Last week Nicola Sturgeon, in a speech in Iceland, pointed out that the Shetlands are closer to the Arctic Circle than to London.

Report abuse online. It’s always fascinating to see what triggers digital supporters of one shade or another.

For trade unionists, or at least some of them, he was a Scottish leader expressing a non-London-centric foreign policy perspective.

Of course, there are visceral opponents of Ms. Sturgeon – including disillusioned and radicalized cybernates – who would howl at Facebook if she opened a bag of crisps. But there is certainly something about Scottish ministers ‘gallanting’ around the world that is upsetting some pro-British guys.

And, for some opposition politicians, criticizing the FM for “high profile” at an international event is an easy way to please your base. I guess to them Mrs. Sturgeon – with her easy manners and confident smile – looks way too much like the leader of a sovereign nation when she does.

Of course, there will be arch-unionists who mumble under their breath that the damn Sturgeon has no right to argue with strangers. Reserved, right? Except, of course not. There is nothing new, unusual or “reserved” about sub-state diplomacy. Indeed, this Scottish government, like its pro-British predecessors before and after decentralization, is only doing the job it is supposed to do.

But does it do this job well? And how would we know if it was?

These are the questions – important, I think – that the current attitude of opposition to Scotland’s para-diplomatic, commercial, educational and other efforts leaves unanswered.

Let’s just take how we look north.

The Scottish authorities have developed a policy leaflet on how we can engage with the arctic world. It’s a good speech, like Sturgeon did the other day.

There are reasons, according to theory, that Scotland should interact with the north, given our shared history, similar challenges of ‘remoteness’, comparable business interests such as fishing and fish farming, renewable energy, oil and gas.

But how deep is this commitment? How do we measure success? What are our exact goals? And do we achieve them?

Let’s look at Shetland. What efforts are being made to restore lost transport links from the islands to Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands? Shetlanders can “look” north, but they cannot “go” in any direction other than south.

Authorities in Orkney, meanwhile, believe that Scapa Flow, one of the world’s great natural ports, could thrive with the opening of the Arctic. I know this appeals to SNP politicians, who also see the Flow as a major strategic military and transport offer for a future independent Scotland. But what, if anything, are they doing to support or even test these aspirations?

At the moment, the SNP seems good at building relationships with the north – and the east (it is also focusing on the Baltic States and Scandinavia). But this is only because his opponents have ceded this sphere.

Take the Nordic world. There are horribly lazy thoughts on this subject among the nationalist ranks. The separatist speakers often assert affinities with Scandinavia. But what has the SNP really done in its decade and a half to build meaningful engagement across the North Sea? They will highlight some well-intentioned initiatives. But here’s a question: How many young Scots could have learned to speak a Scandinavian language in the past 15 years?

Building a real affinity with a neighboring country or region requires effort: language skills; mass cultural, tourist and commercial exchanges; and the infrastructure to support that. We don’t have any. And, to be fair to the SNP in the context of the limited capacity for deconcentration, which nothing is easy.

Sturgeon in Iceland offered a different geographical perspective on world events. Smart trade unionists might see this as a plus for the UK, a multipolar state with eyes in all directions, not just one.

Indeed, there are reasonable Unionist arguments in favor of a Scottish Arctic or Nordic policy with more enthusiasm than the Nationalists have succeeded.

Pro-British devolutionary politicians, especially liberals from their northern island fears, could harass the SNP over Nordic and Arctic policies.

Labor could also easily overwhelm the SNP, whose ministers are distracted by so many other concerns, on international goals of a deconcentrated Scotland. After all, it was their last Prime Minister, Jack McConnell, who did so much to raise the profile of Scotland, not least with its laudable commitment to Malawi.

David Clark used to advise Labor Foreign Minister Robin Cook. Now an independent analyst, he despairs of what he called the “unnecessary polarization” illustrated by the reactions to Sturgeon’s Icelandic discourse.

Scotland’s global role, he said, “should not be controversial”

He added: “By reacting negatively every time the Prime Minister talks about international issues, trade unionists risk appearing not only against independence but also against decentralization.”

Mr. Clark has a few suggestions. Perhaps Labor, he said, should call on decentralized leaders to sit on the UK’s national security council. Perhaps the party could find a way to give Scotland more leverage in foreign policy matters as part of the constitutional compromise it says it is working on.

“That way he could start to find a way out of the mental dead end he’s been stuck in for the past few years,” he said.

Yes, part of Scotland is closer to the Arctic than to London. But therefore is part of Great Britain. Trade unionists can help ensure that a Scottish perspective on foreign affairs informs thinking at UK level. Or they can weaken Britain by ignoring such insight.

In Angus Robertson and Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP at Holyrood has politicians who can impress on a foreign stage. But their opponents should stop complaining about their presence and start making sure they are doing more than just speeches.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.