Here's how the SNP is risking Scotland's economic future

The consensus from witnesses was that there are huge opportunities – the energy transition, life sciences, artificial intelligence and so on. But unless we get our act together on upping Scotland’s skills base, pronto, these prizes will be missed. Investors, domestic or international, want well-educated, well-trained people, and we’re not delivering enough of either.

This should be a non-ideological issue on which all parties agree, so let’s get on with a dynamic course of action. Who could be against education and training, investment and prosperity? As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that the real dividing lines arise from priorities, competence and confusion.

Lumbering and bureaucratic

Sometimes, the problem with this Scottish Government is not that its intent is devious or malign. It is just hopeless at delivery with everything turned into a lumbering, bureaucratic process during which actions – particularly via funding priorities – deliver their own messages. The word urgency does not feature in their vocabulary.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Audit Scotland said that while the Scottish Government recognised “workforce skills are central to the economy, it has not provided the leadership needed to achieve the intended benefits” and “current arrangements were unlikely to achieve the ambitions”.

In the light of this assessment, SNP ministers did what they do instinctively. They launched a consultation which is yet to report. Meanwhile in the real world, things continue as before – a disjointed, half-hearted approach, accompanied by huge cuts to exactly the sectors that are needed to make a positive difference.

College money going on benefits

At that recent hearing, Andy Witty, from Colleges Scotland, recalled warnings they gave about the implications of further cuts: “Unfortunately, we have seen that come to fruition with the draft budget making what Audit Scotland called a 70 per cent real-terms cut in the past three years… This will have a devastating effect.”

Well, it would, wouldn’t it? Everyone who spoke deferred to the critical importance of Scotland’s colleges in any sustained approach to raising skills or delivering impromptu responses to industry’s forthcoming demands. Yet for more than a decade, the further education sector has been ransacked, largely to fund the mantra of “free university tuition”.

Mr Witty pointed out that the incoming Labour government has increased further education spending in England by £300 million, bringing a £29m ‘Barnett consequential’ to Scotland “which is clearly not being given directly to colleges”. So where is it going? John Mason MSP, who was kicked out the SNP for holding unfashionable views, told him that “the simple answer is that the money is going to social security”, which is to enjoy a huge budget increase.

It doesn’t take Einstein to work out that the consequence of not investing in skills-based education and training will, in due course, be to spend even more money on social security. So why keep hitting further education, which ticks so many boxes? How else will the cycle be broken?

Graduates in non-graduate jobs

Another striking statistic was that “41.8 per cent of graduates who left full-time education within the last five years in Scotland work in a non-graduate role”. How long will it take to sink in that investment in vocational education and skills training is at least as important as producing excess numbers of graduates with qualifications the jobs market doesn’t want?

For example, Clare Mack from Scottish Renewables outlined the massive challenges that are faced, in both infrastructure and skills, if the value of vast renewables investments is to be kept in Scotland. “Skills pathways that really meet the industry’s needs are essential,” she said. “As we have seen in some of the most productive economies in the world, work-based learning options work.”

But where is the crusade to lay that ground for an industry which could, like oil and gas before it, offer lifetime opportunities for well-paid employment? Instead, Mr Whitty told MSPs: “The industry is saying that, due to the lack of capacity in the college sector, it will be training workers outwith Scotland and bringing them in… The additional benefit of skilling-up the people who live in Scotland for high-end technical jobs will not happen.” What an indictment!

We find the same double-speak when it comes to the enterprise agencies. They should be critical at the present time to offering strategic interventions which will get the most out of private sector investment in the growth sectors, and particularly renewable energy. Yet the draft budget for Scottish Enterprise has been cut by 30 per cent and Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s by 17 per cent. It makes absolutely no sense.

Highly competitive world

I welcome the appointment of Sir Jim McDonald as chairman of Scottish Enterprise. As principal of Strathclyde University during a period of remarkable growth, he has walked the walk and could do so again for Scotland, given a reasonably free hand to innovate and lead. But is a 30 per cent budget cut really the welcoming gift he deserves?

The committee also heard about Scottish Development International, which seeks out inward investment around the world, and its dependence on being able to offer a suitably educated and trained workforce. Scotland has had such an agency since Locate in Scotland was created in 1981. In a highly competitive environment, we need to be represented where investment decisions are made.

Arguing about whether these are “embassies” or trade offices is exactly the kind of diversion we don’t need. It is far more important for them to be able to assure the world that Scotland offers a highly educated, highly skilled workforce. That is what any government should be judged by. And if, after 17 years, the SNP government cannot deliver it, then move over and let others try.