Scotland's Trade Envoys: Valuable Business Support or Duplication of a UK-Wide Service?

7th October 2026

The Scottish Government has appointed another trade and investment envoy, this time to the United Arab Emirates.

Ronnie Graham, managing partner of Winston Taylor's Dubai office, has been appointed to promote Scotland's interests in the UAE and help Scottish companies build relationships in the market.

Economy Secretary Stephen Flynn is also visiting Abu Dhabi and Dubai, meeting ministers, investors and business leaders and attending the UAE Government's Investopia investment forum.

And Scotland Week 2027 is being planned for Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The Scottish Government says the objective is straightforward: open doors for Scottish businesses, attract investment, win contracts and create jobs.

All of that sounds reasonable.

But there is another question that deserves to be asked.

How much of this is genuinely additional trade support for Scottish businesses, and how much duplicates a UK-wide service that already exists?

And there is an even broader question.

Is the overseas network primarily about winning business for Scotland, or is part of its purpose also to promote Scotland's separate identity and the Scottish Government's international profile?

That does not necessarily make it wrong. But taxpayers are entitled to know what they are paying for.

Britain already has a trade network

International trade policy is reserved to the UK Government. Scotland does not negotiate its own international trade agreements.

That means the big decisions over tariffs, trade agreements and market access are made at Westminster.

But the UK also has an extensive network overseas.

The Department for Business and Trade works with British embassies and other UK Government organisations to help British companies export and attract investment.

There is also a UK Trade Envoy Programme covering 66 markets across six continents. Its envoys engage governments, lead trade delegations, meet businesses and lobby on market-access issues. They represent the whole United Kingdom.

The UK Government's Scotland Office is also now explicitly promoting "Brand Scotland" overseas. It has funded Scottish trade missions and events, including a £100,000 partnership with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce.

So Scotland is not starting from a blank sheet of paper.

There is already a British diplomatic, trade and investment operation around the world which Scottish businesses can use.

So what does the Scottish network add?

This is where the argument becomes more complicated.

The Scottish Government says its own trade and investment envoys provide local market knowledge and help promote Scottish trade and investment interests.

Its nine international offices have a wider remit. They are intended to improve Scotland's international profile, attract investment, help businesses trade internationally, promote research and innovation and facilitate cultural exchanges.

There is therefore a legitimate argument for having people specifically focused on Scotland.

A Scottish food producer may want someone who understands the Scottish brand. A university may want help developing an international partnership. A renewable-energy company may benefit from introductions to investors interested specifically in Scotland.

The question is not whether such activity can produce benefits.

It plainly can.

The question is whether those benefits justify maintaining a separate Scottish network alongside the UK network.

The word that matters is "additional"

This perhaps should be the test applied to every Scottish trade envoy, overseas office and international mission.

What is the additional benefit?

If a Scottish envoy opens a door that the UK system could not have opened, wins a contract that would otherwise have gone elsewhere, attracts an investment that would not otherwise have come to Scotland, or helps a small Scottish company establish itself in a new market, that is a measurable benefit.

But what if the same company could have received essentially the same support from the Department for Business and Trade?

What if Scottish and UK officials attend the same meetings, trade conferences and receptions?

What if the same investors are approached by two different parts of the British state?

Then the issue becomes much harder to ignore.

It is not enough to say that Scotland has been "promoted".

We need to know what happened as a result.

And then there is Brand Scotland

This is where the political question becomes particularly interesting.

The Scottish Government openly talks about improving Scotland's international profile.

That can be entirely legitimate. Scotland has a strong international reputation for food and drink, tourism, universities, financial services, energy, engineering and culture.

But international promotion can have two effects.

It can promote Scottish businesses.

It can also promote Scotland as a distinct national entity.

And when Scottish Government ministers travel overseas, hold Scotland Weeks, attend international conferences and meet foreign governments, the Scottish Government itself inevitably becomes part of that international presentation.

That does not mean that the purpose is party political promotion.

Indeed, the Scottish Government says its trade envoys work in a non-political capacity.

But taxpayers can reasonably ask where the line is drawn between promoting Scottish business, promoting Scotland, and promoting the Scottish Government's own international profile.

That is particularly relevant when the Scottish Government and UK Government are both running Brand Scotland initiatives.

The UK Government now says its Scotland Office has responsibility for the Brand Scotland programme and international and trade missions.

So there is potentially another layer of duplication.

Could the two systems work better together?

Perhaps the answer is not to abolish the Scottish network.

It might instead be to make the two systems much more obviously complementary.

The Scottish Government itself has previously recognised the need for Scottish export support to complement UK Department for Business and Trade support. A Scottish Parliament research briefing also notes that international trade is reserved while the Scottish Government has developed its own export-support activities.

That sounds sensible.

But "complementary" needs to mean more than two organisations saying nice things about each other.

There should be a clear division of responsibility.

The UK should handle the international negotiating machinery, diplomatic relationships and national trade agreements.

Scotland can concentrate on sectors where it has particular strengths and on helping Scottish companies exploit opportunities.

And where the UK already has people on the ground, the Scottish operation should demonstrate why another layer is needed.

What does it cost?

This is where the debate could become much more useful.

The Scottish Government should publish, in a readily understandable form, the cost and results of its international trade operation.

How much is spent on overseas offices?

How much on trade missions?

How much on Scotland Weeks and international promotional events?

What does each envoy cost?

How many Scottish companies have been helped?

How many new exporters have been created?

How many contracts have resulted?

How much inward investment has actually been secured?

How many jobs can reasonably be attributed to the activity?

And, importantly, how much of this business would probably have happened anyway through the existing UK trade network?

That last question is difficult to answer, but it is the one that gets closest to value for money.

What about Caithness?

There is also a very practical question for places such as Caithness.

If public money is being spent promoting Scottish exports around the world, how much reaches businesses outside Edinburgh, Glasgow and the central belt?

A Caithness engineering company, food producer, technology business or renewable-energy firm should be able to benefit from Scotland's international network.

But it should not have to know which government office to approach.

Nor should it matter whether the opportunity originated with the UK Government, Scottish Government, HIE, a trade envoy or an overseas office.

From the business owner's point of view, there should simply be a door that opens.

This is not an argument against promoting Scotland

Scotland has every reason to sell itself internationally.

The country has internationally recognised products, companies, universities, tourism attractions and expertise.

The question is whether taxpayers need two overlapping systems to do it.

There is also nothing inherently wrong with Scottish ministers travelling overseas and developing relationships with other governments. International relationships can lead to investment, research partnerships and commercial opportunities.

But the same standards should apply to this spending as to everything else in government.

What difference did it make?

The appointment of another trade envoy should therefore not automatically be criticised as wasteful, nor automatically celebrated as an investment in Scotland's future.

It should be judged on what the additional Scottish machinery achieves that the existing UK machinery would not have achieved.

And perhaps there is one final question worth asking.

If the Scottish Government can demonstrate that its separate network creates more exports, more investment and more jobs than could otherwise have been achieved, then there is a strong case for it.

If much of the activity consists of duplicating UK services, attending the same international events and promoting Scotland's political profile without measurable economic results, then taxpayers are entitled to ask whether there is a better use for the money.

Trade is a UK responsibility. Promoting Scottish business can be a Scottish responsibility. But the taxpayer should not have to pay twice for the same job.