The Executive has been quite correct to make progress in that respect. The Executive has also made progress in respect of the fresh talent initiative, but Tom McCabe conveniently forgot to mention the quite disgraceful level of retention of Scots graduates in certain areas. We must address that.
There was one aspect of John Swinburne's speech with which I agreed. He made it quite clear that Scotland cannot be some sort of latter-day Brigadoon, with the tablet box, the whisky bottle and all the rest of it. We have to come into the modern world, and we will do that only by recognising that the Scottish economy as it is run at the moment is not all that attractive to people who have the get up and go to make a success of their lives and to contribute to the lives of others. We must consider that.
I contrast some of the speeches that have been made with the positive speech by Phil Gallie, who highlighted exactly what the way forward should be.
It was interesting to hear about the Scottish genes in the middle east and, as ever, to learn of Stewart Stevenson's family tree. He has living proof that what his colleagues tell me—that he traces his ancestry all the way back to his mother—is not true.
We must take a more positive approach. Des McNulty's uncle Desmond said that he was a citizen of the world. That is a profound, if not original, statement. Scots have always recognised that we are citizens of the world and we have always rejoiced in internationalism and diversity. Scotland has a pretty good record of accepting people who have come from oppression. As Dennis Canavan said, that started many years ago, and has included Jewish people fleeing the pogroms, people from Poland and other countries that fell under the yoke of Nazism in the 1930s, and people from countries that fell under the even more terrible yoke of communism in the 1950s and 1960s. We have welcomed such people and absorbed them in our population. By and large, they have been a success. They would not have been a success if Scottish people had not been prepared to allow them to adapt to our way of life and to absorb in our way of life all that they have brought to us and the diversity in which most people in the chamber rejoice.
I listened to Colin Fox's speech with some dismay, because he missed the point. I often enjoy listening to his speeches, but he did not argue his case on the proper lines today. I note with some amusement that, as he said, one Bernard Sanders might be the first socialist to be elected to the US Senate. He will have a peaceful life, because if there is only one socialist the socialists cannot fall out.
Sandra White was a little more outward looking and discussed asylum seekers again. The fact is that none of us here is responsible for the issues that have arisen in Iraq and we should not beat ourselves about the head too much because of them.
Let us see what we can do. Let us continue to do what we have done in Malawi, which has been welcome. We go along with the Executive on that. We might prefer the Executive to do more to ensure that Malawi's systems are more appropriate to a modern-day democracy, but we applaud what has been done. We in this country welcome genuine asylum seekers and we welcome those who come to work. That experience has been successful, as the Poles have shown.
Let us look outward. Let us stop beating ourselves about the head because of one or two episodes in Scotland's history that are not particularly welcome. In dealing with all issues, let us be more internationalist in our outlook. Let us attract people to Scotland and let us build on Scotland's reputation in the world.
I thank the independents for the opportunity to have as wide ranging a debate as we want without a motion.
The image that Scotland presents to the world is vital. It is crucial to our culture, economy, exports, tourism and good will. It is a matter of the people whom we export, as Jean Turner said, how we treat people and how we behave towards foreigners here and abroad. However, it is also a matter of exporting ideas. I will take matters forward and consider how we can use the Scottish Parliament to promote some of those ideas. We have heard a lot today about the downside and about the problems. We have heard about the Iraq war and the questions that rack our consciences—they might not rack Bill Aitken's conscience, but they certainly rack the consciences of most of us in the chamber.
We face the question whether we want Scotland to be seen internationally as the dirty man of Europe or whether we want it to be seen as a country leading the world in the technologies that are capable of addressing climate change.
I would hate for Scotland to be branded as "the dirty man of Europe." Is it not the case that, per head of population, Scotland's CO2 and noxious gas emissions are the lowest in Europe?
Phil Gallie fails to recognise the fact that we have outsourced so much of our heavy industry to other countries that the CO2 that was being put out by the steel plant that used Hunterston is now being put into the atmosphere by companies in India and China. We are buying in products ready made, with the carbon having been emitted elsewhere in the world.
Will the member give way?
Not again, Phil.
The UK has been known for a long time as the dirty man of Europe, not only because the Irish sea is the most radioactive in the world because of nuclear emissions and because our carbon emissions damage Scandinavia, but because we have not looked towards the future and invested in renewables technologies. We have not examined the alternatives to landfill for waste and we have not developed zero-waste policies. However, I want to address other issues and not dwell too long on those matters today.
Do we want Scotland to be seen as a multicultural country of justice and fairness that is embracing the world, or do we want to be seen as the country of Dungavel and as inward looking and bigoted? I hope that we all agree on focusing Scotland on the former. Despite the fact that we have no foreign affairs remit, the Scottish Parliament has a role in promoting the issues that are relevant to foreign affairs.
I particularly want to focus on nuclear disarmament, which I think I am right in saying is espoused by every member. Phil Gallie and I may disagree about whether there should be multilateral disarmament or unilateral disarmament, but we all agree that nuclear weapons are a grave danger and that we should be working to rid the world of them. We all support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its measures to ensure that the nuclear countries of the world reduce and eliminate their arsenals and the non-nuclear countries of the world are not enticed to go nuclear.
Within the Scottish Parliament, without a remit for foreign affairs, we have a forum in which we can consider such issues and engage with them away from party politics and away from the pressures of having a foreign policy that we must project to the world. The Scottish Parliament could play a role in taking forward the objectives of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Over the past two years, Hans Blix, who we know from weapons inspections in Iraq, but who is also a former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been examining precisely those objectives in Stockholm with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. A commission was set up to take the matter forward. It reported in June and proposed a series of measures.
There is a forum within the Scottish Parliament to take that work forward—Scotland's futures forum. I want the forum to engage with the discussion that has emerged from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and with the work that Hans Blix has done on how to move the world towards the goal that we all share of eliminating nuclear weapons.
On 29 January, as a step towards that, I will be hosting in the Parliament a United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland conference. I invite all members in the chamber to take part in the proceedings. The conference will be a high-powered discussion on the elimination of nuclear weapons by people such as Professor Michael Clarke, from the centre for defence studies at King's College London, and internationally renowned defence experts. I hope that we can involve the Parliament's futures forum. I ask the Presiding Officers and their officials to consider supporting that as a future initiative for the forum.
The conference is a way in which the Scottish Parliament can get involved in projecting a positive image of Scotland to the world. Sweden is renowned as a world peacemaker. Let Scotland follow and join with it. Let that be the great image that we present to the world. That is well within the remit of the Parliament.
I agree with Bill Aitken: at the outset, the debate was upbeat, with speeches from Jean Turner and the minister. However, the tone has become somewhat downbeat since then. I think of myself as quite an optimistic person. This is a debate in which we should be talking up Scotland. We have heard today about the key role that Scotland plays on the international stage. It is always welcome to celebrate Scotland's international links. I have absolutely no doubt that those links have been progressed since the advent of devolution.
The minister and other members spoke about the role of our consulates and embassies in promoting Scotland. I want to speak about different kinds of ambassadors; people who we might not think of immediately in a debate such as this, but who represent different aspects of Scotland nonetheless. I am thinking of not only our culture, history, traditions and economic development but our generosity of spirit and commitment to social justice. I speak of the communities of Scotland—the ordinary people of Scotlan—and in particular the young people of Scotland.
Through European Commission projects such as Comenius and Erasmus, young people can participate in bilateral school and university exchanges. Those links with their European counterparts not only promote language learning and cultural diversity but lay the foundations of a society that is anchored in understanding and tolerance. I am sure that members will agree that that could not be more relevant.
All members will know of projects in their own areas. I draw members' attention to Scotland beneath the kilt, a project by students at St Michael's academy in Kilwinning. By way of the project, which runs over three years, the students aim to promote Scottish tourism by producing and circulating printed materials, food and music to their counterparts in six schools across Europe.
Their endeavours have resulted in books of Scottish songs and recipes, which have been printed and circulated in regions of Portugal, Italy, Germany and Sweden, to name but a few. In putting together the materials, our young people have learned about their own history and culture in a positive and practical way, to say nothing of their promotion and marketing of Scotland.
The title of the project—Scotland beneath the kilt—is particularly clever. The young people thought it up themselves. I am sure that it will be a real talking point in whatever language it is discussed by their Portuguese, Italian, German and Swedish peers.
I spoke earlier about the sterling work of the communities of Scotland. I am particularly proud of the example that Irvine Seagate Rotary has set. With Rotary International, members of Irvine Seagate Rotary teamed up with young people from my area and travelled to the village of Galamala in Malawi, where they worked to set up a clean water supply for the villagers. After fundraising to provide a water pump and basic tools such as wheelbarrows, spades and drills, the Rotarians and young people visited the village to help to bring to fruition a project that will save lives.
There are other ambassadors for Scotland, such as the young students of St Michael's academy, which is twinned with St Peter's secondary school in Mzuzu. Members of the Parliament who have been to Mzuzu and visited the school know that the school is blessed with magnificent staff and keen and diligent students. The students have to pay for their education and some of them walk miles to attend school. Some have been to Scotland and visited the Parliament, through the exchange programme.
There is an abundance of good will at St Peter's secondary school, but the school has limited facilities. It has no electricity and few classrooms. Pupils share desks and sometimes lessons are held in the open air on the netball pitch—the pupils have nothing that we would recognise from the Scottish education system. I am proud to say that the young people from St Michael's academy have supplied St Peter's with a new double classroom and toilet block. The classrooms are furnished with desks and chairs that were built by local craftsmen, which generated much-needed work and income for the local economy. As well as sponsoring the building programme, the young people of St Michael's academy sponsor 25 orphans to enable them to attend school. Without that sponsorship, those orphans would not be able to pay for education and would never have the opportunity to attend school. It is important that we use this debate to talk up the commendable work of ambassadors such as the young people of St Michael's academy.
When I taught at the University of Arizona in Tucson—that was not yesterday, but it was not a very long time ago—people used to ask me whether we had electricity in Scotland. Now the small town of Sierra Vista, which is south of Tucson, has an annual Burns supper and Tucson has a Gaelic institute. I think that students at the university would acknowledge the Scottish literary talent of J K Rowling, the sporting achievements of double world champion cyclist Graeme Obree, the flying Scotsman, and the way in which events such as the MTV awards and T in the park have placed Scotland on the world music map.
In a debate such as this, in the people's Parliament of Scotland, it is important that we reflect on the contribution of our community ambassadors, our Scottish charities, our Scottish churches, our Rotary clubs and incorporated trade groups and especially our young people to ensuring that Scotland is a forward and outward-looking country that makes its mark on the international stage and, in the true Scottish spirit, helps those who need it most.
I apologise for missing the opening speeches. I was attending a media engagement, which unfortunately ran on.
The debate has been wide ranging, but I want to focus on the Scottish diaspora. Members of the Scottish Parliament should remember that the Parliament is not just for Scots who live in Scotland but for Scots outwith Scotland. Indeed, we have a responsibility to people who might never have lived in Scotland but who claim some form of Scottish identity—perhaps it has been passed down through their genes or perhaps they just want to be identified with Scotland in some way. There is a huge opportunity for us in that regard.
We live in a strange world. In the global economy, people have never been closer to one another. When we travel around the world, we find a Starbucks coffee shop in every major city. We are struck by the uniformity of much of the culture across the globe. We can watch episodes of "Prison Break" or "Law and Order" whether we are in the United States of America, Europe or Australia. We live on a shrinking planet, but the irony is that more and more people want an individual identity. The more the world shrinks and people become the same as one another, the more people want to identify themselves as being unique and distinct. That ties in with Des McNulty's comments about a multilayered identity.
People want to be identified with Scotland. There is a cachet in being Scottish, which is felt not just by people who originate from Scotland and are proud of that but by people in many parts of the world, such as Australia or the USA, who seek an identity that is deeper than that of the modern society in which they live.
Being Scottish has a bit of kudos, which is a great advantage for us and provides opportunities. We are but a small nation of 5 million people on the periphery of Europe, as we discussed earlier in the debate on freight transport, but we can lay claim to the 40 million to 80 million people around the globe who identify with us, many of whom wish to contribute to our country. A few years ago, I travelled with other parliamentarians to a meeting in Ireland, where I spoke to Irish politicians. Many TDs talked about how they envied Scotland because we were so much better connected than Ireland was in the United States and Australia. I was extremely sceptical about that; given the plethora of Irish bars in the world and the size of the Irish diaspora, which is bigger than ours, I could not believe that Ireland would view itself as less well connected than we are. However, an investigation of the Scottish diaspora shows that we are better connected than the Irish are, certainly in the United States and Australia. Many people from Scotland who went there were literate and educated and, whether Protestant or Catholic, were driven by a Protestant work ethic. They are now embedded in those countries and present a huge opportunity.
Scotland has always had a schizophrenic view of emigration and the diaspora. As members have emphasised, we take great pride in the achievements of our countrymen and compatriots. We correctly acclaim people such as Carnegie and Pinkerton, although Pinkerton has an unsung history. He was born where the Glasgow mosque is now situated and in his latter years was involved in anti-union activity, although he was earlier involved in the underground railway that brought Negro prisoners from the south of the States. Many people in Scotland are disparaging about our expatriate community and think, "Who are they to comment on what is happening here?" We have a love-hate relationship with that community, which is often demonstrated in the attacks on Sean Connery. People ask, "Who is he to comment on Scotland?", but why should he not comment on Scotland? He is Scottish and is entitled to contribute.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot claim that all expatriate Scots are wonderful and that we are proud of people such as Andrew Carnegie and then, when somebody who has left Scotland expresses a view about it, say that they have no right to comment. We must get over that problem, which is ours, not theirs. We must acknowledge that Scotland is their country, too, even if they choose not to live here. We have the privilege of voting in elections, the dubious privilege of paying taxation and the benefit of living here, but we have no right to say that we are Scottish and they are not. They are equally Scottish, even though they may not live here.
The phenomenon is relevant, because one of the great features of the world today is migration. As members have said, people are coming to Scotland today, as they have come over the years, from Poland, Lithuania, Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will make them welcome. Equally, Scots are going from here south of the border, to the United States and to other countries. They move on because that is the way of the modern world. There is a great likelihood that my children and those of other parliamentarians will move abroad for employment or out of some other interest. We hope that they will return and we must ensure that they have the opportunity to do so, but we must see those who remain abroad as an asset. We must get rid of the chip on our shoulder and acknowledge that this is their Parliament, too. They have a right to comment and we should take pride in them.
I agree with the member's comments. Is he aware that those who have emigrated from this country to other parts of the world can still vote in the Scottish parliamentary elections for, I think, more than 15 years?
We must encourage participation at all levels.
The story of Simon Fraser reminds us that people do not have to be born in Scotland to have a perception of being Scottish. Simon Fraser is lauded in Canada as being the man who discovered the mighty Fraser river. He travelled from Ontario, where he grew up, down it to the Pacific, before Lewis and Clark had gone down the Columbia river to the Pacific, south of the 49th parallel. He is seen as an intrepid Scottish explorer. The irony is that he was not born in Scotland, but was born to Scottish parents in Vermont in what was then British North America. As many Scots did, his parents took the losing side in the American revolution and then moved north of the 49th parallel. He was brought up in a Scottish family and with the perception that he was Scottish. When he came down through the mighty mountains in northern British Columbia, he actually thought that that was what Scotland looked like. He had never visited Scotland, but he had been told about a land of mighty rivers and majestic mountains. That is why northern British Columbia was called New Caledonia, which gave a synergy with Nova Scotia, which had already been discovered. That shows that someone does not have to be born in Scotland to have a perception that this is their homeland or of shared identity with it.
Sandra White made a good point about values. Soon I will be speaking in Chicago at a conference of expat Scottish communities. They ask, "When you get to the fourth or fifth generation, how do you retain a Scottish identity? How, when you're married to an Hispanic or a Filipino, do you retain that identity, apart from the blood link?" What they are focusing on is values. Whether they went to Canada, North America or Australia, the Scottish communities were driven by values: a belief in education that saw us contribute to the enlightenment; a belief in decency and integrity that made us hard-working, honest people; and a Protestant work ethic that even in Australia, I have discovered, applied as much to those who arrived in the convict ships as to those who went as free-travelling labourers or farmers. There is not just a Scottish identity or a Scottish ethnicity; there is such a thing as Scottish values, to which we should lay claim.
There is a huge opportunity out there for us to turn ourselves from a nation of 5 million to a nation of 40 million to 80 million people who claim some identity and will offer some support. It is up to us to give those people respect and to recognise that they do not speak with funny accents. We should not laugh at them or knock their perceptions of us as being dressed garishly in kilts. They are our people, and we should recognise and respect them.
I am pleased to be in this somewhat elite company, in which all the brains of the Parliament are gathered together.
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
I am happy to say that in my colleague Jean Turner's contribution, part of that wish was fulfilled, because everybody loves the Scots. Even the folk who were locked up during the war and kept in jail love us. We can take it that we are popular. In Kenny MacAskill's excellent speech he suggested that there was some cachet in being associated with Scotland. Once again, people seem to love us. I wonder whether they know what it is that they love.
That brings me to Sandra White's speech, in which she talked about going to the Lebanon. Much as I appreciate and admire the sincerity of people who have been to the Lebanon, it does not prove the case that Scotland stands tall on the international stage when someone in the Lebanon kindly tells the Lebanese that we are Scottish. I have been in a similar situation in the past. I have been introduced to people in other countries as Scottish, to be met by a blank look.
We have had lots of looking back, so I was happy to hear that the minister is looking forward. That is excellent, because that is what the independent members were hoping to find when we chose "Scotland International" as the debate title. However, it worried me when he said that of the students who were asked whether they would recommend Scotland to others as a place in which to study, only 83 per cent said that they would. What about the other 17 per cent? I hate to be puir-moothed about it but, after all, we are being very Scottish this afternoon.
I am happy to say that not once in the debate have we heard that Scotland punches above its weight because it is part of the United Kingdom. Presumably, that would mean that we have more influence than, say, Merseyside or Tyneside in influencing and determining UK Government policy. Colin Fox's contribution put paid to that. We cannot claim more influence than any of the other regions of the UK, so we do not punch above our weight in that way. With all due respect to Irene Oldfather, who would like to punch it all herself, I do not believe that we punch above our weight in the European Union as far as policies are concerned. Irene is not old enough to remember this as vividly as I do, but I remember the carve-up over whisky. Just before Edward Heath signed up to Europe, the grape producers in Europe brought together an alcohol alliance to ensure that the grain producers—the Scots producers—were carved out of the industry.
I also saw the carve-up in steel, which meant that we had no representation and no special weight to punch in the UK negotiating stance. We lost out in steel and tomatoes and we will soon lose out in energy policy, unless we take full responsibility and do not leave decisions to those who have sold us short in the past.
Could this punching above our weight mean that we get favours that other regions do not get? We did not get any favours as regards the Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians who have the right to come here. The First Minister is to be congratulated, as are other members of the Cabinet, on trying to ensure that there was a distinctively Scottish response to that movement of people and that a welcome was given. However, it has been hard going and it is arguable just how much of a favour we have been done.
What about promoting Scotland abroad? Do we have more influence inside the United Kingdom than we would have as an independent country such as Ireland? I am not at all sure that we do. Phil Gallie talked about how our shipbuilding was greatly admired abroad and people knew about us. The Koreans and the Japanese knew about us, but they just went on and built ships. I do not think that Phil Gallie proved the case that he was trying to prove. He said that Eric Liddell had done great missionary work in China. That he may have done, but I doubt whether we could find three Chinese who could tell us his name now.
What about coping with global developments? I happen to think that for a country the size of ours it is better to be nippy than weighty. The global economy is moving and changing so fast, and it is much easier to turn a wee tug boat than it is to turn the Queen Mary, if I may use that analogy. We could do rather well for ourselves, nipping in and out in the way that the smaller countries do in the big global movements of industrial and commercial change.
What is so great about punching above our weight anyway if we are hidden inside the United Kingdom, as I believe that we are? Chris Ballance came up with the only advantage of punching above our weight. He said that Scotland could be the dirty man of Europe, but nobody would know—thank goodness—because it is the United Kingdom's CO2 emissions that are measured, not the Scottish ones. That is one advantage; we can hide behind the United Kingdom.
There is another advantage that we could exploit—Chris Ballance touched on this in his speech. Some time ago, during the cold war, an organisation called the Edinburgh Conversations was set up, of which I was part. It was a back channel for negotiation on arms reduction, believe it or not, and we could rehearse all the arguments in complete safety. Really top-level people came to the private meetings in Edinburgh or Moscow and we could do so because we were Scottish and could pretend that we were not British. I experienced that and when I have more time I will share some great stories with members. Chris Ballance is right that we could use the futures forum in a similar way. We could somehow pretend that we are not British, so no face would be lost.
Do small countries like us envy us our political influence? Do the Nordic states long for the chance to be told what to do by America? I do not think so. They are quite happy that they were able to do what they did during the Icelandic cod war to preserve their interests and economy. Iceland played one of the few cards that it had as a small country and shut the base at Reykjavik and said to the American Government, "Get these trawlers out of our economic zone and our fishing grounds. The base stays shut until you do it." It happened.
If countries are adept, imaginative and bold, it is possible for them not to depend on the bigger power. They can do their own thing in the world. I would very much like us to do that, because it is good for countries to meet other countries eye to eye, knowing that they see each other as equals. At the moment, they might see us as a very nice place to visit, but they do not see us as an equal.