Former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise Robert Crawford looks at the vision Scotland needs to succeed on its own
In recent weeks, I have read a series of articles and advertisements in international news magazines extolling transformational policies being introduced by countries as diverse as Dubai, Qatar, Ireland and Monaco. The latter took me by surprise since I had pretty much assumed that the principality already occupied a cosy little niche (or is it haven?), safe from the buffeting winds of economic uncertainty unleashed by globalisation. But not a bit of it, even this home of the super-rich apparently feels the need to emulate Dubai by building an artificial island just outside Fontveille Harbour, on which will be located new hotels, a museum and, inevitably, a university.
Ah, yes, a university for these days, no self-respecting state, however small, and let’s face it, 458 acres is pretty small, can be without its own higher education system because as we are constantly reminded, to be economically competitive in today’s world, one must have highly educated citizens or at least be able to attract and retain the educated and ‘creatives’ from other lands. The latter approach has enabled the US to be one of the most consistent top productivity performers over the last decade or so. Anyone who has spent time in or around the high-tech electronics and life science campuses from Boston to California will know instantly what I mean. Not only does America have wonderful universities, it both retains graduates from overseas from where it also attracts the best and brightest. A pretty neat strategy if you can pull it off.
Closer to home, the British construction industry’s decades of under-investment in skills has left us increasingly dependent on the marvellously trained Polish diaspora of plumbers, electricians and carpenters who are both highly skilled and have the refreshingly “can do and will do” attitude to work, so typical of the economic migrant.
‘Productivity’ is the key to wealth creation and at the heart of the latter is improving the education base by whatever means, which is why countries as rich need universities both home grown and imported, as well as attracting the necessary skills from overseas to meet the needs of their burgeoning economies.
Meanwhile Ireland, which has lost over 35,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade or so (this isn’t surprising and is quite simply an outcome of the cost structure of that country in comparison to that of many former Communist states), is trying to convince international investors that ‘knowledge is in our nature’, the IDA’s tag-line in a series of advertisements which seeks to position Ireland as an entrepot of high value R & D, built around what they claim to be an outstanding research base. Frankly, it’s not close to being in Scotland’s class, but the Irish have never been slow in marketing hype over reality.
In countries with little or no heritage of higher education, the scramble is on to import by start-up, joint venture or complete programme transfer, the means to offer their citizens higher education so that they too will be able to compete in industries which put a premium on brain power over volume production. Hence Ireland’s present positioning as a fount of knowledge and creativity as the big volume assembly houses move their caravans to Eastern Europe and Asia.
Universities and their outputs, research and graduates, are increasingly seen as the ‘philosopher’s stone’ of economic development. From these can be created the ‘gold’ of sustainable economic growth. This much is hardly news and I don’t intend to enter ‘special pleading’ for the sector I now work in. It’s true that the Scottish HEI sector does need more funding, but I think this should be delivered through an incentive system which recognises that our universities need to undertake a significant transformation in their business models before taxpayers should be prepared to pump even more funds into them, but that argument is for another day.
For the present, I want to concentrate on the need for creative and visionary policies as a means to sustain international economic competitiveness. Yes, of course, we need a dynamic, market-reactive and anticipative education system which produces critically aware, self-confident (a vital component of success in all walks of life), internationally savvy citizens, comfortable with change and cosmopolitan in outlook, which is why countries of all shapes and sizes are desperate to upgrade their education offer. But we also need other visionary policies which are the hallmark of really competitive cities, regions and states.
There is much we can learn from places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai and yes, perhaps even Monaco. Rather than us mocking when we hear about plans to build massive offshore islands, for whatever purpose, or bridges which span countries such as the Oresund or aim to have the most digitally connected city-region in the world (Seoul is first, Taipei is second with the top European entrant, Stockholm, coming in at number six), perhaps we should be asking ourselves in rather more searching terms than hitherto what are we doing to develop a seriously creative society recognised as such by global investors? Frankly, I think the answer is not too much, I’m afraid.
I believe that the lack of this sense of a transforming mission is an outcome of our ‘dependency culture’ and the absence of sovereignty which led to Scotland being a ‘policy taker’ not ‘maker’. London was the source of all wisdom, regardless of its relevance for us and the meek acceptance of this situation by successive Scottish Office and Executive administrations has meant that we have lacked a compelling world-view and our place within it. The ‘kail-yard’ represented the extent of our vision and too many of our politicians were content to be its kings.
We need to be much more cosmopolitan in our outlook to have a greater understanding of the breathtaking changes going on in the world
We need to be much more cosmopolitan in our outlook to have a greater understanding of the breathtaking changes going on in the world 
, often in very unexpected places, if we are to be seen as a serious global player. To achieve this, we need to challenge prevailing orthodoxies in everything we do and require our politicians, civil service, academics and business leaders to be open to the challenge of the new, with a policy framework reflective of a country seen as a global leader in education, in the adoption of new technologies, in healthcare provision, in transport and in energy. In simple terms, we should set ourselves the challenge of becoming the sort of place in which creative and entrepreneurial people would like to live and work.
God knows, we have businesses which clearly demonstrate exactly this kind of vision and cosmopolitanism: the Royal Bank of Scotland, Clyde Blowers, Wolfson Microelectronics and the Wood Group, to name but a few. Public Scotland needs to emulate the lead of our most successful and creative companies.
In too many crucial life indicators, Scotland presently trends towards the bottom quartile in performance, notably but not exclusively in health. We can and must do better. Other nations and regions have effected huge changes in their socioeconomic performance by radical policy making, Singapore, New Zealand, Korea, Finland, Ireland and Estonia included. Bilbao is often credited with having transformed itself as a result of Frank Gehry’s landmark design for the Guggenheim and it is true that it has worked wonders for both the city’s reputation and tourism. What is often forgotten is that, glorious though it is, the museum was part of a much bigger plan devised by Cesar Pelli which included a new airport and metro system, other museums and transport investment. It was a classic example of a transformational vision.
I have no doubt that we require full sovereignty to catalyse the kind of dramatic change I am talking about, not least because much of it requires the use of tax incentives to implement radical change in matters like energy (Scotland needs a new nuclear energy investment like we need more rain), transport, fishing and agriculture.
So for the opponents of independence, there remains the key question: if you want Scotland to be a top quartile performer, never mind seen as one of the world’s most innovative countries, what additional powers do you think our Parliament should have and how would you see them? It is crucial that the evolutionists give us an answer – and soon because the world is moving on and we are in danger of being left in its wake.
The Book of Proverbs advises us that ‘where there is no vision the people perish’. We may not “perish” but neither shall we prosper as we should. Visioning the future for a country is more difficult than doing the same thing for a company, but it is no less important and many less endowed than us have managed it. If we don’t, we will be forever caught in the tail-wind of the best performers and I, for one, am tired of being a ‘tail-end Jock’.
No one has commented on this article.
|
Holyrood magazine 
Holyrood magazine is the fortnightly insiders guide to understanding the complexity of Scottish politics and policy developments and is widely regarded as being the leading publication for political news and information in Scotland.
