WHILE the public will apparently have to wait until SMPs are seated before the day-to-day impact of an Edinburgh-based Parliament is known, strategy officials at the Scottish Tourist Board have reportedly focused their minds on identifying what threats their industry might face as a result of devolution.
Truth be told, they should be. While further measures of autonomy will bring many benefits, the machinations of politics always introduce a measure of uncertainty into long-term planning.
Some difficulties are a natural part of the process, while other more onerous problems are unfortunately based on emotional conflicts between egos and self-interest. Regional friction and the instinctive desire to protect one's own turf have to be kept in check.
For example, the woefully tired debate about Scotland's share of Government spending versus tax revenues generated here has been kicked up yet again. The excuse for bringing it to the fore is (as usual) devolution, while seemingly endless efforts at political point-scoring keep the argument on a slow boil.
Practically every Government-subsidised organisation in Scotland - including the tourist board - is being scrutinised by its counterpart down south. The search is on far any signs of spending discrepancies that might be used as evidence of favouritism.
Just as one London-based newspaper recently argued that Scotland gets 25% more cash than England to spend on education, so too have southern-based tourism pundits come up with figures that make their central government support look miserly next to that which flows north.
A recent opinion piece for one of the industry's national trade publications stated that the Scottish Tourist Board's share of tourism funding had gone up from #2.39 per head of population in 1986-87 to #5.07 in the current year. While Wales and Northern Ireland reportedly received similar increases, it was said that England's paltry 28p per head had dropped to an even more meagre 26p for each man, woman and child in the country.
Now everyone knows there are obvious differences in the population density of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Casting that objective aside, there are several other technical points that could be raised to either justify those figures or cast doubt upon their veracity.
To pluck out such bald statistics and present them completely out of context ignores factors such as existing infrastructure and the general level of awareness of Scotland and England overseas. After all, the latter has benefited for centuries as the home of the capital of the United Kingdom.
What is most worrisome is the impact of wantonly brandishing such figures, which in the south must have the same effect as flashing a scarlet cape in front of an already agitated bull. In the above-mentioned article, English readers were advised not to ''just fume at the current situation but look at the scale of the task'' of levelling supposed inequities in the playing field.
The other insidious danger to Scottish tourism which could accompany devolution is the risk of a power struggle at home. Although there have not yet been any public suggestions that a Parliament might want to relieve the Scottish Tourist Board of any responsibilities, the day is coming when the STB will have to report to Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh.
Donald Dewar has promised that all quangos will be subject to SMPs' review. The Parliament will be ''free to restructure, merge or abolish those bodies as it thinks fit.'' It will also be able to set its own arrangements for public scrutiny.
Let us hope that no unnecessary squabbling breaks out. If it does, the English Tourist Board is unlikely to miss the opportunity to snatch back a sliver of Scotland's chunk of the tourism funding cake.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article