Chamber and committees

I have one more question that I will roll in. This morning, we have all mentioned the rapid change driven by net zero and artificial intelligence. I would appreciate your reflections on what flexibility needs to be built into the system so that we are poised and ready. I appreciate that that is a massive area.

Doug, perhaps you can answer that and pick up on the earlier point.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I want to pick up a thread that, I think, Tony Burns started on when he talked about underrepresented groups. In your industries, how can you target girls and women? What are your reflections on the skills system for them? If we are bringing in a the pairts, obviously, some of your industries tend to be male dominated, so I would appreciate your thoughts and reflections on that.

What about you, Jennifer? Obviously, I appreciate that this is sometimes a function of scale.

Thank you very much.

I will move on to something that has not come up yet. To what extent are the views of industry fairly reflected in shaping the policy and provision? It is good that you are here this morning, but I am talking about apart from that.

Thank you very much for your submissions. You have given us so much evidence. I also very much appreciate your frankness, which I think will help us to move things along—although that will be subject to the Government having an appetite for change.

That leads me to my first question. To what extent do you think that the Government really has an appetite for doing this better? I do not mind who goes first. You are smiling, Professor Bell, so you can go first.

I appreciate that it is a difficult challenge.

You had quite the twinkle in your eye, Professor Bell, when you mentioned recruiting junior civil servants and their understanding the basic opportunity costs. It begs a sensible question in that, when we use the term “the Scottish Government”, we are talking largely about career civil servants. To what extent have their skill sets and competencies in the area changed over the profile of the Parliament? We might have a minister who tends to believe everything that they are told without asking, “Why that is the case?” or, with regard to interrogating the data, “How do we know that this is true?” What are your reflections on that? Civil servants have an important role in supporting ministers.

Thanks for attending this morning. I have a general question about what the public sees from the processes. We are charting quite dangerous courses where people fail to pay attention to data and analysis. You have clearly outlined the complexity and risks of what you are doing. To what extent do you actively consider how the public can easily consume the very complex data and processes that you have to go through? Arguably, because of the complexity of the fiscal framework in Scotland, that issue is even more acute for us. I know that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been considering that issue, but I am interested in your reflections.

For the record, I state clearly and openly that I am dismayed by the rise of the far right across the world. History has shown us that, when the far right is strong, it can lead to wars, poverty for many, the removal of rights and the weakening of the judiciary. It seems ironic that, in Scotland today, women have had to battle to reassert their rights and science has been consistently denied. Just at the weekend, we had dangerous commentary about the judiciary, which we should all condemn whole-heartedly. I say that because we cannot afford to be complacent and we need wise heads to prevail.

In my short remarks, I want to focus on Trump’s tariffs and their implications. First, it is useful to understand how arbitrary they are. Their levels are based on dividing the US trade deficit in goods with each country by the value of that country’s imports, then dividing by 2. However, if that formula had been imposed consistently, countries such as Australia, with which the US runs a trade surplus, would be due money back. Instead, the calculation was abandoned for countries that have little or no trade deficit with the US and a 10 per cent tariff was imposed on them. It is a myth that the UK got a better deal because of Keir Starmer cosying up to Donald Trump.

The most obvious consequences of the tariffs have been a destabilising of international markets. At close of play yesterday, the Dow Jones industrial index was trading approximately 6,000 points lower than it was at the end of January, while the relative safety of precious metals such as gold meant that their price was up again.

For many, the biggest concern is the less-well-reported impact on the bonds market. The US has introduced a rise in the cost of debt of which Liz Truss would be proud. The cost of debt has risen for the US but also for the UK, which is paying over 4.5 per cent—in the eyes of investors, that is a clear measure of a lack of fiscal resilience. That will ultimately lead to a decrease in public sector spend and Barnett consequentials, or tax rises. That is why this debate is highly relevant for the Scottish Parliament.

A fear of rising inflation in the US and the possibility of a global recession are just part of the price that is being paid for Trump’s incompetence. It is not only the large advanced economies that are being hit; poor countries are affected as well. Malawi, for example, has been hit by a 17 per cent baseline tariff by the US.

US stocks ended sharply lower overnight after Trump intensified his criticism of the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, raising concerns about the central bank’s independence and unsettling investor confidence. That has further weakened the US dollar, with further overnight declines against most major currencies.

What, then, of trade negotiations? Some countries, including the UK, seem to be signalling that they will go down the path of appeasing Trump. Fears are being expressed that that might include compromising on domestic standards, particularly for our Scottish food products, for which provenance and quality are our calling card. My fear is that taking the path of appeasement will only embolden Trump. I can see no sign that he is open to calm reasoning.

I end by making the obvious point that we need to revisit and revise Scotland’s export strategy in the light of world events, as well as our economic and financial policies.