Scotland’s relations with the myriad forms of political communities that have made up the world beyond our borders have existed as long as Scotland as a distinct political community has. If we accept the traditional national origin myth, Scotland as a polity had at least 900 years of “external relations” before forming the Union with England.

Why engage in external relations at all? Or, as we’d now call them in the modern international state system, international relations. It might seem like a ridiculous question, but the answer helps to shed light on the current debacle around the Scottish Government’s international relations, makes plain why a distinctly Scottish voice on the international stage is in all our interests, and emphasises the need for a more mature attitude to managing them.

For decades following the Second World War, the field of international relations was dominated by realists and, particularly, structural realists like the late Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, now infamous for his argument that the West is primarily at fault for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

They would contend that states only interact out of necessity for survival. They see the international system as anarchic, devoid of a Hobbesian leviathan to keep violence in check. As a result, states are primarily motivated to engage in international relations to ensure their security and maintain or increase their material power relative to other states.

Liberal internationalists, conversely, would argue that states recognise their common goals, such as economic prosperity, peace, and security, and cooperate to achieve these, often through trade, diplomatic engagement, and international institutions.

The Scottish Government does not need to engage in international relations to ensure its survival. The UK Government does that, and while the party in government at Holyrood might have views on how the UK’s defence and security should be managed, it does not need to maintain its own defences or engage in diplomacy to ensure international security. Liberal internationalists have a better explanation for Scottish international relations, rooted in the dynamics of Scottish society, economy, and domestic politics.

Read more: Mark McGeoghegan: The election that could build the path to victory for Sarwar

In his 1997 “restatement” of liberal international relations theory, Andrew Moravcsik, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, argued that the fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private organisations organising to promote their sectional and often conflicting interests. Political institutions, like the UK and Scottish Governments, represent sections of their domestic societies in international relations. Which sections depend on domestic politics and whose interests institutions believe should define their policies – conflicts we are increasingly familiar with in modern Scottish politics.

States’ preferences result from the preferences of domestic political and economic constituencies. This applies whether you are a democracy or not, whether we are talking about the United States or China. What differs is how sectional interests in society conflict to gain representation in the policies of states.

More importantly, the preferences of domestic political constituencies are an essential part of why political institutions engage in international relations in the first place: upward pressure from their domestic political constituents compels them to do so.

This brings us back to Scotland’s international relations. Hard unionists often argue that the devolution settlement reserves foreign affairs; thus, the Scottish Government shouldn’t engage with foreign governments.

Whether this is a reasonable reading of the devolution settlement is beside the point. The reality is that international relations are a consequence of domestic politics. The Scottish Government is responsible for myriad policy areas, from swathes of the Scottish economy (specific reservations for macroeconomic management notwithstanding) to environmental policy. And the sectional interests the Scottish Government has to satisfy in these policy areas will always bring about pressure on the Scottish Government to act in their interests internationally.

And this is a good thing. It was good that the pre-devolution Secretaries of State for Scotland engaged in para-diplomatic freelancing to lobby for EU funds to go to Scottish regions. It was good that Donald Dewar’s government opened an office in Brussels in 1999. It was good that Scottish Labour First Minister Jack McConnell spearheaded the Scottish-Malawi Partnership.

It continues to benefit Scottish businesses and the economy overall that successive Secretaries of State and First Ministers have engaged in international relations. A distinctive Scottish voice on the international stage can better represent these interests than the UK’s increasingly stretched diplomatic corps can.

This is true regardless of who is in power at Holyrood. This brings us to the latest controversy over Scotland’s international relations, backgrounded by the SNP’s consistent promotion of Scottish independence in meetings with foreign politicians and diplomats but triggered by Humza Yousaf discussing aspects of international relations unrelated to devolved policy areas during an impromptu meeting with the President of Turkey at COP28.

A necessary consequence of Scottish politicians engaging in international relations is meeting with international leaders and diplomats. Practically, it is impossible to prevent them from speaking to these leaders and diplomats only about issues related to devolved policy. What is a Foreign Office official supposed to do if a Scottish government minister meets with a foreign diplomat to discuss whisky and fisheries exports, and that diplomat brings up the pound’s strength and its effects on trade? Terminate the meeting? The act would be a diplomatic faux pas.

And what would the UK Government gain? Nothing. Scottish politicians discussing issues outwith devolved competence has no impact on those issues. They bring independence no closer, and foreign governments are not stupid enough to confuse the Scottish Government’s stance on an issue for UK policy.

Limiting the Scottish Government’s ability to engage in international relations wouldn’t help Scotland or the UK; it would harm both. Want to keep tabs on Scottish ministers abroad? Fine. Properly resource them with Foreign Office advisors, something the UK Government consistently refuses to do.

Read more: Mark McGeoghegan: Kissinger was a vastly overrated bureaucrat

Likewise, should Scottish government ministers seek to use their time abroad to further independence? Probably not. It distracts from the productive work they could be doing, doesn’t advance that cause, and engenders hostility to the notion of Scottish international relations as a whole.

The whole affair is petty. Scotland’s distinctive international relations benefit our country and should be encouraged. It should not take two governments who agree on reserved issues to do so. It is time for both governments to take a more mature approach and cooperate to promote Scotland on the world stage.