´óÏó´«Ã½

It's a big ask for the next administration, but Jim Mather, Holyrood's enterprise minister, is retiring from frontline politics and signing off from a trip to China with an ambitious programme for Scottish trade.

Similarly, it's a statement of intent from the new boss of Scottish Development International, Ann McColl, getting some momentum behind the trade and inward investment agency after a lengthy hiatus without a chief executive.

The plan is to boost the size of the Scottish economy by between £1.5bn and £2bn through trade and international investment.

Compare that with electronics exports these days which currently amount to about £4bn.

The challenge continues: to increase the number of companies that export over the next 10 years by 30% to 50%, with at least 8,000 more businesses having the skills to go international within the next five years.

That should be allied to improved productivity to compete in that international market - up by as much as 20% in those companies supported by SDI.

Globally-mobile people

Significantly, the agency hasn't given up on quite large-scale inward investment projects.

Within five years, it is aiming for 25,000 to 35,000 new jobs through foreign investment, with at least 8,000 at the high-value end of the scale.

That comes with an improved supply chain within Scotland.

The aim is to ensure that the inputs of materials and supplies to these inward investment projects could reach as high as 50% from Scotland.

Seeing that as an ambition tells you a lot about the nature of inward investors, and their lack of local economic roots.

There are no great innovations apparent in how this can be done, or which sectors are to drive it.

The newer elements are a focus on attracting high-skilled internationally-mobile people to Scotland, while attracting foreign finance to fund new investment and infrastucture in Scotland, as much as foreign corporations to locate here.

Can it be done? Well, for an independent take, it's worth taking a look at the latest thoughts of the Centre for Public Policy for Regions at Glasgow University.

Keenly aware it's at a vital moment in the electoral cycle, it's set out a review of the past decade for devolution, with a look ahead to challenges.

Catching up

Looking back, it compares how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have compared with the UK as a whole.

The conclusion is that, at least until 2009, the Scottish economy picked up the growth pace to reach the UK level of income generated.

Northern Ireland has made little headway, and Wales may have fallen back.

What's odd about this - and the CPPR has pointed this out before - is that the political class fighting the Holyrood election don't seem keen to take the credit for this relative success.

Perhaps they don't trust the figures, and they may have a point.

If they can't be trusted, nor is there any political demand for more reliable figures - only the sound of frustrated economists.

Instead, it seems the political response in Scotland is to stick to the more familiar narrative that Scottish growth has been lagging and there's a need to catch up.

Perhaps to declare success is seen as declaring complacency.

But if it's caught up, then what? Well, that's where the CPPR economists have some noteworthy points.

They say it's time to take an urgent and thorough look at, and then overhaul, Scotland's private sector research and development.

The research it cites puts Scotland at the bottom of the British nations' and regions' table for R&D, blue-sky innovation and product innovation.

The public sector does well in R&D. As the trade strategy trumpets, the university sector punches well above Scotland's weight.

Faltering path

Likewise, there are strengths and weaknesses in skills. If neither the weaknesses nor the R&D shortfall are addressed, then that healthier growth path will falter.

And on that hot topic of university funding, there's a challenge here from the economists to those fighting the Holyrood election: concentrate new funding in early years education, where it has most impact, rather than pouring more into higher education.

And if neither student fees nor a graduate contribution are an option, be clear that the consequence is either cut costs, and accept lower quality, or the money required to fill the wide gap in university funding will have to come from elsewhere. So where will it be?

Finally, the warning is to stop muddling through on capital spend. If the Borders rail project was marginal in the good times, do we know how it stacks up with slower growth and austerity?

No, we don't. Indeed, the last assessment of major capital projects was in 2008. And budgets are much tighter now. So what's it to be?

The answer should come from a finance department that's separate from other portfolios in the Scottish cabinet, says the CPPR.

However well John Swinney has held together his vast ministerial empire - including Mr Mather, his energetic number two - the CPPR says tougher times require a tougher challenge function, with a newly-created joint audit and efficiency office.