Having reviewed the Committee’s inquiry report, I have identified 20 distinct recommendations on the Scottish Government’s European and international affairs strategy – of which 13 relate to the Global Affairs Framework and 7 relate to the Government’s wider strategic approach. Below, I set out each recommendation (with relevant extracts from the inquiry report) and my assessment of whether that recommendation has been adopted or implemented to date, based on the Global Affairs Framework and the Government’s response letter to the inquiry report.

1. Recommendation: The Framework “sets out its values and objectives (linked to the domestic agenda).” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework is structured on seven themes, which have their own merits in some respects. It references a values-based approach to external action, which is positive. However, the Framework is predominantly comprised of sweeping statements and vague aspirations. It offers no new specific principles, objectives, priorities, goals, targets or reference points to define or structure the Scottish Government’s European and international relations for years ahead. Commitments and intentions in the Framework are framed with such a high level of generality that they have little degree of measurability and hold minimal practical utility. It is unclear what objectives underpin external action.

2. Recommendation: The Framework “provide[s] a foundation for all other relevant frameworks, strategies and policy documents in that sphere.” Assessment: Since it articulates no specific principles or objectives to guide European and international engagement, the Global Affairs Framework inherently does not provide a robust foundation for supportive frameworks and plans in this domain. While the Framework mentions some related strategies and plans, it does so only tangentially and not in a coordinated fashion. Existing documents, such as the Arctic Policy Framework and the Nordic – Baltic Policy Statement, are not included at all. Promised documents, such as the Cultural Diplomacy Strategy and International Education Strategy, are not connected to overarching objectives and are given no strategic anchor. The Global Affairs Framework does not contain the strategic depth necessary to serve as the central frame of reference for Government action on European and international relations.

3. Recommendation: The Framework “stipulates a long-term timeframe (e.g. for the remainder of the 2020s).” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework establishes no timeframe of any kind. The document gives no indication of the envisaged duration of the strategy and it sets out no time-based plans or targets. It avoids any new substantive commitment related to time. The absence of time references compounds the difficulty of measuring the effectiveness of Government action in this domain, since its performance cannot be compared to specified time horizons. Any aspirations have no time-related benchmarks for progress or delivery.

4. Recommendation: The Framework “prioritises countries, regions and policy themes.” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework establishes no governing prioritisation of countries, regions or themes to shape Government policy or action on European and international relations. It makes a single reference to focusing engagement on “our nearest neighbours in Europe and North America, including the Arctic”, without giving any further information. In fact, the Framework appears to treat the European Union as a monolithic bloc, instead of a complex union of Member States (and sub-states). It provides no clarity on which of those European states and sub-states should be priority partners for Scotland. While the document mentions “build[ing] our links with China, Japan, India and Pakistan” and “an increased focus on the Global South, including across Africa, Asia and South America,” it offers no corresponding detail. Given that, taken together, these general pledges cover most of the world, they do not amount to much of a prioritisation. The Framework repeats a small number of areas for EU engagement, but with no indication of the core priorities that define Scotland’s relationship with the EU. Moreover, those areas were derived as a reaction to the strategic agendas of the European Commission and European Council, not as the proactive priorities of Scotland.

5. Recommendation: The Framework “provides a clear rationale for that prioritisation” of countries, regions and policy themes.” Assessment: Alongside its absence of prioritisation of countries, regions and policy themes to structure European and global engagement, the Global Affairs Framework equally provides no substantive rationale for its purposes or orientation. The document does not indicate how Scotland’s values, interests and needs are translated into specific objectives and priorities for Government policy and action in this field. It gives no definitions or frame of reference for how the Government will balance Scotland’s values versus Scotland’s interests where they conflict in the European and global arenas. Further, it offers no parameters or guidance on how the Government will deploy its limited resources to best effect in the service of the core principles and objectives of a well-defined strategy.

6. Recommendation: The Framework “integrates international offices into its strategy.” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework states that the Government’s representative offices are “vital to promoting Scotland’s international profile, and protecting and enhancing Scotland’s interests in the EU and beyond.” It also lists a series of general functions which the offices could or do perform. However, the Framework does not indicate how the offices relate to the core principles and objectives of a strategy. The Framework make no differentiation between its offices in EU national capitals, its office in Brussels and its office in London, each category of which undertakes different functions. It does not set out how the offices (numbering nine in total, to date) form a coherent network. Moreover, it does not establish how the offices operate in the service of wider strategic objectives for external action.

7. Recommendation: The Framework “[includes an approach] to maximise its engagement with the Scots diaspora and (as described by the Cabinet Secretary) aspirational Scots.” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework makes a general pledge to “engage with the Scottish diaspora around the world.” It also, more or less, adopts a broad definition of the diaspora, which is positive. However, the Framework provides no details of a substantive approach to enhance diaspora engagement or the tenets which should underpin diaspora relations. It does not indicate how calendar opportunities such as St Andrew’s Day can be utilised to best effect.

8. Recommendation: The Framework “links to relevant aspects of economic, cultural and education policy.” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework references some parts of Government policy on the economy, culture and education, such as its Scotland’s Vision for Trade It pledges to enhance “Scotland’s international profile, reputation and attractiveness as a tourist destination.” Nevertheless, the Framework once again speaks only in general terms, with no formulated objectives or targets. It promises a Cultural Diplomacy Strategy and an International Education Strategy, but makes little mention of what those strategies should contain or how they connect to the core principles and objectives of the central strategy.

9. Recommendation: The Framework “recognises the need for a harmonisation of policy between the domestic and the outward-facing” and “ensure[s] alignment between domestic policy and external action.” Assessment: The Global Framework declares that the Government’s “international work seeks to mirror our domestic priorities and values.” It also states that “the global and regional context inevitably impacts the achievement of domestic objectives.” It is positive that these premises are mentioned in the Framework. However, more relevant is whether those principles are evidenced in the substantive content and approach of the Framework. Actual alignment of domestic policy and external action would demand mechanisms to identify and resolve conflicts between Scotland’s values and interests. Actual recognition of the European and global contexts would require acknowledgement of the challenges which Scotland faces in undertaking successful external action. The Framework includes neither.

10. Recommendation: The Framework “provide[s] the basis for Scotland to offer leadership and present new ways of thinking about our place and influence in the world.” Assessment: Regrettably, the Global Affairs Framework does not articulate a sufficient strategic basis for European and international relations – whether for the Scottish Government or for Scotland generally. In consisting mostly of general statements and vague aspirations, it does not serve as a vehicle for an informed and productive conversation on Scotland’s role in the world in the changed post-Brexit context. While Scotland has significant soft power strengths and attributes that could be shaped into a successful and effective global profile, the Framework makes little mention of them in actionable terms. It does not sufficiently capture Scotland’s potential.

11. Recommendation: The Framework “explores how to better inform the public and media on the importance of Scotland’s European and external relations.” Assessment: Beyond a commitment to “developing relationships with international media and making effective use of social media channels” to promote Scotland, the Global Affairs Framework makes no mention of how the Government will work to inform the Scottish public and media of the principles, goals or outcomes of its European and international relations – or why that work matters. The proactive provision of useful information by Government is essential to a better debate.

12. Recommendation: The Framework “is published in draft form for consultation.” Assessment: To my knowledge, the Global Affairs Framework was not published in draft form or otherwise made available for public consultation prior to its formal publication on 9 May 2022. Its date of publication was Europe Day, suggesting that symbolic considerations were consequential for the Government. That timetable gave it about four weeks to amend the draft framework in view of the inquiry report – to which it responded after the Framework’s publication.

13. Recommendation: The Framework “takes into account the findings and recommendations of this report.” Assessment: In my assessment, the Global Affairs Framework fully incorporates none of the twelve previous recommendations made by the Committee in its inquiry report.

14. Recommendation: The Scottish Government “publishes a clear strategy and priorities in relation to its engagement with the EU.” Assessment: While the Global Affairs Framework contends that “ensuring the closest possible relationship with the EU” is a “fundamental part” of external action, the Government does not clarify the shape of that relationship within Scotland’s current constitutional arrangements. In fact, neither the Framework nor other Government documents (such as Steadfastly European: Scotland’s past, present and future) set out strategic principles or objectives to structure Scotland’s engagement with the EU as part of the UK. The Framework restates a pledge to align “where possible and practical” with EU laws and policies, but it establishes no principles or parameters to guide that formidable task. While it mentions some areas of cooperation with the EU, in response to the Union’s pre-pandemic agenda, the Framework does not present Scotland’s proactive and endogenous priorities for EU relations. By contrast, an effective Scottish EU engagement strategy would delineate the Scottish Government’s own objectives for post-Brexit EU relations over the years ahead.

15. Recommendation: The Scottish Government pursues “wider external engagement… informed by a strategic approach, one with a clear geographical and thematic rationale.” Assessment: Since the Scottish Government is a sub-state actor, its external action and geographical scope should logically be proportionate to its roles and responsibilities. Scotland is a European sub-state, so the balance of activity, in terms of Government engagement, should be weighted towards Europe. Neither the Global Affairs Framework nor other Government documents provide an overarching strategic approach to non-EU engagement. The Government does have several country engagement strategies for select non-EU partners, which are useful, though mostly around five years old. The Global Affairs Framework speaks of expanding engagement into Asia, Africa and South America, but it provides no rationale for that proposed activity or information on its scope, content or relationship to wider strategy. Equally important, the Framework does not demonstrate how EU and non-EU engagement relate to each other.

16. Recommendation: The Scottish Government “clarif[ies] its position on the status of the 2013 Concordat on International Relations with the UK Government.” Assessment: In its response letter, the Scottish Government states that it “[does] not believe that the Concordat has facilitated good working relations on international matters” and that the concordat “has not been superseded.” Beyond those literal clarifications, the Government provides no detail on the operation or effectiveness of the concordat or wider mechanisms for intergovernmental working in this domain. The Government does not clarify whether it supports a revision or replacement of the international relations concordat. It does not propose any measures to improve cooperation with the UK Government on European and international affairs.

17. Recommendation: The Scottish Government “consider[s] what other options may be available to seek to replicate the benefits of the Erasmus+ programme.” Assessment: The Framework states that the Government is “committed to the EU’s Erasmus+ programme” and is “exploring ways to maximise Scotland’s access to this scheme.” In its response letter, the Government indicates that it is “engag[ing] in dialogue with the European Parliament and European Commission on how we can maximise our institutions’ access” to Erasmus+. Inherently, seeking to access Erasmus+ is distinct from undertaking work to replicate some benefits via other means. Given that the UK Government has made clear its regrettable opposition to participating in Erasmus+ in the future, and the European Commission has made equally clear that participation is a matter for the UK as a state, it is unclear what outcomes the Scottish Government expects to derive from direct engagement on the matter with the EU institutions. In its response letter, the Government reiterates its commitment to creating a “Scottish Education Exchange Programme”, while providing no detail or timetable for it.

18. Recommendation: The Scottish Government “provides a detailed justification for any new international offices, including why those locations were chosen and also how they fit with the international offices’ own strategic objectives.” Assessment: The Global Affairs Framework pledges that the Government will establish new representative offices “in Copenhagen in 2022 and Warsaw in 2023.” The Copenhagen office was officially opened in August 2022. The Framework provides no rationale for why further offices are warranted, why these locations were chosen or how the establishment of these offices will contribute to strategic objectives for European engagement. In its response letter, the Government states that it “undertakes preparatory work to assess the rationale for locating a new Scottish Government office or for focusing on a specific country or location.” It outlines some general factors that might have informed its decision to open the Copenhagen office. Crucially, however, it does not give an actual specific rationale for the choice. In sum, no substantive justification has been provided for the establishment of the Copenhagen and Warsaw offices. It may be that these offices are sufficiently beneficial to warrant their creation, but it is challenging to make any reasoned determination in that regard when their strategic purpose is undefined and their case for establishment is unclear. Given that Scotland is a sub-state and these representative offices are entirely optional, scrutiny of their purpose and rationale is entirely appropriate.

19. Recommendation: The Scottish Government “undertake[s] to publish an Annual Report setting out the contribution made by the international offices to promoting the values, objectives and priorities” of the Framework. Assessment: In its response letter, the Scottish Government indicates that it “support[s] the idea of an annual report” on the work of its representative offices. It pledges to update the Committee on the matter on an unspecified timetable. While the Government gives no detail on the form or scope of such reporting at this stage, it is positive that it has accepted the principle of a public annual report – not least because, as the Committee notes in its inquiry report, Government reports on its representative offices to this point “have only ever been published under Freedom of Information requests.”

20. Recommendation: The Scottish Government “continue[s] to explore how best it can assess the impact and influence of its external affairs work.” Assessment: In its response letter, the Scottish Government states that it is “committed to a continuous process to ensure that our work is measurable, transparent and available to the public.” Nevertheless, the Global Affairs Framework contains few objectives or targets which can be productively measured. While the Government commits in its response letter to undertaking additional work “to [secure] the maximum benefit for Scotland from our external networks,” it is unclear how such benefit can be assessed in the absence of predetermined priorities and objectives. Moreover, if the Government aims to increase transparency, it should publish relevant documents on European and international affairs proactively and by design, not reactively and in response to Freedom of Information requests. It would not be sensible to publish all internal policy planning documents routinely. However, a new ethos could encourage the Government to produce more “dual-use” documents – for policy-making and for the public.

Consequently, in my assessment, the Scottish Government has fully adopted or implemented to date one of the 20 recommendations on European and international relations strategy made by the Committee in its inquiry report (Recommendation No 19). In my assessment, the Global Affairs Framework fully satisfies none of the dedicated framework recommendations made by the Committee. This state of affairs is not favourable for Scottish public policy. The Committee’s recommendations in its inquiry report are sensible and straightforward. Their implementation, particularly in respect of the Global Affairs Framework, would have facilitated cogent strategy for European and global engagement in the post-Brexit era. Such absence in practice is regrettable.