Chamber and committees

It is alphabetical order, and T comes last.

I thank the witnesses for joining us. I have a few questions. I first want to come to Alison Payne. We have had an interesting discussion, but we have not touched on public perceptions all that much. Arguably, the public are behind the curve, and react to changes by thinking, “It’s going to cost me more,” or, “I am going to get less.” In your opinion, in light of the step back by the former Deputy First Minister from the resource spending review—we now know that the local bodies will look at their own efficiencies or reforms—and accepting all your earlier comments, where do the public fit in that? To what extent is the new approach a missed opportunity for making the public part of this “burning platform for change” that Antony Clark talked about?

Professor Connolly, I hope that you will be able to add, from an academic perspective, your recommendations on the most effective ways in which the Scottish Government could involve the public.

Yes. I suppose that my point is whether, given the data that we have on the strict definition of public services, that is actually an underestimate of the implications, and, therefore, when we look at public sector reform, whether the implications are greatly more significant. I am just trying to get a handle on that.

My last question is slightly more about the nuts and bolts. By getting individual bodies to look at their own efficiencies or reforms—however we want to phrase it—we are missing the opportunity to create shared services, which is not an unusual way to get economies of scale. I am thinking about having multiple finance directors and human resources directors and, of course, procurement, where you can get economies of scale.

Probably for that reason alone, I was surprised by the step back from the RSR. It seems to me that, with the best will in the world, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Do you agree that those areas are perhaps obvious ones where we might want to start to look at change, if it is not reform? I appreciate your analogy, Alison, and I accept that that is rather crude. I would regard that not as reform but perhaps as lower-hanging fruit. Since you are smiling, Alison, you may as well go first.

Can I have comments on that from John Connolly and Antony Clark?

It is about the framing, if you like.

I have a slightly technical question for Antony Clark to help furnish my knowledge. As I understand it, there are rules about what is deemed to be a public body and is therefore pulled into the figures, the increase in which I saw in your submission. It strikes me that there may well be other bodies that do not fulfil those criteria but that receive the majority of their money from the Scottish Government. There is an analogy with IR35 in the private sector—arguably, if the rules were applied, those bodies would be deemed part of the public sector. Are you aware of that scenario? I am not asking you to name anyone; it is an in-principle question.

I welcome the debate and the framework—especially its aim to use digital tools and social media to increase engagement and drive traffic.

Ireland’s success has been outlined, and I will simply highlight the successful framework and vision that were developed by Kingsley Aikins, from whom we can learn a great deal. For Scotland, the obvious touch points such as Burns and St Andrew’s day are being targeted, but there must also be one-off events, such as events this year to mark the tercentenary of the birth of Adam Smith, who is as well known as a philosopher as he is as an economist and who undoubtedly took Scotland to the world.

In that respect, much more can always be done. The coupling of sectors with cultural assets, such as music, brings benefit. Even a simple tune such as “Auld Lang Syne” has global reach. Many states—including China—imagine that it is their tune. Many people do not realise that the reason why it is so well known is not the words—there are multiple settings—but the fact that the tune is based on a pentatonic scale. Members can approach me in the corridor for a rendition of a pentatonic scale after the debate.

The work to map organisations that are affiliated with Scotland is welcome, but the scale of the on-going exercise should not be underestimated. I ask the cabinet secretary whether any need for extra resources has been projected.

I will make a few comments about brand. It can sometimes be quite the challenge to depict what Scotland is—a country that is not yet a state. The literature review that fed into the framework notes that

“Countries face challenges in connecting their nation brands to their national imaginary (how they see themselves, especially their values and symbols), to the perceptions of others (how others see them)”.

I will refer to that later in my short speech.

That brings me to my primary interest, which is international trade. Like everyone else, I celebrate the work that has been done to set up offices in the likes of Berlin, Beijing and Washington, DC and the office that is coming soon in Warsaw. That is welcome, as are the ambassadors from GlobalScot, which is supported by SDI. I trust that the clarity of purpose that Ivan McKee brought in his previous role will continue.

The recent book “Scotland: The Global History” by Professor Murray Pittock sets out the strong historical international trading activity from Scotland that predated the Act of Union. It is quite literally in our DNA. With that in mind, the network of trade and investment envoys will bring heft and open economic doors for us.

For a time, I had the opportunity to build knowledge in this area when working alongside my former colleague Roger Mullin. Trading as Momentous Change Ltd, we researched and published a report that was commissioned by Scottish Business Network, whose chair and co-founder was in the public gallery earlier. Our focus was from the outside looking in, and the report contained contributions from more than 1,000 members of our Scottish senior business diaspora who were trading across 74 countries. We used LinkedIn fairly extensively to reach into every corner of the earth to find contributors. As a tool, that has become much more sophisticated and can be used to target key sectors, individuals and locations with surprisingly accuracy. Therefore, my second question to the cabinet secretary is: will his staff globally include LinkedIn as one of their digital tools?

As our bard says:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!”

That always yields great insights.

The report, which is available from all good book stores, was published in 2020, so it is obviously out of date, but a few key themes still remain highly relevant.

Fundamentally, Scotland was viewed positively as a place to do business in and the Scots were viewed positively as people to do business with. The feedback that we received highlighted the soft values as part of our brand. Those include the perception that Scots are friendly, resilient, entrepreneurial, progressive and outward looking.

I return to my comments on the importance of brand. We had some commentary to do with there being a lack of simplicity. One respondent from Malaysia noted:

“Some people in Malaysia are unsure about what Scotland is and its relationship with UK/EU and Ireland. Some Scottish brands are marketed here as British so any distinction can be unclear for consumers”.

On this occasion, I am not making a political point, although it will not be a surprise to hear that I would wish to see Scotland the global brand shouting loud. I make that comment because another facet of our report was about trust factors. The trust factors in Scotland as a place to do business in and the Scots as a people to do business with are extremely high. Of critical importance is this statement:

“our respondents clearly believed that Scottish values, particularly around trust and honesty were not only part of our national psyche but influenced how we are seen to conduct our business around the world”.

For genuine environmental, social, and governance investments, business and sustainability, the underpinning ethics and integrity are extremely important. Scotland has traditionally stood out in that area from its early beginnings as investors who understood the importance of long-term patient capital. In contrast, the city of London is already viewed as one of the world’s major money laundering centres, as is set out so eloquently by Oliver Bullough in his book “Butler to the World”.

I have spoken often in this chamber about the use and abuse of Scottish limited partnerships, in which Scotland’s strong ethical brand name is being used to launder money via a multitude of dodgy deals. Scotland has no ability to affect change in the regulation and, thus far, Westminster has had limited appetite to affect changes. That has a fundamental impact on the cleanliness of Scotland’s brand and, ultimately, having too close a connection can impact on the perception of us and therefore of our brand value. That is another reason for having a properly differentiated brand—or, in political speak, a proper, normal and independent country like everyone else has.

I welcome the document. I welcome the reaching out and pulling into the warm, welcoming arms of a global Scotland. It is a substate for the present time, but that is only temporary.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government acted decisively at an early stage to implement Barclay review recommendations that did not require primary legislation. I note that the minister has already mentioned measures including expansion of the fresh start relief to help town centres, and changing the business growth accelerator relief. Will he provide more information on whether an evaluation has been done of the impact of the early introduction of those recommendations and their benefit to businesses in Scotland?

This is my final question. Concern was expressed about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am mindful that that is a contentious policy and I am not trying to make a political point; I am merely using it as an example of what I am driving at. During the bill process, a point was made about the equality impact assessments that were carried out over a six-year period. No cognisance was given to the impact on women and girls who had been sexually assaulted or raped of having men with fully intact genitalia—setting to one side their right to be referred to in line with their chosen gender—in those women’s safe places.

I asked Engender whether it had carried out any assessments. The reply was that it had not and that it would not have carried out the EQIA anyway.

There are ideas about avoiding policy capture, having critical friends and making robust decisions. So, how did we get to a position where nobody thought about that impact on women and girls for six years?

I have a couple of quick questions off the back of what you have said. You talked about the speed of change, which everyone recognises is accelerating. How well equipped is the civil service, since you joined it, to deal with that speed of change, which ain’t going to stop any time soon, as we all know?