 Rwy'n crefnoddlog ar gyfer eich morfyniys. Yn ôl ffordd 5.185 o ffreni Gwith Brown o gyfer deunio o gweithgareddol a rhoi'r rhaglen a'r gwneud o Gwithwr. Rwy'n crefnodd pullach eich gwneud o gweithio a'r gwneud o gweithio gyda'r gwneud o gweithwyr. Rwy'n crefnoddlogaeth Gwith Brown o gweithwyr i'n gweithwyr. Siwa, Yn cyffrwyr, yn Ysgolwyr yw cyfrifnido i'r mylwyr ac mae'r llwydd yn gyntafol yn ei ffordd. Mae cyfnodd iawn yn y ffordd iawn, rydyn ni'n gweld i ddweud i ddweudio ar gyfer. Mae'r ddweud wedi ddiogelwyddoedd o'r ddweudio ar gyfer, ac yn ddweud i ddweudio ar y ddweudio ac oeddiadau. Ysgolwyddoedd wedi cael ei ddweudio ar gyfer, ac mae'n credu y cwmnoedd yng nghymru i ddweudio ar gyfer y ddweudio ar gyfer, ac mae'n dweudio ar gyfer y ddweudio ar gyfer y ddweudio wych yn ei the latest in a series of reviews in recent years aimed at reducing the defence estate. And this round has been the most brutal of all, if implemented. It will reduce the size of the defence estate in Scotland by almost 20 per cent. These are the most far-reaching defence cuts ever made in Scotland. Decisions made without any consultation with the Scottish Government, so much for the respect agenda previously signed up to by both Governments. Despite repeated attempts to speak with MOD ministers, Scotland's historic defence footprint has been diminished, shrinking military presence in many areas. That will have a detrimental impact across Scotland, and all of us in this chamber have a responsibility to the communities that we represent to make our collective voice heard on this issue. As a reminder to the chamber, the strategy's intention is that the armed forces in Scotland will be concentrated at what are called regional hubs at HM naval base Clyde, RAF Lossy Mouth and Lucas Barracks. Investment in those sites is very welcome. Along with local authorities, we in the Scottish Government will work constructively with the MOD to ensure personnel and families moving to Argyll and Butes, Murray and Fife receive a warm welcome and a smooth transition. That is an assurance I have given to senior military personnel as well. It remains, of course, to be seen. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. I wonder in today's debate would you be able to explain what further assistance you can give local authorities such as Murray to assist with the transition of a large number of personnel and their families, particularly in terms of house building, school capacity and such like, because it has been raised as a concern locally in Murray. I welcome the comments from the cabinet secretary and I just like a bit more information on how people do that with the local authorities. I think that I will concentrate on that during my speech, although it will unfortunately be much more about why our ability to do that has been diminished by the lack of consultation, not just with ourselves but also with local authorities. It's a fair point and I'll seek to address that. As I say, it remains to be seen what's proposed for Lucas Barracks. Indeed, there have been suggestions that a unit might actually move from Lucas to England with no confirmation of any consequent uplift in numbers in Lucas itself. However, I am cautiously optimistic that there is a positive future for Lucas Barracks locally. It's also positive that Kinloss Barracks in Murray emerged relatively unscathed from the cuts. I understand that this was a borderline decision and that Kinloss's disposal was reversed at the last minute. I pay tribute to the Murray economic partnership and local elected representatives for work to argue the case for Kinloss. Just yesterday, coming back to the point that was raised by Douglas Ross, I spoke with all the local authorities involved. In particular, they were very concerned that the decision left Kinloss itself. I would put it, they said that they had questions over its future sustainability in the way that the decisions that have been taken would impact on the local area. They also said that, unlike many other local authorities that have been impacted by the cuts, there was not the same demand. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the council. The same demand may be in other areas for new housing or the same premium in terms of new housing. It was a different situation in Kinloss and his major concern was the future viability and sustainability of the base. We have to ensure, just again coming back to the point that Douglas Ross has made, that 39 engineer regiments are a firm part of the community in Murray and that every effort is expended to avoid Kinloss falling under consideration in any future reviews, to go back to the point that I made about future sustainability. On the more negative news in the announcement, there are eight sites proposed for disposal, seven major sites including Fort George at Ardissier, MOD Caledonia and Recife, Glynecors barracks in Pennycook, Meadowforth barracks in Stirling, Craigihaw camp and both Redford cavalry and infantry barracks in Edinburgh. Most sites are intended for disposal by 2022 but with longer leading times for the army to vacate Fort George and Glynecors by 2032. However, when withdrawal may well begin in advance to save money on maintenance or refurbishment cost for properties that the MOD intends to vacate, there is an extent to which blight starts to occur almost as soon as those announcements are made. The MOD also proposed disposal of the Royal Marines Condor airfield in Arbroath and it is unclear how that will affect the base's capability or what possibilities there are for alternative use. As with Kinlos, you must bear in mind that this review is unlikely to be the last. Chipping away at this site in Condor is a worry if it weakens viability of RM Condor in years to come. Overall, the impact on families is a grim one. Those cuts will see the near total removal of the army from large parts of Scotland and the end of the Royal Navy's centuries-old presence in Fife. Those closures and unit moves are far removed from the stability and certainty that the then defence secretary, Philip Hammond, proposed personnel and families in the wake of the previous MOD-based review, which was not that long ago. More than half of the Royal Regiment of Scotland will be on the move. Indeed, just before Christmas last year, we also learned that one Scots, the Royal Scots borderers, currently based in Northern Ireland will have to move to Aldershot, their third move in a matter of years. It will be the third education system of the children of the families involved in a matter of years. Constant disruption makes life difficult for families to settle and put down routes. It impedes spousal employment, something that, across the chamber, we are all very keen to see improved and increased. It causes disruption to children's education, as I have mentioned, and school moves, as we all know, can have a detrimental impact on educational attainment. Families, of course, have no choice in that matter. In the case of one Scots, there will be children who will now have to go, as I have mentioned, through three different schooling systems, three different curricula. That is unfair. It speaks volumes, in my view, that that was not a factor in decision making for the MOD and it did not occur to them. From a Scottish perspective, it is bitterly disappointing that Scottish recruited battalions have not been returned to Scotland. That might have helped families by locating them near extended families, among other advantages, which could, of course, assist with childcare options. In light of the community impact, I established a working group with local authorities, those most directly affected, and so far we have met twice, including the meeting that I mentioned yesterday, to assess the impact and to try to agree the way forward. I will summarise some data that has been shared so far on Closure. Fort George has been a garrison for almost 250 years and is home to 600 personnel from three Scots to Black Watch. Closure will devastate the local community. Estimates by Highlands and Islands Enterprise indicate that more than 700 jobs could be affected directly and indirectly. Highland Council estimates that a loss of approximately £20 million from the local economy. Thank you for taking an intervention. I understand the point that you are making about the economy. Could you also bring into account the retention problems that the Black Watch are having based in Fort George, based on the fact that the soldiers do not necessarily want to be based there? That is causing problems for that regiment particularly. There are recruitment issues across the armed forces. It is true to say that there are a number of reasons why that might impact. I am not saying that the reason that he has given in relation to the Black Watch does not apply, but it was mentioned to me, as recently as yesterday, by somebody involved in those matters, if I can leave it at that. I made the point to the end that, if you are going to say that because of its location, which is what he said and not what Edward Mountain has just said, that this is too far away from other defence establishments, and that it is too remote, what does that start to say about the UK armed forces? If parts of the UK are to be deemed to be too far, too remote, too unattractive for people, it does start to diminish and will, in future years, further exacerbate current recruitment problems, in my view. Highland Council estimates that a loss of approximately £20 million from the local economy and local school provision might be affected. Highland Council, I should say, just to be explicit, opposed that closure. Glyn Cors barracks in Penicook has had a garrison for almost 150 years and is home to 500 personnel from two Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers. It is a modern fit for purpose barracks that has had considerable recent investment, I think, from memory of around £60 million as recently as 2006. Glyn Cors caters very well for the army and their families, and the decision calls into questioning the MOD's ability to meet its commitment to increase regular personnel numbers in Scotland to £12,500,000 in total. As most of us in the chamber, if not all of us, want to see proper equipment, properly furnished rooms with the mod cons that people would expect to have, which Glyn Cors has, if you spend that level of finance £60 million and discard it a few years later, that cannot be good use of public monies. Glyn Cors caters extremely well for the army and their families. Christine Grahame. As the cabinet secretary knows, that is in my constituency. Of course, it is quite right that £60 million was spent in an upgrade just over 10 years ago. Is he aware that the army held it as quotes, a benchmark accommodation? I have heard that and other remarks about the extent to which it is compared to some other defence establishments. It has had the investment that has been required, and it is very popular accommodation. My view is that this is one of the decisions that was most marginal in this review. It is one that I am hopeful can be reversed, because it does not make sense. Redford Infantry and Cavalry barracks have both been listed for early disposal by 2022. Both of those are over 100 years old. They are well loved in the local community. The barracks are home to various reserve units, and it is no simple matter for those reservists who may also have civilian jobs to move to other sites. As listed buildings, future use of those sites is uncertain and urgent discussion is needed with the MOD on practical options. The City of Edinburgh Council has passed a motion opposing the closures. There is also local concern about closures of the other sites, notably MOD Caledonia, which spells, in my view, a very sad end to the Royal Navy's historic presence in Fife. All local authorities that I have spoken to are keen for meaningful dialogue at strategic level before assessment studies are carried out. At our first meeting, we agreed unanimously to ask the MOD to engage with the working group. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable request, with the permission and agreement of the local authorities, which are represented by all the different parties in this chamber, with perhaps the exception of the Greens. That is a cross-party decision to seek that kind of dialogue. With their permission, I wrote to the defence secretary asking for a minister to meet us, and twice that was declined. I did eventually meet with MOD Minister Mark Lancaster a fortnight to go to discuss this, and again the request to meet with myself and the local authorities was declined. The MOD has chosen instead to speak to one or two planning departments within local authorities at officer level. However, they are reluctant to engage at senior levels and refuse to meet the group collectively. That piecemeal approach cuts elected representatives and some councils out of the loop, and it places council officers in an unventable position. It also disrespects a very reasonable request, and it agreed unanimously by all the local authorities and the Scottish Government on how we wish to engage. Those closures have a major impact on our communities. I have no confidence that the MOD is handling this matter with the seriousness that it deserves. Although I have heard from a number of different sources that that was at the treasuries behest and had the MOD not taken these decisions, the treasuries would have taken these decisions for them. The Scottish Government and local authorities are prepared to be reasonable and pragmatic. I have shared our view that in some areas the impact may be felt differently, and if handled properly, we may be able to secure some benefits. For instance, veterans accommodation—again, I raised this for Mark Lancaster—or other affordable housing options. However, with no movement from the MOD, the Scottish Government's position can only be to remain in opposition to the cuts in its entirety. I am calling on us today to unite as a chamber and to send a message to the MOD that there must be meaningful dialogue with the Scottish Government, with the local authorities and local communities, as a matter of urgency before closures are taken forward. In some areas it is possible that we may be able to mitigate the worst effects of decisions and get a better deal for local communities. In saying this, I am not being wise after the event. I met Mark Lancaster before this initiative, and I said to him at that stage, not least in relation to Fort George, that the Scottish Government has a very direct interest. We might get better decisions if we are able to work together. It is also true to say—I have said this before in the chamber—that if there is a concern about confidentiality, there is not one instance in the past 10 years that I am aware of that the Scottish Government has breached any conference that we have been taken into by the UK Government. We could have had that discussion at that time. In my view, we still stand a chance of overturning bad decisions if we fight those bad decisions. We cannot turn our backs, simply accept what the MOD decides to do behind closed doors and let our communities down. We must press our case and we must make our voices heard. In that regard, I call on the chamber to support that motion in my name. I speak in support of the amendment in which I move in my name. The UK defence estate is where our service personal work, live and train, it is where our armaments are stored and where much of Britain's world-class defence research is carried out. The British defence estate is split into three core parts, the built estate, encompassing barracks, naval bases and airfields, the housing estate, which provides accommodation for British soldiers and their families, and the training estate, which is the facilities where our armed forces are trained and acquire the skills necessary to achieve success on the battlefield. The better defence estate strategy set out by the UK Government in November 2016 outlines a comprehensive and long-term plan for a more efficient built defence estate. The plan will ensure that Britain's military infrastructure is properly equipped to meet the defence challenges of the future. Following on from the 2015 strategic defence and security review, the 2016 better defence estate paper sets out the need for the UK to make a substantial reduction in the size of the country's built estate with fewer and more specialised military centres. The UK's built defence estate will reduce by 30 per cent by the year 2040. 91 sites in operation today have been earmarked for closure by that date, including eight in Scotland, reducing UK defence sites in Scotland from 24 to 16. Despite previous comments to the country from SNP figures such as the present if soon to be displaced MP for Murray Angus Robertson, Kinloss barracks will not be closed and is to remain open. I am sorry that Mr Brown confirmed continued to give credence to the unfounded speculation that there was in relation to Kinloss. I have seen no evidence to support the argument that Kinloss was close to closure. If Mr Brown has it, I hope that he will publish it. I spoke earlier about Kinloss. I specifically mentioned the future viability of the base and the concerns of the local community and the council leader. It was not me who said that. I passed on those remarks. Jackson Carlaw said that it was a last-minute decision to save it and that he understood that it was a borderline decision. I understood that to be your view. It was certainly the view that Mr Robertson expressed. The reprovision plan set out by the UK Government makes clear that none of the army personnel at the bases to close will be relocated to sites not in Scotland, a point emphasised by the Secretary of State for Defence and the House of Commons last November. Those reductions are not only necessary but unavoidable if we are to prepare an outdated defence estate for the challenges of the future and to ensure that we have the resources available to properly fund our armed forces in the years to come. It is no more supportable now than it was in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo to argue that our defence estate must be maintained like some heritage tour to meet the defence of threats from history. It must reflect our needs today and respond to the threats present today and in the future. In its current form, the estate is too large and needs to be rationalised down to an appropriate size. It covers 424,000 hectares, the equivalent of 1.8 per cent of UK land mass. It is also the case that, whilst the British armed forces are now 30 per cent smaller than they were at the turn of the century, our defence estate is only reduced by 9 per cent in the same period. It is right that the defence secretary has chosen to address these obvious discrepancies and to rectify them within a timescale for shrinking the British defence estate. The estate is also financially unsustainable. £2.5 billion per year is required to maintain it, money that would be much better spent focusing on a smaller, more specialised network. Additionally, significant parts of our defence structure are quite simply too old. Some 40 per cent of the assets have been in existence for more than 50 years. Efficiencies achieved by closing the 91 army sites will save the Government £140 million over a 10-year period, rising to approximately £3 billion in total by 2040. £4 billion of additional finance has also been allocated for upgrading the retained defence estate over the next decade, and that funding will be used to enhance our defence infrastructure in the locations where it is required by the armed forces. Focusing specifically on Scotland, I have already mentioned eight of the 91 sites to close our base north of the border. Whilst we all understand the concerns raised about the impact those closures will have on local communities in Scotland, the defence secretary has given the commitment to consult with the relevant local authorities on the changes where appropriate with the Scottish Government. I heard what Mr Brown said and I thought his words were measured, and I hope that they will be heard. I hope that that co-operation and consultation will take place, but it has not been helped by the Scottish Government setting itself in opposition to everything that is proposed right up at the front. It is also important to note that the reductions that are taking place in the UK's built defence estate in Scotland are not as large as the reductions that are taking place in the UK as a whole. In terms of acreage, the average UK defence presence within the country will decrease by 30 per cent, compared with 19 per cent in Scotland. At the macro level, the UK defence estate in Scotland is to be consolidated into three main bases of operation, the Royal Naval Base in the Clyde, RAF Lossymouth and Leukers Station. HM Naval Base in the Clyde is set to become the home of the UK's entire submarine fleet, and this key decision will result in jobs in the Clyde rising to 8,200 by 2022, making it one of the largest employment hubs in Scotland. Our armed servicemen and women at Fasslaner are to benefit from £1.3 billion investment package announced by the Secretary of State at the end of February. That key investment has been set aside to allow for improvements to be made to key operational functions at the Clyde, such as engineering support, accommodation, security and its waterfront. That will ensure that the naval base is ready to receive the new dreadnought class of submarines expected to arrive at the beginning of the 2030s. On the point that you raised a while ago, Jackson Carlaw, on comparison between what has happened in Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, would you accept that, since 2000, the year 2010, 170 jobs have been cut in Scotland in the armed forces, a reduction of 41 per cent, compared with 28 per cent across the United Kingdom? If you look at the long-term trend, Scotland is suffering a much greater level of reduction. Jackson Carlaw? I do not accept that, and the point that I make is that Scotland is an integral part of the UK defence forces, but it is absolutely imperative that it meets the actual requirements of the armed forces going forward. There is no point in having some sort of imaginary sense of what was appropriate in an entirely different era when the threat that we face today is entirely different and we must have a defence force that meets that potential threat. The tried nuclear deterrent, which I will touch on shortly, is also based on the Clyde. Nine maritime patrol aircraft are to be stationed at Lossymouth and Murray, the P-88 beside and planes will result in more than 100 new jobs on top of the £100 million of investment to construct and support a training facility for the next aircraft to be built in Lossymouth. Lookers will be expanded significantly to allow it to become the army's main base of operations. Quite demonstrably, the UK Conservative Government is investing to ensure that Scotland's defence is maintained and that Scotland remains at the very heart of Britain's armed forces. Of course, none of that would be available, practicable, deliverable or even fantasisable in the nightmare of an independent Scotland. Let me turn to the independent nuclear deterrent, which has acted as Britain's ultimate insurance policy since it replaced the Polaris missiles in the 1980s. Predictably, the SNP has attempted to use the defence estate reforms as yet another opportunity to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK and to argue against the vital importance of Trident to our defence capability. During the defence estate debate at the House of Commons last year, the SNP defence spokesman at Westminster described Trident as an obsession that is swallowing up more and more of the defence budget. Not only to do so are those comments creating a misleading image about the proportion of government spending taken up by Trident, but they fail to recognise the proven importance that those weapons play in defending our country. In terms of cost, the financial outlay for the successor Trident submarines amounts to only 0.2 per cent of the total annual spend by the UK Government. Twenty pence in every £100 pounds of government spending on defence is represented by the Trident programme. Indeed, rather than being an overbearing burden on government finances, the amount of money being spent to renew Trident provides further evidence in support of the decision of the House of Commons last summer. In an increasingly uncertain international environment, with our revancious Russia upgrading its nuclear capacity and with North Korea conducting nuclear tests on a seemingly endless basis, staging military parades, displaying military hardware with all the finesse of a despotic comic regime drawn by Hergey, it is critical for Britain to retain the Trident nuclear weapons system, a system no less that works 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 weeks per year, protecting Scotland through the effectiveness of deterrence. The UK defence estate strategy will concentrate UK military bases in Scotland into a leaner, sharper and more efficient force. It will equip our armed forces for the threats that they may face in the future and provide them with the tools to respond to such threats in the most effective manner. The extensive defence investment in Scotland by the UK Government, such as the additional resources for HM naval base in the River Clyde and for RAF, Lossymouth and Murray, along with the renewal of Trident, are profound examples of the military benefits of Scotland gains from being part of a wider United Kingdom and highlights that the realm of defence we are on arguably better served by remaining British. If I may paraphrase the First Minister, Scottish ministers debate while UK ministers deliver. You winch as a Scottish Government while the UK Government protects the nation. I now call on David Stewart to speak to and move amendment 5185.1. Around eight minutes please, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A little more than seven years ago, I opened a member's debate to discuss concerns about the possible closure of RAF King Loss. The campaign was a cross-party one and was supported by all the party leaders then. Alex Salmond, Annabelle Goldie, Tavish Scott and Ian Gray. I argued then, and I'll argue today, that armed forces personnel have a social covenant with our country at times of peace and at times of war. During times of conflict, I always remembered the lines from John Maxwell Edmonds, who repeated every remembrance Sunday across Scotland and beyond. When you go home, tell them of us and say, for their tomorrow, we gave our today. The social covenant was best illustrated to me 25 years ago when the American naval base in Danone closed with a loss of 1,500 American personnel. The local community rally drowned and set up a dynamic economic committee that received European and government funding support to diversify the economy and provide new jobs. Like probably most members present, my interest in this debate this afternoon is personal. My father did his national service with the RAF King Loss as a fresh-faced 18-year-old nearly 70 years ago. During the last year of school in the Highlands, I seriously thought, like Jackson Carlaw, a bit joining the RAF but instead chose the less hard-hearted conflict zone that comes with a career in politics. During my time in Westminster from 1997, I relished the opportunity to serve with the RAF for two terms as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcome, Presiding Officer, the setting up of the Scottish scheme this week, and I hope that members from across the chamber were volunteered to take part in the scheme in Scotland. However, during my involvement with the Westminster scheme, I had direct experience of RAF King Loss and RAF Philosophy Mouth, as well as a memorable week in Basra in Iraq, which I can speak at some of the time about. I flew in a tornado fast jet and Nimrod maritime aircraft as a seeking, search and rescue helicopter. On my last day with the RAF, the seeking I was involved in had to attend an emergency in Glencoe. I vividly remember flying a few hundred feet above Loch Ness in the way to Glencoe and observing at first hand the bravery expertise and professionalism of the pilots and the winch crew as they saved the life of a young Swiss mountaineer who had fallen and suffered severe facial injuries. My experience was a brief snapshot but it gave me tremendous admiration for the armed forces and indeed veterans as well. Fort George army barracks in my region and minutes from my home, as we have heard from the cabinet secretary, is scheduled to be closed by the UK Government in 2032. Members may know that Fort George was designed by Major General William Skinner and opened in 1769. It has remained an army base ever since. As we have heard from the cabinet secretary, it is home to the black watch and it supports 700 jobs and contributes £16 million to the economy each year. However, the original decision to close Fort George led to a storm of outrage in local community and the high-profile campaign was spearheaded by the actor Hugh Grant, whose grandfather once served as the commanding officer there. However, Major General Alistair Dixon, who is the director of army basing, conceded that there was a lot of emotion around the black watch leaving and he said that the closure of a base like Fort George is incredibly sad. He said that in The Times in November 2016. Of course, the base closures will blow to defence footprint in Scotland and the Highlands in particular. In my view, Minstry defence bases are excellent recruiting sergeants and there must be a real risk that base closures will hit future recruitment. Close regional connections have always existed between Scottish sailors, between Scottish soldiers and airmen and the places that were trained and recruited. As The Times journalist Magnus Lindlater said, the fierce loyalty to their own localities was felt every bit as deeply by Scottish troops in Afghanistan and Iraq as it was in Nipra or the Somme. The loss of that close and enduring link will steadily erode the emotional attachment so important to military morale as it is bound to have an effect on recruitment. Presiding Officer, Labour will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion at 5 o'clock. Our amendment recognises the crucial economic and social contribution of military bases in Scotland, both in the direct spend by armed forces personnel but also by the multiplier effect on local businesses. I look no further in the effect of Fort George on the economies of Ardyser and the Vernais and I'm happy to give way to Mr Stevenson. I'm obliged to Mr Stewart. Is Mr Stewart aware of the perverse effects of the capital contract that the Tories have led for recruitment? To enable capital to meet the targets that are in the contract, they are having to divert people who come forward in Scotland wishing to join Scottish regiments to regiments-based elsewhere in the UK, decisively damaging that very valuable connection that is between local communities and people who, by connections historically and emotionally to local regiments, are no longer being permitted to join them. David Stewart. I agree with the points that Mr Stevenson has made. In fact, it reminded me that I was just reading about that very point in Hansard earlier today, as an excellent point I would endorse the point that he makes. Our amendment calls on the UK Government to halt all-in-any base closures until it is prepared and consulted on full economic assessment and employment diversification plans. When we debated the issue about RAF can loss seven years ago, I pointed out that high had commissioned an independent economic impact analysis. That showed that both Murray's RAF bases at the time supported more than 5,500 full-time jobs, and 16 per cent of all full-time employment in Murray and the economic impact involved a loss of more than £155 million a year. The report itself is concluded by Stain in a quote again. It is clear that the economy and population of Murray are highly dependent on the RAF, more so than any other region of the UK. I believe, Presiding Officer, that there is much that we can learn about the closure of RAF can loss and also from the situation in the US, where the Government takes responsibility for rebuilding and rebooting local areas when defence bases close. In my view, this is a practical form of a social covenant with a local community. We are calling for that covenant in Scotland, so when military bases are scheduled to close, we must use all available economic levers to track the murdered investment, to stimulate local business initiatives and to offer redundant military and civilian staff for training and support. We would seek to draw down more EU funding and consider relocating Scottish Government posts and agencies to affected areas. The loss of any military base is a blow for the local area, but in my region, losing Fort George after the closure of RAF can loss is a body blow. I believe that we must honour the covenant with armed forces, but the social covenant with the communities who are pledging to economic uncertainty and instability by the closure bases that become central to their existence. We must say no to the cavalier and unfeiling dismissal of their concerns and ensure that everything possible is done to prevent the closures by changing the minds of government or to commit the necessary resources to mitigate the damaging impacts. To paraphrase the late canon Keenan Wright, what if the UK Government says yes for George who closed and they are the government, but the Highlands say no and they are the people? I move the amendment to my name. We now move on to the open session. Speeches of around seven minutes please. We do have some time in hand, so I can allow extra time for interventions. I call Gordon MacDonald to be followed by Maurice Golden. Since my election in 2011 is the MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands, the three army bases in my constituency, Dreghorn, Redford Cavalry and Redford infantry barracks, have been under constant review. The army has been part of the local community in Collins for over 100 years, supporting local schools, businesses and the post office. Without the army families, the viability of a large range of facilities from Collins into Oxgangs will be called into question, and the concern is that the area could become like a ghost town. Back in 2011, all three barracks were earmarked for closure, following the announcement by the then defence secretary, Liam Fox, that a superb barracks was to be built at Kitt Newton airfield to house a mobile brigade. Those plans were scrapped in 2013 due to the estimated £400 million cost, public outcry and another round of army cuts. The regular army basing plan, published on 5 March 2013, highlighted what was to become of the three barracks in my constituency under the Army 2020 project. Dreghorn, home to the Royal Scots borderers since their formation in 2006, was to be retained, but the sting in the tail was that it was to be handed to three rifles, a unit that recruits predominantly from Yorkshire and the north-east of England. Redford cavalry and Redford infantry barracks would become home to the HQ unit of the 51st Highland Brigade and HQ Scotland, including the fifth battalion in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who were reduced to a single public duties company following another round of defence cuts. The army base at Redford was already home to a range of ancillary army units, including a military intelligence unit, the 105th Regiment Royal Artillery Volunteers, the Edinburgh University Officer training corps and the Army School of Bagpipe and Highland Drumming. A report in February 2016 by the Defence and Infrastructure Organisation confirmed the 2013 position. It said, and I quote, "...expected that all buildings at Redford barracks will be retained for military use, but some areas of land may be released." The same report highlighted that Redford would indeed be the HQ of the 51st Highland Brigade and HQ Scotland, with the move completed by 2018. Then, just nine months later, an announcement by Michael Fallon that Redford cavalry and Redford infantry barracks were to close as part of the better defence estate review. The closure also listed Craigie Hall, Meadowforth barracks, Fort George and Glencorse. In his announcement in November 2016, Michael Fallon said, "...the plan will see sites and bases move to locations that offer better opportunities for military families, increasing employment prospects for partners and spouses, helping them to settle into communities by their own homes and have their children benefit from more stable schooling." It is ironic that that is the reasons given for the base changes, where the same reasons were given to the Royal Scots borderers when they moved into their base at Dreghorn 10 years earlier. They put down routes in the community, purchased homes and wives and spouses started careers in the Edinburgh area, only to be told in 2014 that they were moving to the palace barracks in Hollywood, Northern Ireland. Just starting to settle down in their new base in Belfast, the 2015 strategic defence and security review announced that they would move again to Aldershot by 2019. Two moves in five years for one Scots does not help army families to put down routes, but at least one Scots have a new home. In a letter that I received from Mark Lancaster MP in November 2016, he highlighted that work to identify potential future locations for all units at Redford cavalry barracks and Redford infantry barracks continues. So where are they going to go? Glenn Cors, that base is earmarked for closure, despite being totally refurbished at a cost of £60 million 10 years ago and his home to two Scots, the Royal Highland fusilliers, who are also now waiting for a new base. I thank the member for taking intervention. He agrees with Jackson Carlaw's characterisation that to defend the community against the closure of Glenn Cors barracks is tantamount to defending a heritage tour, given what he said about the £60 million investment. Does he not think that that is dripping contempt for the communities in Pengyrch? Gordon MacDonald? Absolutely, for a barracks has been marked as being benchmark for accommodation in the army, absolutely. Craigie Hall, an army base in the second world war, previously served as a second division HQ Scotland but in the early 2016 was announced that it was to be sold although no date for the sale was given. One reason may be because the Royal Logistic Corps Bomb Disposal Unit is based there and they are due to move to Dreghorn barracks but it is in a built-up area, not conducive to the ordinance they require to store for operational reasons. Dreghorn is full and they currently cannot accommodate all of three rifles with one company still based at Redford barracks until future development work gets under way. What about Fort George? Another historic army base in Home to Three Scots, the Black Watch, will also close, leaving them looking for a new home. Meadowforth barracks in Stirland, the HQ unit base there, were due to relocate to Redford but will now also become homeless and the end result could be no army HQ in Scotland. According to the defence estate strategy published in 12 January this year, there are 301 bases across the UK that represent 85 per cent of resource spending. Of those, 91 are to close with eight major bases in Scotland closing. That is incorrect. The army will have a base and it is probably going to be Lucas in Scotland. Gordon MacDonald? The documents that I read said that the new divisional headquarters for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be based in Aldershot. I have not included in my speech but I am happy to show the member where that comment is in that document. The UK Government is slashing around a fifth of the defence footprint in Scotland that will remove the army from large parts of the country, including century-old garrisons like Fort George, Glencorse and Redford. It calls into question the defence priorities of a UK Government that can afford to spend £205 billion on weapons of mass destruction and is willing to sell off conventional bases around the country to help fund them with little regard to the impact on the army or local communities. It is nothing more than a cash grab. Not my words, but those of retired senior officer, Colonel Clive Fairweather, speaking back in 2011 when the bases in my constituency first came under threat. He accused the Ministry of Defence of only being interested in trying to make a quick buck and not in providing proper army accommodation. Clearly, the MOD has changed its mind on a number of occasions regarding the Edinburgh garrisons accommodation, and it is still not too late for it to revert back to the regular army basing plan that was published back in 2013 and was only revoked late last year. Maurice Golden to be followed by Stuart Stevenson Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I start today by recognising Scotland's historic and on-going contribution to our defence of our nation and upholding freedom and democracy across the world. I would like to pay tribute to the men and women who serve across all branches of the military and recognise the sacrifices that they make in order to keep us safe, and it is important that, as politicians, we must always remember that freedom does not come free. It does sadden me to see the forthcoming closures of a number of Scottish defence bases and the impact that that will have on the communities that they are situated in. However, our military leaders have made it clear that we need to modernise and consolidate our defence estate to make it fit for the 21st century. I know from spending time in British military camps across the UK, Barry Budden, Cameron Barracks, WarCop, Allenbrooke and Senebridge, that bases are often underutilised and that investment in infrastructure is currently spread too thinly. That is why we need this process of modernisation and consolidation. Let me be clear about what I would like to see. I want to see British defence infrastructure investment continue here in Scotland. I want to see the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs linked to the military in Scotland secured. I want to see the long-term viability of the defence estate in Scotland. I want to see Scotland's role maintained as a central cornerstone of the British army and in the defence of our nation. Despite the conjecture that we have heard from the SNP, we are seeing Scotland at the ffocrum of the British army. In February, the defence secretary confirmed £1.7 billion of additional funding for military bases in Scotland. Faslane is the second biggest single-site employer in Scotland after the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. Direct employment at the base is currently around £6,500, with more thousands dependent on the base for jobs through the supply chain. Furthermore, from 2020, all 11 Royal Navy submarines will be based on the Clyde at Faslane, seeing the number of people directly employed at the base rising to 8,200. Those are jobs that are vital to communities and families in the region that I represent. I thank the member for giving way. Does he share my view that it is important that we support British industry and that he regret for the decision to scrap the Nimrods, which were made in Britain, and that we are now buying maritime aircraft built in the States? We certainly need to support a British industry. One of the ways that we can do that is by encouraging the defence sector here in Scotland. That offers a lot of opportunities for highly skilled, highly paid jobs. If we are going to ensure that defence as a sector continues to thrive, that is going to be something that is key. We want more of those types of jobs that are linked to Scotland—they are good for the economy—and they should be part of the UK industrial strategy going forward. An economic analysis of the Scottish defence sector by the Fraser of Allander Institute revealed that almost 6,000 jobs and £162 million in wages are supported by BAEs yards on the upper Clyde. Almost 4,000 jobs and £150 million in wages are supported by the Recife dockyard in Fife. For every job on the Clyde, there is 1.18 jobs supported across the wider Scottish economy. Scots serving in the British army have also made it overwhelmingly clear that they have no desire to serve in anything other than the British army. We have heard a lot today from the SNP about their opposition to those closures. So, what is their position on the military in an independent Scotland? I have what you have said previously, but I will happily take an intervention just to circumvent some of that. Can I thank the member for taking the intervention? He said that the SNP has said that we are opposing the closures. Can he just make it clear that he started off by saying that he regretted those closures? Do you oppose any of those closures or do you support them all? Mordis Scotland? It was the wrong point of intervention, but nevertheless, Mr Brown, I am sad to see the closures, but I recognise that we have to have a modern fit for purpose building infrastructure to support a modern fit for purpose army. That is required, however unfortunate it is. Now, in the 2014 white paper on independence, the SNP said that an independent Scotland would, and I quote, inherit a share of existing UK defence assets, giving us most of the equipment we need to establish Scotland's defence forces. Last month, we heard from the SNP's defence spokesman that an independent Scotland would start from scratch. Instead, we now hear that the SNP is currently working on a comprehensive, robust, costed and stress-tested defence policy for an independent Scotland. If it is currently working on that, what does that mean for the defence proposals that were put forward in its white paper on independence? Can we therefore assume that those proposals were not comprehensive, not robust, not costed and not stress tested? No-one in this chamber can be under any illusions as to the one thing. Over everything else that is putting defence jobs, defence investment and defence infrastructure spend here in Scotland at risk, the one major impediment to all of that is the SNP, because, like so many individuals across a range of sectors and industries, all those that serve our nation and their families that rely on the military for the livelihood are expendable to the SNP due to their gross obsession with independence. Scotland could be proud of our contribution to the British army. We want to see that relationship continue, and that is why I urge the chamber to support the amendment to the motion in the name of Jackson Carlaw. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Mark Ruskell. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My personal interest in this debate is, of course, as with Richard Lochhead, we are the constituency members who represent Murray in this place here. For Murray, the issue of defence is a very important one, both as an employer and as a wider economic effect. For my own part, I have little in the way of personal connection with matters military. My great-great-grandfather was a driver in the Royal Corps of Drivers and was demobbed because he had become deaf in 1819, and my treble great-grandfather left the HMS Midway in August 1782. That is about it, as far as my family is concerned. Apart from the other six people that I am being encouraged to talk about. The proposed closure of the defence bases and the previous closures of defence facilities such as the RAF presence at RAF Kinloss had a huge disruptive negative impact for communities and families that were part of the bases and interact with them. Defense estates represent a much wider problem in tumultuous time in the world. Defence is needed and must be mobilised against the fight to today's threats. It is no good continuing to invest in defence facilities that represent a response to the nuclear stand-off of the 1950s, 60s, 70s and so on and so forth. I am absolutely amazed to have heard Jackson Carlaw talk of indirectly of the £205 billion for Trident as almost a unigotary amount of money when I can consider what other things might be done. Today, of course, the threats that we face as a country and as the western part of the world altogether are fewer now from states. They are now from non-state actors. They are ideologically and radically based groups that are not attached to particular countries that want to break down our values of freedom and democracy through violence, fear and hateful rhetoric. Nuclear weapons have not deterred a single person in ISIS. They have not deterred North Korea, which Jackson Carlaw referred to. At the end of the day, we have to not only look at the effect on the bases here but that they underline military principles that are driving this, as well as, of course, the dark hand of the UK Treasury. We need effective defence, of course we do, but cutting bases simply to save money does not address the issue of defence in the modern world. We have got to make changes, of course we do. In fact, the reference was made to the battle of Waterloo and the aftermath of that. The army was cut to a third of its size in the three or four years after the battle of Waterloo, and that was disastrous because of some of the things that happened thereafter. It certainly left the UK in a position that it was in the Indies and in the colonies much less able to respond to threats that emerged there. Of course, in Scotland in terms of, I'll take an intervention, Mr Carlaw, if you wish. Jackson Carlaw. I'm prepared to accept that Mr Stevenson may have been at Waterloo. To suggest that the reduction in the armed forces after Napoleon was defeated led to some immediate crisis for Britain's influence across the world thereafter is absolute nonsense. It was 50 years later before the threats that Mr Stevenson is alluding to emerged. Of course, it was the right thing to do. Defence forces must meet the threat. Although he talks about ISIS today, he cannot know what the threats in the next 40 years are going to be. I'm glad that he's read The Art of War, which has the wonderful quote that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. I will agree with Jackson Carlaw that we don't know what the threat might be next week, next year or in five years' time. That is why we need flexibility and diversity in our defence provision, which is obviated by our committing huge proportions of a defence expenditure to a weapon that is incapable of being deployed, i.e. trident. In the modern world, the kind of threats to which we are subject require physical presence adjacent to local threats and a mobile force that can move to where international threats are. In terms of the north of Scotland, the Murray Firth, we've twice in the last five or six years seen the Cousinets off, the biggest military ship in the Russian Navy, moored within so close in to Off Banff, that we could see people with a naked eye and I normally wear glasses without a glasses walking on the deck of the aircraft carrier. That's how close they were in. It took more than 24 hours for any UK military presence to be there to see what the Cousinets off was up to and protect our interests. It is that failure to respond to the real challenges that there are in defence today that underpin the failures that we see in the basing review. Simply spending money on trident means that you don't spend money on the sort of things that we need. The Tories in particular constantly complain about business, education and healthcare budgets, but the budgets for those are dwarfed by the amount of money that they wish to see us spend on trident. That money, for the more that is spent on people in our army, is spent on basis, has wider economic benefit in a way that sending vast amounts of money to the United States for the equipment that is associated with trident and not even receiving the codes that enable us to independently decide to use them is harly supporting the economic interests of this country or indeed the UK as a whole. Of course, we in particular have maritime interests in Scotland. We have substantial fishing interests out to 200 miles. We have substantial oil and gas interests. Despite having all the UK's submarines in Scotland, they are not suitable or useful for responding to the maritime threats that there are to our interests. We have to look at what happens in relation to navy bases. Even the Irish have seven vessels built especially for the purpose of the coastline, a smaller country than Scotland, and they are perfectly illustrative with their two maritime surveillance aircraft of what even small countries can do with more limited resources than we perhaps mind us. Let me go back to what the previous speaker, Morris Golden, said. He was correct. He said that good defence is based on people. I agree with him that we need more of those people located in Scotland contributing to their economies and giving those people stability for their families and friends. I call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare an interest possibly for the last time this chamber as a councillor. I welcome the debate because it touches on a number of important themes. First, the relationship between Governments, the need for respect and collaborative working at local Government, Scottish Government and UK levels to serve the national interest while also respecting the needs of service personnel and the communities that they are embedded in. Secondly, the debate is about ensuring that both the negative impacts of closures on communities are mitigated and that positive regeneration opportunities are realised as MOD assets are released and defence staff are redeployed to other areas. I acknowledge that the process of consultation and dialogue with the Scottish Government has been pretty derisory. It seems that a game of cat and mouse has been continuously played by Westminster to prevent closure campaigns from springing up. Of course, all that has done is to undermine trust with service personnel and communities and encourage rumour. The promise of consultation, stability and certainty offered in the last basing review three years ago has not been honoured. Yes, I accept that changes and rationalisation are essential, but the Westminster Government had an opportunity to bring Scottish ministers to the table around constructive proposals for repurposing sites alongside those. It would have been hard for Scottish ministers to campaign against closing Fort George if they had been built into a partnership to positively transform the asset at an early stage. However, there is little evidence that the Scottish Government has betrayed confidences with Westminster over defence plans in the past, so I do not really understand Westminster's logic about the way that it is operating in consultation with the Scottish Government. Of course, it is not the first time that we have seen the kind of cat and mouse games being played by Tory defence ministers. The surprise national armed forces day that we had in Stirling in 2014 turned into a pre-referendum pantomime competing with the long-plan panic burn live national event less than two miles away—an absolute fast chaos. However, let me turn to the impacts of the closures, which make this respectful partnership working so important and so vital. We have heard almost exclusively in this debate so far about the negative impacts around enclosures, and I certainly recognise and respect the concerns raised by members and their constituents. In the case of the Royal Navy at Recythe, I can understand why the end of a 100-year relationship with the MOD will be daunting for communities in Recythe. However, we also have to recognise that, with this particular basis, it is a hugely underutilised facility that has the capacity to contribute so much more to the economy of central Scotland if we broaden our horizons. Building and maintenance of commercial ferries, the development of freight ports and the reintroduction of passenger ferries, the creation of facilities for use in North Sea decommissioning all have the potential to provide livelihoods at Recythe for generations to come. In many cases, freeing up land and assets that have previously served as military garrisons will meet the very real needs of communities today. Those assets could be transferred to Scottish ministers or councils under city deals, for example. There is already precedent for this in England, where five major sites have been transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency for housing, housing that people desperately need. My colleague Andy Wightman has already raised the possibility of Redford, Barracks and Edinburgh being repurpose for housing. I mean, there are pressures in that constituency, families need homes. Let me raise another exciting opportunity at 4th Side in Stirling, because the MOD has been in the process of moving out of 4th Side now for decades. This once vibrant ancient port connected the city to the river 4th and the trading routes of Europe, but for generations, citizens were barred from entry by the MOD as the area fell into ruin and disrepair. The release of land and buildings here has enabled some regeneration to occur already, and the city deal for Stirling and Clackmannanshire, which the cabinet secretary will be well aware of, will bring focus to a range of exciting projects, including a dynamic hub for third sector organisations and a national centre for building conservation. However, I believe that the missing piece in this regeneration is the Meadow 4th Barracks and the Vehicle Maintenance Depot, a sprawling industrial site right in the heart of the city, a brownfield site that is in public ownership next to rail and bus stations and is zoned for housing in the local development plan. The Scottish Government has in recent years been pushing councils to find extra land for housing, and it has played into the hands of developers who land bank premium green belt land for executive housing that communities do not want and most families cannot afford. However, here we have a site that ticks all the boxes, meeting much of the need for high-quality, high-density mixed affordable housing right in the heart of the city centre. It even has the potential to feed into local plans for a district heating network managed by a municipal energy company that is already under way. I welcome the future for this site, and while I hope that jobs can be retained in Scotland in some way, I will not miss the other use of this site as an overnight lorry park for Trident nuclear warhead convoys. The site of nuclear warhead convoys parked up behind a flimsy fence next to a multiplex cinema and a city centre is one of the serial sites in 21st century Scotland and the disaster movie waiting to happen. The defence basing review will cause communities pain. There may be communities who also emerge as winners too, such as Lucas. However, the Westminster and Scottish Governments must step up together with councils and realise the positive economic and social opportunities that come from turning barracks into homes and swords into plowshares. I call Bruce Crawford to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Presiding Officer, I have already heard that the announcement in November 2016 by the Secretary of State of Defence will reduce the defence estate in Scotland by around 20 per cent, and that will have a significant impact on many areas of Scotland from Fort George, and in Burness, Redford, Barracks and Edinburgh communities will feel the impact both socially and economically. Indeed, that is true in my constituency. The Meadowforth Barracks, currently occupied by the headquarters for the 51st Brigade and Army Scotland, the joint supply chain services and the important defence support group at Forthside will see 172 military and 4 civilian jobs relocated or reassigned by 2022. Meadowforth Barracks have been listed for disposal, but as far as I am aware, no clarity yet exists on where the army personnel will go. The supply chain services and the important defence support group activity will be moved to Lucas. The jobs at Forthside are highly skilled and the workforce contributes to the health of the local economy through the salaries that they earn. The defence support group in particular, which I have seen in operation at first hand, carries out highly skilled work being involved in light and heavy armour vehicle repair and upgrade, wheeled vehicle including light and heavy cargo repair and upgrade. It also works in artillery gunnery, protected patrol vehicles, as well as many other various types of military equipment, and carries out those operations through both in barracks operation and mobile support teams. As you can imagine, that requires a significant investment not only in the workforce, but in the highly competent technical equipment, both mechanical and electronic. So make no mistake, as a result of the loss of the highly skilled workforce, there will be a real impact in the stilling area. However, there are also the social and historical aspects of the decisions that are made by the UK Government. I say this because there is a huge connection in the stilling area between the military and the city, and there will be a great sadness over the closures. It will bring to an end a long and historic direct connection between the stilling and the military. Those things actually do matter. I just need to look at my father in that respect. My father was a member of the Royal House of Cavalry. He wore his Brigade of Guards ties every day of his life, and he was incredibly proud of that tradition that he had. Those things do matter to people. To call those things heritage tours, like Jackson Carlaw did, Jackson did you no favours, neither to the people who served in those regiments in the past, nor to those fantastic facilities that exist at Forsside. Indeed, I am sure that my son, who also served in the RAF, would agree with those comments. Forsside barracks, for instance, have been there for a long time. They were in Ordnais depot in 1899. They became the depot of the Highland, the Argyll and Southern Highlanders before they were located in 1999. As Mark Ruskell has already said, the Robertson trust is now carrying out some commendable work on those old barracks in the city by transforming them into a third sector hub. They will provide accommodation for charitable organisations and social enterprises. That will allow organisations to share space, as well as learning and creativity, and maximise financial efficiency and encourage joint work and innovation. However, the Meadowforth barracks, which is the home to the 51st Infantry Brigade, have already said that it is responsible for all the units of the Army Reserve based in Scotland and an adaptable force brigade. It also provides logistic and administrative support engagement with employers, communities and society and maintains strong links with local government emergency services, and the community provides resilience in times of need. It is the largest brigade in the United Kingdom in terms of geographical areas. It has a remarkable history. It began with the formation of the 17th Northern Division during the First World War and spent its entirety of the war in the hell that was the western front. During the Second World War, it was deployed to France as part of the British Expeditionary Force, which would eventually become the 51st Brigade and fought a famous lone battle as the remainder of that British Expeditionary Force before it was, as others, being forced to retreat towards Dunkirk. For some time, it was asked to hold a line that was four times longer than would normally be expected of a division. In 2002, it took on the responsibility of the whole of Scotland instead of just the Highlands with its headquarters at Meadowforth Barracks. In 2014, the Brigade HQ commanded all the troops deployed to provide support for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. It was a good reason why it did that. Mark Ruskell? I thank the member for giving way. I respect the history and tradition, but we also recognise that there are constituents of yours, families who are living in private sector rented accommodation in the centre of Stirling. Expensive, cold, they need housing, they need places to go. Do you want to take this housing allocation out of the local development plan? If so, where else would you put the houses? Bruce Crawford? No, Mr Ruskell. I think that you better listen to the end of my speech before you go off on a rant a bit, because I accept that the first and first Brigade is going to have to move. It has been already a decision. It is the DSG that you do not understand and need to understand a lot more about what it does. I will come back to that. The central location of Stirling's Barracks has been ensured that, over the years, armed forces have been able to reach parts in Scotland quickly and effectively when needed. Here, I believe that MOD is making a strategic mistake in terms of location, and that is in particular with the Defence Support Group. You could find no better location than Stirling being right at the heart of Scotland for basing that activity. Lookers simply cannot compete in terms of strategic location. The central location is also important for providing support for the annual Stirling military show, and thousands from across Scotland and further afield come for a great day out to say thank you to the armed forces, but with the closure of the Barracks, that long-term future events of that will be unknown. Having been a member of 51st Infantry Scottish Brigade or was previously a Highland Brigade, I know full-side very well indeed, and the introduction of the Defence Support Group contracts, which are currently going on and some of them are in place, one of the reasons for moving it to the lookers is because there is an airhead. Remember that the 51st Highland Brigade, Scottish Brigade, is also an operational brigade as well as a reserve brigade, and therefore it needs access and 24 hours' notice to move with its equipment, and that is one of the reasons that underpinned the move to lookers. Also, the pressure from the council in Stirling, and I know full well for social housing, which Mr Ruskell quite rightly isn't identified, and that was the application of the armed forces and community covenant actually working properly. Mr Crawford, do you have the extra time? I was coming specifically to the Stirling-Clack's city region deal, and there is a good proposal, and I accept that, to transform meadowforth barracks and forthside into a site for housing, business, space and technology centres, and I'm on a rare record in saying that I support that. However, given that the MOD's plans for disposal will not be fully implemented until 2022, any city region deal will have to wait some time before the release of any potential economic benefit or housing site in Stirling for those sites. Given the sheer scale, as Maurice Corry knows, of the size of that site, it's an enormous site, and DSG does not take up that big a proportion of that site in terms of its activity on it. I would argue that there's more than an adequate enough footprint to allow the release of the benefits envisaged by the city region deal and still retain the DSG in particular on that site, and the fantastic skills that it has. It is a mobile unit that can move to service units wherever it is based, so it doesn't have to be in lookers to achieve that. I'm not unlike others. I'm not going to give up and try to hold the DSG in particular in Stirling City, because I think it's located in the right place and it brings amazing skills to our part of the world. Some of the language used by my Tory colleagues, particularly Maurice Golden today, who accused the SNP of making the armed forces expendable, I think was quite a disgraceful thing to say. You know, action is often top louder than words, and I remember very clearly during the Iraq war, soldiers on the front line being sent P45s by the UK Government when they were fighting for their country. That's what you call expendable, so don't you dare accuse us of that here in this chamber? Can I just remind all members, before we move on, that you're not having conversations with each other and should always speak through the chair? Thank you very much. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by Marie Todd. Deputy Presiding Officer, I hope that I can bring a particular perspective to this debate this afternoon, as I've had the great privilege to serve for 15 years in the army before I became embroiled in Scottish politics. Indeed, after graduating from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, my very first posting was to the Scottish Infantry Training Depot at Glencoast Barracks. I spent two years there training our infantry soldiers before they joined our seven infantry regiments. Yes, those were the days when we had seven infantry regiments in Scotland. If I can just gently say to Stuart Stevenson, who is probably obviously away from the chamber at the moment, but I'm sure he can read the official report, I have to say that there is nothing new in the idea that Scottish recruits are being sent to join infantry regiments and vice versa. In my time, there were many English and Welsh and, indeed, commonwealth recruits to the Scottish infantry at Glencoast and others, so it's absolutely nothing new. If I can return to what I was about to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, I was sorry to find that the Conservative Government seems intent on locking the doors to the refurbished Glencoast Barracks sometime in the next 15 years, and not just at Glencoast. Many communities across the country are set to see their close ties to our armed forces severed, with a subsequent loss of the economic benefits associated with having a local base nearby. For decades, Liberal Democrat MPs and MSPs have fought to keep bases like Fort George and Lucas open, and we succeeded. Unfortunately, our current contingent of SNP MPs at Westminster have seemingly failed to hold much influence—there are groans, but it seems to meet him in an obvious statement—much failed to hold much influence over the UK Government in that regard. I wonder what Scotland's 50 or so SNP MPs can actually achieve down in Westminster, because they do not seem to have achieved much in that regard. To some extent, there is a symptom of the confrontation between the SNP Government in Scotland and the UK Government in the UK. I wish that both Governments could work more closely together without… There we are. Let's move on from that. I was trying to say that perhaps. Let's not forget. Let's not forget that, as part of the UK, Scotland benefits from levels of security and protection that the SNP could not hope to replicate in independent Scotland. Those are the facts, but let me be clear. I support the strengthening of the so-called regional hubs, Lucas, Lossy Mouth and HM naval base at the Clyde. They are real assets, and it makes good sense to have such a concentration on three major centres. It makes good sense in military terms, it makes good logistical sense, and I want to say that it makes particularly good sense for our service families who will face less of the continual disruption to family life that service in our armed forces entails. For example, in my own experience in nine years of married life in the army, my wife and I lived in eight different army married quarters. That was not unusual. The turbulence involved in serving in the army for personnel is great, and anything that can help to stabilise family communities has to be a good thing. I know that my colleague, Willie Rennie, has welcomed the prospect of the Black Watch of Three Scots coming home to their traditional recruiting grounds in Fife, and I wanted to put that on record. However, we do need the scale of investment planned for these bases if we are to ensure that the defence capabilities that they provide can compete with modern developing threats. Just as the dangers that we have faced in the era of the Cold War have moved on, we must ensure that our capabilities move on with them. It is sensible to scale back older capabilities that are not well adapted to the 21st century threats that we face. However, changes need to be made with great care, and in this instance, serious questions remain about whether the investment in these three bases necessitates to closures elsewhere that are planned in Scotland. Is it sensible to completely close our defence establishments, such as at Glencours and Fort George, just to name two? What thought has been given to using these barracks for the reserve forces? What thought has been given to other military uses that these bases can provide? In addition, the changes to our military estate in Scotland should be the subject of a proper impact assessment, and any community that does ultimately lose out and will lose out must see significant transitional support and investment. I hope that the UK Government and the Scottish Government could work together to achieve that. The debate this afternoon has been in danger at some points of moving off into almost a debate on military strategy. We had the issues of the independent nuclear deterrent raised. We even had an intervention on the battle of Waterloo and the remnants of the army scaled down at that point. I thought that that was rather bizarre, since the subjects we seem to be talking about. We also had Stuart Stevenson's traditional, if I can put it this way, reference to his family tree going back right through to the 19th century. We had interesting diversions from this debate, but let's focus, and I want to close and concluding on what this debate is all about. It's about the estate strategy of the UK Government, but it will not be implemented overnight. The changes that Fort George and Glencours are scheduled for 15 years' time. That's a long time. That's why it's essential that the next UK Government, the one that's about to take government after the 8th of June, takes time to get these reforms right and ensures that they're not driven by short-term thinking, but by how it's best to maintain our long-term defence capabilities throughout the UK. Thank you. We still have a little time in hand for interventions. Marie Todd to be followed by Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me start by giving a loud thank you to Mike Rumbles for his cross-party endorsement of my colleague Angus Robertson MP, the Highland MP who has managed to secure the future of his defence base in his constituency of Murray. Thank you very much, Mike Rumbles. I'm sure that your support will be very welcome, although unnecessary, as his seat is very secure. Those brutal cuts to the defence footprint in Scotland, including the closure of Fort George, are of particular concern to my constituents in the Highlands and Islands. The uncertainty for the folks in Murray, as the threat of closure hung over Kinlos, just a couple of years after promises were made to the communities, was tough, but at least it will be saved. Mr Ross, I think that it's quite clear that Marie Todd is not going to give way. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At least it will be saved for the time being. The impact on the Highlands of closing Fort George will be really tough to absorb, and no-one is relishing the prospect of a long, slow decline. Fort George might have been built to quash rebellious Highlanders, but it is now part of the fabric of our communities in Ardysir, Nairn, Inverness and in the wider Highlands. Many Highland and Island families, including my own, have personal connections with it. During the great wars of last century, almost every family in the Highlands will have had a relative pass through the base on route to the wars in Europe. For the communities affected, this has been a devastating announcement. For decades, we have witnessed the decline of the military presence in the Highlands and, indeed, in Scotland. Closing Fort George will mean that the military no longer has a meaningful presence in the Highland Council area, an area that is larger than Wales. It is impossible to see how the MOD can maintain a footprint across the whole of the UK by entirely removing the army from the Highlands. The MOD has a self-stated core responsibility to protect power strategically and defensively, and this cannot be achieved by leaving such a vast and strategically important area without a military presence. The Highlands have suffered centuries of depopulation. We need people. There will be a serious social impact when the personnel move away from the base. There are 500 black-watched troops based in Fort George in the surrounding area. It is estimated that half of the children at Regmore Primary in Inverness are from military families. Fort George is a well-established part of the community, regularly hosting charity events and supporting veterans. MSF is a big rugby fan, and the contribution that Fort George has made to the fortunes of the Highland Rugby Club is huge. Closing the garrison will leave a gaping hole in the community, not least by leaving 200 empty homes in a part of the country that, as I said, has suffered from depopulation. It will severely impact on families who have put down their roots in the region and made lives in the local community. It is therefore no surprise that there is strong community and public support in retaining Fort George as an active military barracks. Before the announcement was made, Drew Henry MP, in whose constituency Fort George lies, who I can assure you is another Highland MP with a very safe seat, organised a meeting at which both Margaret Davidson, leader of the Highland Council and myself met Sir Michael Fallon at the Ministry of Defence to outline the impact that the loss of the barracks would have on the local economy. Drew Henry has continued to work behind the scenes with other MPs from different parties, even Tory MPs, who believe that it is a wrong-headed approach to offer an urgent rethink. Later this month, they hope to deliver joint petitions to the MOD, calling for an urgent reversal of those plans, although Tuesday's announcement may make a difference to that. As I mentioned, the Highlands has a long military tradition, and the contribution may have made significantly to armory recruitment, especially in comparison to other parts of the country. The centralisation of the armed forces is likely to cause the recruitment contribution in the Highlands to dwindle as a result of the local communities having no identification with the army. The closure of Fort George will deal an almighty blow to the Highland economy and will ultimately affect thousands of local people. Highland Council estimates that more than 700 job losses will result from the army vacating Fort George and approximately 20 million loss of income to the local economy. We know from the MOD's own figures that Fort George is the most effective place to run. Fort George has the lowest maintenance bill of all Scotland's main infantry bases, according to figures obtained by the press and journal. Therefore, there is very little evidence or justification that closing Fort George will save the MOD money. Finally, and this is an important point, those cuts raise serious questions about the defence priorities of the UK Government, which can afford to renew Trident at the cost of hundreds of billions of pounds, but is intended to sell off conventional bases around the country. The UK Government is attempting to save a billion by closing down dozens of barracks and cutting civilian jobs at the top pay for the price of a highly irresponsible and dangerous nuclear deterrent that the people of the Highlands, such as the rest of Scotland, do not want. That is yet another example of the Highland people's voices being ignored by Westminster, and I told Sir Michael Fallon exactly that when I met him in London. The wider Highlands offer a superb training environment for infantry and special forces, and I warned that it would not be popular in the Highlands to remove the people, but to continue to visit for training exercises and to use the bombing ranges and not to mention the impact that the controversial Trident nuclear submarine has with its presence in our waters. The butec range for submarine exercises off Applecross was expanded in the past few years with a huge impact on local fishermen. There is a new cable being laid from there up to the butt of Lewis again. Much like the review, without consultation, notice or even apparently consideration of the impact on the fishermen who make their living in the Minch. They do not even know if they are going to be able to fish there after its lead. I have to finish by admitting that I have been contacted by a very small number of people who say that they are glad to see the British Army leave Fort George. As I mentioned before, it was built to quash Highland rebellion in the aftermath of the 1707 union between England and Scotland, which was, and I quote the BBC here, it was highly unpopular with the vast majority of the population of Scotland. Sir Michael Fallon himself says that Fort George is no longer needed because the Highlanders are no longer rebelling. Well, let's hope that David Stewart is nearer the truth of the situation and the people of the Highlands stand up and say no to this decision. Edward Mountain, to be followed by Graeme Dey. Presiding Officer, thank you. I would like to declare an interest in defence, not just because I was a soldier for 12 years but my son is still a serving soldier. Therefore, the comments that I base my speech on this afternoon is based on my experiences and that is how I am looking at the defence rebasing. Can I say at the outset that I think that the Government's motion for this debate shows the Government's true colours and their real obsession, which has nothing to do with defence. It shows their indifference to the real issue, which is really what is good for our servicemen. Let me be clearer to argue purely an economic case for the UK defence policy is misplaced. The question that we should be addressing is what is good for our service personnel. What is critical is how we ensure their professionalism and that, I'm afraid, will not be achieved by sending them to remote barracks. It is simply not credible to argue that the fundamental requirement for basing is to ensure equality around the UK. To do so, in my mind, is pure art, smacks of localism and nationalism. What really matters is ensuring that soldiers are based close to training areas, close to the formations they will deploy with and, if possible, close to the families from where they come. For example, an example where it doesn't work, soldiers in Inverness need to travel to training areas that are in England, possibly as far as Salisbury Plain, or Osiburn in Northumberland to carry out unit-scale training or range practices. The simple fact is that increased travel time reduces training time. Reduced training time leads to less effective service personnel. Let me ask those who want to base and promote historical basing a straightforward question. Can you honestly say that you are happy to deploy service personnel into war zones who haven't had sufficient training time due to your needs to base them in remote locations? I'll certainly take an intervention from an ex-soldier like me. As a parent of a soldier who deployed to a police station recently in Hellman, I'm no different to any other parent who has soldiers deployed on active service. You cannot justify that argument. You won't be able to justify it, and I'm afraid you are wrong, very wrong. I'll take an intervention from the minister. Keith Brown Can I thank everyone for taking intervention and just clarify that I've never been a soldier as well, just to make that point clear. On the point that he made about people being close to training facilities, Marie Torridge explained the training facilities that are in the Highlands. Barry Budden has been mentioned. What has been sought here is to take away people from those military training establishments and make them remote from them. Does he, as it appears to be the case, not oppose any of those closures? What is the difference between English Tories who are happy to oppose the closures in England and all the Scots Tories here who are happy to support every closure that is put forward by the MOD in Scotland? Edward Mountain I thank the minister for that. First of all, if you talk about training areas around in Monass, let's be honest, the bombing ranges at Tain are a very small-scale training area, which, due to the nature of the ground that is on, does not allow the units at Fort George to deploy in their vehicles, which is their primary form of asset, and only allows infantry soldiers in small-scale groups of no more than platoon, possibly company strength, to deploy. It means that they cannot undertake unit training. The only places that they can undertake full unit regimental training are places such as Ottoborn and Salisbury Plain. I'm sorry, I thought you were a soldier, you were a marine, which I think is subtly different, but we still served under the same flag. Now, let's look at some of the facts if we were. In 1980, when I joined up to the army in the army, there were about 200,000 soldiers. It's now reduced to just below 82,000. The navy has reduced in size and so has the air force, and there's no doubt that, as a result of that, the defence estate needs to change, and reduction and rationalisation is right. We have an opportunity, and I'm going to use a phrase that I've heard somebody else use, or once in a generation opportunity, and by that I mean that, to rationalise the defence estate, moving units to where they can collocate with informations where they will serve. We need to do this not only to reduce costs, but also to improve the retention of soldiers. Because Mr Todd wouldn't allow me to come in, Fort George cast £1.6 million a year in maintenance. It's probably one of the most expensive bases in the UK to maintain, and I'm very happy to produce the letters from the Ministry of Defence to prove that. Moving on, it is sensible to me, if possible, to build new barracks in more appropriate locations, which could be funded from selling the older barracks. It's also sensible to maintain the barracks that are fit for purpose. Today, and not hundreds of years ago, as Mr Carlawd said, current service personnel expect more from their barrack accommodation than they did when I joined. Quite rightly, no longer are 10-person barrack rooms acceptable. A style of fats with single rooms and shared communal facilities are now the norm, and it's clear where those facilities are not available, retaining soldiers is difficult. We would not be expected to put up with that form of accommodation, so why should we ask them to? Simply put, training with good facilities, co-located with units that regiments will deploy with, makes sense. It will increase effectiveness, and I would humbly suggest that, ultimately, that could save lives, and that is important. I'm running short of time. I'm happy to take an intervention. Christine Grahame Mr Mountain agree with me that his reference to accommodation does not apply to Glyn Cors barracks, where there's proper accommodation, domestic accommodation, for families recently refurbished. Edward Mountain I would have to take the member's word for that. I'm afraid that I haven't been in to every barracks. I've been in to the other barracks at Penicut, where my son was stationed with two Scots, but I haven't been actually in to Glyn Cors barracks, so I would have to defer to the member on that. Frankly, I think that we should be careful about getting over-emotional about buildings in the same way that we do about regiments. I was delighted to learn this afternoon that Mr Crawford and I have a connection in the fact that I think that it was your grandfather who served with the household cavalry. Father, I indeed served with the household cavalry, and that is where my son joins. That's not what the debate about is this afternoon. We are not talking about losing regiments. I'm proud, and I think that we should all be proud, that Scotland provides more than the fair share of the UK's armed forces. Now, I want to talk specifically, if I may, about Fort George, which is within the region that I represent. It's a pretty impressive place to store barrels of gunpowder and protect supply routes, as Mary Todd said in the event of a Highland Rebellion. It's a pretty unimpressive place for modern soldiers to be based. Poor accommodation, appalling internet, lack of large local training areas, limited public transport to Inverness, and significant separation from the family and friends from the backwatch, who are indeed a perthshire regiment. You can see why that regiment and other regiments that have been based there suffer from retention problems. The announced closure of Fort George in 2032, I believe, offers some significant opportunities. Currently the fort is a visitor attraction, and I think that we can build on that. I would campaign to keep the museum that we have there and then look at all the other possible options for the fort. The positive fact is that we've got 15 years to construct a workable plan. With that in mind, I'd like to announce that in the last few months I've been working hard liaising with Mark Lancaster MP, the MP who's dealing with the rebasing on the subject of Fort George. We both agree that we need to establish a working group of local politicians and businesses to work out how the fort and service accommodation that is available in Inverness can best be developed to serve those in the Highlands. In closing, the question that I'd like to ask other Highland MSPs from other political parties is whether they are prepared to join me and my colleagues in this endeavour to do something with Fort George, rather than sitting ineffectually on the sidelines debating whether a 300-year-old fort is the right place to base soldiers in the 21st century. I call Graeme Deyde, followed by Maurice Corry. For a broader RM Condor, there's a touch of deja vu about all of this. No sooner have we digested the detail of a basing review, had a pronouncement from the UK Government over the future of the facility then fresh uncertainty emerges. Just five months ago, the results of the latest basing review were announced and we were told that whilst the airfield at RM Condor was to be sold, the remainder of the facility in my constituency was safe from the axe. As I said when the cabinet secretary made his initial statement on the outcome of the review, I do wonder from a commercial perspective who might want to buy an airfield within a marine base given the likely security restrictions. However, let's recognise that taking account the closure notices being served in Fort George, Glen Cors and the Redford Barracks, among others, and Scotland losing one-fifth of its defence estate, there was a sense of relief locally. In shortly before the parliamentary recess, the bureau scheduled this debate, I wonder from a moment whether others might have more relevant contributions to make to it than myself, but then came the revelations in the Times newspaper that the MOD was facing a £10 billion shortfall and a financially struggling Royal Marines would be reduced in size and capability. And off we go again. The story claimed that the most direct impact would fall on 42 commando, which is based in Plymouth, with a unit taking on a training role, rather than an acting in rotation with 48 and 45 commando, which is based in Arbroath, but we were also told that 200 marines would be lost to the service by failure to replace it. When the defence secretary appeared in the Andrew Marsh show, he failed to roll out cutting the number of marines in general. Earlier this year on a visit to Condor, Michael had insisted that the base was safe. I suspect that the UK Government would, if you asked him today, be standing by that commitment. However, it is worth considering the implications of comments made a few weeks ago by Sir Michael on a visit to RMB Chivener, home to the Commando Logistics Regiment, which it had been announced as set to close under the basing review. He claimed that no final decision had been reached as yet, but he significantly pointed out that the airfield there was no longer in use, and he went on. The overall intent, and I want to be honest about that, is to move units towards Plymouth and Devonport. The fact that an airfield is dispensed with is used to help justify closure, sitting alongside an acknowledgement that the direction of travel for the Royal Marines—we have all known that for some time—is consolidation in the south of England. My MP colleague Mike Weir has called on the defence secretary to spell out the genuine long-term plans for Condor. I back that call for economic and security reasons. Like the cab set, Mike Weir and I fear chipping away at the viability of the base, especially with the artillery battery already being earmarked for removal. Maurice Golden maintained the Conservatives constitutional obsession, heart back to the last independence referendum. Sir Michael's predecessor, Philip Hammond, also made a flying visit to Condor during the run-up to 2014, to commit to the future of the base. Three years on, we and Angus are anxious to learn whether that commitment meant anything or might turn out to be yet another of those broken, better-together promises. Before anyone suggests, that is scaremongering. Let me point out some of the recent history pertaining to Condor. We were here before, in 2004, as the MOD reviewed Condor's status under a rationalisation programme. Then its future was looked at again in 2009, before it was concluded that at a cost of £60 million to £100 million, relocating 4.5 commander to the south-west of England was, and I quote, inappropriate and unaffordable. Two years later, though, as the MOD sought to address a funding shortfall via a strategic defence review, we were told that the Marines would make that very move, albeit with an army unit moving into Condor. Then we got to 2013, and it emerged that the switch had been abandoned, because moving 4.5 commander to the south did not represent value for money and the army did not require the Arboroth facility for a base. Now the airfield is to go with the potential consequences that it might have. By any measure, the UK Government's approach to Condor is haphazard and unsettling, and so on, fair on the Marines and their families. On the subject of fair treatment, let's consider another aspect to this issue, namely the responsibility that the UK Government any Government has to ensure that service bases are properly maintained. Earlier this year, it was claimed that the Royal Signal's new recruits were trying to grapple with complex signalling equipment, but it was so cold that training was being hindered. Chronic boiler failures at the RAF headquarters in High and Wickham had forced more than 120 personnel to live with intermittent hot water and signal heating for three years. There were problems at the Royal Artillery barracks in Woolwich. This article followed on from the story that revealed that crumbling boilers at the home of the foot guards in Central London were forcing soldiers to perform ceremonial duties at Buckingham Palace, despite not having showered for days. Since immerse the guardsmen, they have been using both their field issues, sleeping bags and normal bed clothes in an effort to keep warm at night. Last year, the Westminster Public Accounts Committee described contractor Caryllian Amy as, quote, badly letting down service families and that its performance was totally unacceptable. However, a Caryllian Amy source told the Telegraph that problems were being exacerbated because the MWD preferred to commission what the source described as firefighting repairs rather than paying to replace outdated equipment on any significant scale. Why do I highlight those essential English issues? Because they have actually spilled over into Scotland. When personnel returned to RM Condor after Christmas, they discovered that there was no hot water or heating in some of the quarters. Two boilers had conked out. Whilst the repairs in one block were carried out by February, the repairs in the other took until March. I do not know about you, but I do not think that that is acceptable. It is an acceptable situation for a military personnel to find themselves in. You see, up our way, we hold our service personnel in high regard. David Stewart was right to speak about the social commonand. Yes, there will be the odd flare-up in the community and social settings, but overall, the relationship between the Marines and the local public is a good one. Just a few weeks ago, 4.5 Commando used their freedom of anger status to parade through our broth to commemorate being based there for 45 years. That honour was given to them in 2003 in recognition of the long service and close association that the unit has enjoyed with the area. Unfortunately, the parade took place on a parliamentary sitting day, so I was unable to attend. However, the debate affords me an opportunity to place my support for 4.5 Commando in the record. They are part of the fabric of our broth within wider Angus, when many former Marines and their families choose to remain in the area when their service comes to the end. It is entirely appropriate that the current Marines have the opportunity to mark their strong connection with the area by marching through the town centre, but we in Angus expect the MOD and the UK Government, any UK Government, to have the same regard for this unit, to provide them with the facilities that are appropriate. Let me acknowledge that, in light of the recent problems and might-wears intervention, the MOD has now committed to replacing some other boilers on the base. Most importantly of all, when they did grave certainty over their future, so I look forward to them responding to my MP colleagues' call. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Christine Grahame. Deputy Presiding Officer, thank you. The debate can become rather emotional, as we have people with experience in the armed forces and those who are not. However, it is very important to understand that, at the heart of it, is the needs of our soldiers, airmen and seamen in our armed forces who serve and put their lives on the line in many cases. Not only that, but the families. That is something that is near and dear to my heart. As a councillor in our Garland butte council and also the armed forces of veterans champion with the council, I know how important it is that the armed forces community council, a covenant, was implemented in June 2011 by a Conservative Government. It is seen by the then Prime Minister how important it was that we had a commitment to the armed forces and their families. During my military service, I continually experienced the rebasing of units myself and how we had to adapt constantly to the threat that was before us. As you have already been said, covering the 424,000 hectares, which is nearly 2 per cent of United Kingdom's entire land mass and costing £2.5 billion a year to maintain, it must be recognised within the context that I have said that the ministry of defence state is now too large and unwieldy to manage and is no longer matches the requirements of our world class 21st century military force. Although the size of the armed forces has been reduced by around 30 per cent since the start of the century, the defence state has only reduced in size by 9 per cent, and we have got too much land mass under our management. In the long term, those trends are completely unsustainable, and we must recognise that something has to be done to fix this problem. For example, Redford and Calvary barracks are no longer large enough for the accommodating of larger units that we have such as air assault battalions and brigades, battle groups and all their equipment, which is phenomenal. Whereas Dreghorn barracks is a more modern barracks, has had a lot of investment recently and is also available to be expanded, and those, I quote, are the words of the Secretary of State for Defence to me. This means that reductions have to be made in the estate no matter how difficult the task may be. I can assure you that we must have the correct amount of real estate to match those needs, and that is very important. We must create a defensive state that is more efficient and a state that helps our armed forces to deliver more effective capability in the military sense. That must be the sole objective of deciding where the military bases should be based. That applies to the regular and reserved forces, and in particular, as I said earlier in one of my interventions, is access to air fuels and ports so that we have a ready capability of notice to move at 24 hours, 48 hours, for which the politicians would require us to move as armed forces, and that is terribly important. The operational need and requirements must be taken into consideration. It is important that bases are fit for our armed forces. They deserve world-class bases to operate from. In fact, tomorrow I meet with the command team from Faslane to start plans for developing a sports hub for the military and civilian communities in Helensborough to enhance the health and state of our submarine forces personnel. The fact that currently over 40 per cent of the Ministry of Defence-built assets are more than 50 years on old is not right, and we need to adjust that. No longer should our troops be required to use barracks and grade A-listed buildings, like for George's, and I know it well. You will all have read the tunes of Glory and Private McClewsman and all that, but I have experienced that myself. They do need to change. A wonderful place it might be, fantastic history, but we need to move on, and they are very extensive to maintain. Keith Brown I thank Maurice Corry for taking intervention and just to try to get some clarity on this point, I am generally puzzled how it can be the case that every single Conservative parliamentarian here supports all the closures, and yet in England many Conservative parliamentarians are working with other parties to oppose closures. How can they all be right in Scotland? What is happening? What is the difference between Scotland and the rest of the country in that regard? Maurice Corry I think that the English situation may be slightly different. I am not aware of it entirely, but as far as Scotland, that is what this Parliament is addressing, as Scottish matters. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, that is our view, taken as a group, and we are putting our things forward. That is where we are. I will not address the English issues. That is exactly what it is. Yes, I will. David Stewart The member recently just said that what is crucially important is access to ports and airports. Does he not recognise that for George's got excellent access to both? Maurice Corry It may have a port, but it is not big enough for the requirement. Most importantly, we must listen to our soldiers. I have listened to our soldiers of Three Black Watch, my old regiment. They want to be more closer to their regimental area of Fife and Perth and into Edinburgh. We need to take that into cognisance as well. David Stewart The member made a very distinct statement about the port not being large enough. I have quite a lot of experience dealing with Inverness harbour and other harbours in Hanson islands. Can you evidence that fact? I have not had that picked up. There has been any opportunity where Inverness harbour has not been large enough to cope with MED requirements. Can you evidence that point for a Parliament? Maurice Corry I would like to look into that, but as far as I am concerned, the most of the movement is air-portable now. That is why we have C17s, the galaxy-equipment heavy-lift aircraft in, and that is why Kinloss and Lossy Malthus, particularly Lossy Malthus, are so important for that area. That is the main move that is my air. Most importantly, it is important to think of the soldiers to bring them closer to their regimental area of Three Black Watch. No soldier can be expected to sleep inside monuments built to fight the Jacobite rebellions. The strategy announced by the Secretary of State for Defence will see this come to an end, and that is not before time. Thanks to the savings from the Ministry of Defence's state optimisation strategy, there is going to be an investment of over £4 billion across the UK of which £1.7 billion for basis here in Scotland, as has been said already, will provide more jobs and opportunities for people right across Scotland. The £1.3 billion upgrade to the HMS Naval Base Clyde, soon to be the home of the entire submarine force, which will see upgrades into its waterfront and engineering support facilities, et cetera, and combination. Indeed, I said physical security and also health projects, which I mentioned about tomorrow, and the arrival of the dreadnought class of submarines arriving in Scotland. The £3.6 million of that, of which is being used to examine the best option of developing a new submarine school at the HMS Naval Base Clyde, which I have been quite involved in in my councillor role in securing that coming to that area. That will mean that we will see the current military and civilian jobs at HMS Naval Base Clyde rising from the current number of 6,800 by nearly 2,000 to around 8,200 by 2022. Good news to the entire region of my west of Scotland region. Thanks to this UK Government commitment, Scotland will become the home of Britain's submarine fleet and its training centre. The further £400 million that we know is to be invested in RAF Lossy Mouth, which will see its runways and taxiways, et cetera, and the accommodation upgraded. All the time, we are saying accommodation upgraded. We are thinking of our servicemen and our troops very much in this case and what is going to be good for them as well, and the anticipation of the nine Poseidon P8 maritime patrol aircraft and the additional typhoons that are coming. It continues to host one of the RAF's three fast jet main operating bases, and by 2024 will lead to at least 400 extra personnel-based RAF Lossy Mouth as a result of the marine patrol aircraft base and the additional typhoon squadron. Lucas Station will again be expanded to become the main hub. That is a very interesting point, because we are upgrading our railways and therefore it is important that we have that to make sure that we can move some heavy moves and heavy equipment and home to one of the Army's operational engagement and resilient infantry brigades based at Lucas. This consolidation of the defence state in Scotland, as I have highlighted, is allowing the United Kingdom to invest significantly in better facilities to support the men and women of our armed forces and also to address the needs of our defence forces both here at home and in the Homeworld events role and overseas as well. That means that we can focus on giving troops the equipment that they need to get the job done and use the money effectively that we can save. Looking at our efficient way, we will look at our defence estate and our bases. The Secretary of State has received his advice from the defence chiefs, the people who know what is needed operationally. That is something that the Prime Minister constantly says when she refers to any defence matters. She listens to her defence chiefs, the experts in the field. As is noted in the amendment before by my colleague Jackson Carlaw, thanks to our conservative government, Scotland's industry will benefit massively from access to UK defence procurement spending. In Scotland, the defence procurement spending applies to 11,000 people. Can you start to come to a close, please? Therefore, the defence support group, such as that has been mentioned, and the reason that Stirling is no longer going to exist, the 26th command work job, is because the DSG contract, the defence support group contract, is bringing the jobs into the bases close to the units. That is the modern way of doing it. All of which the SNP will put in jeopardy with independence. That is a long-term employment for the future. For example, McTaggart-Scott employed 32 apprenticeships. You must come to a close, please, Mr Corry. That is a long-term commitment that the UK Government is making in the highly skilled jobs here in Scotland and also helping its veterans. The aim.no.d has signed the contract with BA systems, as you know. Mr Corry, you really must come to a close. That investment is also in the type 26s. It is thanks to our Conservative Government making Scotland a defence priority that Scotland will continue to lead the way and defending our country from air and sea. That is why I am supporting Jackson Carlaw's amendment. It would help if members would draw breath occasionally to allow me to come in and ask them to close. We move to the last of the open speeches. It is Christine Grahame, who I am sure will be very disciplined. I am pleased to take part in the debate. Perhaps it is ironic timing that a parliamentary visit programme was launched yesterday by the Presiding Officer, encouraging MSPs to visit defence bases to learn more about the issues that are facing service personnel and their families. The aim of the programme is for MSPs to better understand the range of social and welfare issues relevant to armed forces personnel and their families within their community if only the MOD would do the same. I shall visit the issues that are faced by service personnel and their families in the light of the pro-host closure of Glencoast barracks in my constituency. Incidentally, it has been referred to home to the army for some 150 years, currently home to 552 service personnel and very much part of the penny cook and Midlothian community, and why not after 150 years. Indeed, when the soldiers have returned from Afghanistan or wherever they have been in areas of conflict, there has always been a parade through penny cook. The first notice of this proposed closure was by letter on 7 November 2016 to me the day of the announcement. The same is true for my colleague, Owen Thomson MP. I find the words in the Tory amendment and I quote, quote, believes that the UK Government should continue to engage fully with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local communities on the review. Quite strange. There was no engagement and this has only occurred subsequently in response to contact from elected representatives such as myself. Impact on the local economy is significant, but I say to Maurice Corry that it is the decanting of families from a community where they are welcome and settled which causes concern, and here again I turn to the Tory amendment. Quotes, has the sensible aims of updating the defence estate to be more capability-focused and better suited to the needs of modern armed forces. The same line is repeated in the letter to me from Mark Lancaster MP parliamentary undersecretary of state of 5 December last year in response to my correspondence, which says, quotes, much of the infrastructure is old, inefficient and no longer able to meet the needs of the armed forces or, as Jackson Carlaw would put it to paraphrasem, part of a heritage tour. Yet, in 2003-2005, there was, as others have said, a 60 million upgrade of Glencorse, which was hailed by the MOD Quotes as a benchmark accommodation, with associated facilities for soldiers and their families, a gym, squash courts and a sports field. A short walk from the camp, there are 150 houses, including officer service family accommodation and two specifically adapted bungalows for wheelchair users. There are three and four bedroomed houses with garages and fence gardens. The children attend more as we primary have done for generations, and recently the wives there and the partners, who quite often are disengaged and unable to take employment because of the peripatetic nature of the armed forces, have got involved in a programme from Women's Enterprise Scotland, a start-up programme where they begin to develop businesses for themselves. I have seen this in action, as has the cabinet secretary, and it has funding again from the Enterprise Scotland, and it has funding from the business gate in Midlothian. It builds confidence in the women and the take-up businesses. This is a community so much part of Midlothian, so much supported by it, with accommodation that is well fit for purpose, which is quite disgraceful. It should be on a hit list. To just say that it is in 2032 that it will be closed means nothing. There is no guarantee that it will be that far away. In the meantime, what is going to happen to the maintenance of those facilities and the morale of the families within it? Why close? The answer cannot be the unfitness of the estate—I have just said that. No, frankly, it is to raise money by selling off these prime sites for housing developments, which, in the big defence picture of the billions being committed to trying, is quite farcical. The UK has not a good track record of looking after its servicemen and women and their families during and indeed after conflict. It even got to the point in the First Iraq war when soldiers did not even have proper footwear, and food parcels were being sent to them from their families. Fast forward to the second Iraq conflict, and they were sent out into minefields in vehicles with an underbelly that offered no protection for IEDs. The MOD has had to be shamed into the care and support of returning service personnel. There are too many ex-service personnel living rough on our streets and park benches or rehoused in our prisons. Of course, Scotland on the plus side was also promised, apart from trident renewal, the building of type 26 frigates, securing work on the Clyde, under threat if we voted for independence. That has now been cut to eight and work not started. No surprises then. I quote from the report, restoring the fleet, naval procurement and the national shipbuilding strategy. It is clear to us that delays in the constructs of the type 26 have had a negative impact on the development of the workforce on the Clyde. Closure of Glenchores and other barracks fits into a picture of Scotland's primary role of defence, which is to house weapons of mass destruction well away from the south-east but just 20 miles from the biggest city in Scotland and the rest empty promises and expediency. In the meantime, those weapons of mass destruction are useless against the committed terrorists with the legal backpacks sitting on the bus or the lorry driven into the crowd. Never mind, we should sleep sound in our beds at night because it is only Donald Trump who has his finger on the trident trigger. But when the chips are down, let us just send our troops into those conflict zones where we as politicians have failed and perhaps just perhaps they might have the right boots on their feet and vehicles that are not death traps. As with our accommodation on return, the MOD knows best. As for Glenchores, with closure hanging over it, what is going to happen over those years? In the meantime, all the local politicians, with the exception of the Tories, councillors, MPs, MSPs and myself, with the entire community, will stand up and speak for the military personnel when they cannot for obvious reasons speak up for themselves. We now move to the closing speeches, disappointing to note that not all those who participated are back in the chamber for the start of those. I call David Stewart up to seven minutes, please, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that this has been an excellent debate with thoughtful and insightful contributions from across the chambers. Some members, such as Mike Rumbles, Maurice Corry and Edward Mountain, are ex-serving personnel in the armed forces. I believe that their contribution mirrored the depth and the range of their significant experience in their previous occupations. However, other members without military experience, but with passion and commitment, spoke about the importance of the military footprint in Scotland. The cabinet secretary kicked off our debate by talking about the 20 per cent reduction in defence estate, the diminishing of the footprint in Scotland and the role of the regional hubs. He was also concerned about the issue of the secondary field in Albroth and the fact that, at large parts of Scotland, there would be no footprint at all of the army. It is also useful that the cabinet secretary raised the issue of the working party with local authorities. I will be very interested to hear the outcome of that. Jackson Carlaw confirmed perhaps a club with me of people from our school days who failed to join the RAF, so perhaps we should form a support group to counsel ourselves about our change of a career at the wrong time. On a serious point, he raised important issues from the 2015 strategic defence review and the 91 sites that were earmarked for closure. Gordon MacDonald, like many other members in Parliament today, talked about base closures in his local area with passion and commitment, and talked about the importance of keeping army barracks in his constituency. I think that Maurice Golden made some valid points at the start of his contribution about recognising the historic reputation of the work that the men and women of our armed forces carry not just now but in the past as well, and in a general level talked about the importance of getting the defence infrastructure right in the future, which is a long-term plan. Stuart Stevenson has always entertained and raised an issue that I have common cause in, which is the impact of the armed forces, particularly the RAF, in the Moray area. As always, he had a family relative that he could claim in. I think that it was 1890, if I got my figures right. I will go back to school and remember the dates at a better time. He made a valid point about the threats in the future of non-state actors, the worries about violence, fear and hatred, the concerns about ISIS and North Korea, and the importance of the mobile forces. He might have slightly misquote the reference, but he made the point, as was made by a famous German military strategist, that no plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy. Mark Ruskell also made some very valid points about the relationship between Governments, not just national, but the important role of local government. I note that this is probably his last meeting before he gives that being a councillor, so I will not have to express any interest on that in the future. We need to look at, when bases are going to close, irrespective of the companion that has been done, how do we mitigate the effects of local base closures in the long term? I also made some valid points about the other side of the equation in Stirling, which was about the importance of affordable housing and how we try to put those two issues together. I also made some reference about a game of cat and mouse by the UK Government. A common theme was, where is the consultation? I think that that is a point that many members made from the UK Government. Bruce Crawford is, again, someone who has a lot of experience in the military and all of understanding of local defence issues. He again talked about the 20 per cent reduction in the defence footprint. He talked about his local base, the importance of repair and upgrading the functions, the impact on Stirling if the base closes, and the high connectivity between the armed forces and the community in Stirling over many, many years. Again, as a common theme in this debate, the personal link of his father, who was in, see if I get it right, this time was in the House of Calvary. Bruce Crawford. I am glad that you are here. I have got a chance to respond to one of the points that Mark Ruskell raised. I agree entirely with Mark that at least one of the things that will come good out of this that Trident will no longer be able to use Stirling as a base as it passes through. David Stewart. I will move on swiftly. We had Mike Rumbles, again, someone with lots of experience in his previous life. I think that he had 15 years in the army. He talked about Glencour's being his first posting. He made some valid points about the economic effects of the closure of the bases and supported the regional hubs. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that everything is negative from the UK Government's suggestions. There are some, I think, military strategic advantages of having the regional hubs. However, there is a point that I would stress is that our current and our future capabilities must meet the new threats, as the facts change, so do our opinions. That is crucially important to stress. He mentioned the importance of getting our estate strategy right in the future. I quickly look into the clock. Then we came to Edward Mountain, again, a soldier from 12 years with a son currently serving. The key point that, in general terms, I agree with is what is important and what is good for our service personnel. He made a general point about Fort George. I think that we are on the other side of the argument to Mr Mountain and myself. However, what I would concede is that setting up a working party is a good idea. I would certainly like to volunteer to that. He made some general points—I am not sure if I was part of that—that those who want to see Fort George stay open are ineffectively chirping from the sidelines. Last time I looked, that was called democracy and campaigning. However, on that minor point, I would be happy to sign up Mr Mountain to the working party if you can arrange that. Graeme Dey again made some excellent points about the long-term plans for Condor. Worried about the constant chipping away of the issues. Then we came to Mordicoria. Again, I am a very experienced person with the army and, obviously, spoke with a lot of authority about getting more efficient defence estate, looking at regular and reserved forces. I promise, Presiding Officer, that next Christmas I will give Mr Corrie a watch, because I do not think that he is very good at keeping time, but nevertheless. The final member that I could mention is Christine Graeme, who talked about, as I do, the armed forces scheme that is being set up in the Scottish Parliament. I would strongly endorse that, as I said at the start, to all members. I think that I made excellent points about Glenchor's how excellent the facilities are there and the importance of the partners to be involved in the business support group. She finished by saying that it was the disgrace that is closing. As always, Presiding Officer, I will give Christine Graeme the last word, but I also notice that I normally do not get the first word either, so I will close on that point. I call on Douglas Ross up to nine minutes please, Mr Ross. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and, like Mark Ruskell, could I declare an interest as a serving Murray councillor until the fourth of May this year, when I relinquished that position? My home in Avis in Murray sits between two significant armed forces establishment. To the west, we have the Army Barracks, it can loss home to the 39 engineer regiment, and to the east, RAF Lossymouth, a typhoon main operating base and preparing itself for the arrival of nine new Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. Murray has a long and proud military history, and I want to start my remarks today highlighting their importance to our area. The motion from the SNP would leave you to think that the UK Government only delivers bad news for Scotland, yet I see day in, day out the significant investment in Murray and the impact that it has in our local communities. While we are talking about bad news, some news is bad not because of what it reports, but because of its dodgy origins. I am, of course, talking about the shameful actions of Murray's SNP MP Angus Robertson. Looking for cheap headlines and to stir up a frenzy, Mr Robertson quoted an impeccable source that can loss was to close. The community had been understandably concerned. A task force was established, personnel and their families were left unsure of their futures. In the end, the base did not close. Far from being an impeccable source, Angus Robertson has never established any basis for his claims, and months of uncertainty were created for no reason. Those claims were repeated today by the cabinet secretary, who said that it was a last-minute decision to save Kinloss. However, where did he hear that? I will give me a minute. The cabinet secretary used much of his speech today to say how little engagement there had been with the UK Government. He did not engage with him or the Scottish Government, so where did he hear that it was a last-minute deal? Do we have another impeccable source? Really, I would rather rely on what was said in the House of Commons by Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, who confirmed, contrary to some speculation, an unnecessary scaremongering, Kinloss will remain. That is an impeccable source, but I will give way to the cabinet secretary. I thank Douglas Ross for taking the intervention and saying that, in addition to the fact that, of course, he deserted the field before the battle to retain Kinloss was won by people like Angus Robertson, is it the case that he, the same as his colleagues here, refused to oppose any of the closures proposed, and unlike his colleagues south of the border who are campaigning against closures, will simply fall into line? I was really hoping that the cabinet secretary would stand up and ask me that question, because I am able to say that I fought to retain Kinloss, but maybe the mask is slipping, because it is the cabinet secretary now accepting that there was no threat to Kinloss if you are not saying that my opposition to the closure, which I stood side by side all politicians to agree with, was not in fact needed because the SNP made up the claims. I think that the mask is now slipping from Mr Brown. No, I will not. Miss Adamson has just walked into the debate, so I am not going to take an intervention from her. While I acknowledge that the SNP only wants to look at the negatives in this debate, I also hope that it can accept the positives. I challenge any SNP MSP to stand up in this chamber and say that the decision for Boeing and the UK Government to work together and build a new £100 million operational support and training base in Lossymouth is a bad thing, or to stand up in this chamber and suggest that the creation of more than 100 jobs with this investment will not be good for money, or to suggest that the additional 400 extra personnel who will be based at RAF Lossymouth in 2024 will not have a positive effect for that region. I would be happy to give way to any member who wants to criticise that investment, so I will give way to Mr Crawford. Bruce Crawford. Have you got your nomination papers in yet? When you stand for Westminster and you do not win, will you leave this place? Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought that you were going to say that it would be an inappropriate remark from someone of Mr Crawford's experience. We are debating a serious issue of basing reviews, and I will refrain my remarks to that. If the SNP is worried about who is going to stand for the Conservatives in Murray, I will let them stoop over that for a week while longer. As we move on, we have seen significant investment by the UK Government in Murray, and all that could be in jeopardy with an independent Scotland. As Jackson Carlaw's amendment clearly states that an independent Scotland would have a very limited military footprint, which would weaken our defence of the nation. I do not want that for Murray, I do not want that for Scotland and I do not want that for the United Kingdom. It has been very telling in this entire debate not a single SNP member mentioned defence in an independent Scotland, despite it being in one of the amendments we are going to vote on this afternoon. It is because their plans are indefensible. I say that they are indefensible and it has been confirmed by a number of people that we would have a small military footprint if we had an independent Scotland and the SNP cannot answer the problems on that. Now I accept what a number of members have said that there have been difficult decisions to take during this defence review, but I also see day in and day out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year, the impact our armed forces have in our local communities. They do their jobs and we have to deliver for them and that means a defence estate that is efficient, that is modern and capability focused. Now, like others, I want to quickly mention some of the remarks that have been made during the debate. Jackson Carlaw was quite right to highlight the footprint of the defence across the United Kingdom—420,000 hectares—and he also said that the reduction in the defence footprint in the UK has been more significant than we have seen here in Scotland. David Stewart was able to tell us about his experience on some aircraft. He had been on a maritime aircraft, a sea king and this allows me the opportunity to say that I became the first UK politician to fly in one of the Poseidon PA—something that I am very proud of, and I appreciate the opportunity to add to the remarks made by Mr Stewart. Maurice Golden spoke of the historic and on-going defence of the nation by the MOD. Stewart Stevenson spoke about Murray bases, neither of which are in his Bampshire and Bucking coast constituency, and I am left to wonder whether he asked to mention this because the Murray MSP, Richard Lochhead, has not attended today's debate. I then move on to Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell gave his opinion. I will withdraw that. If Mr Lochhead is not here to be able to be here because of a funeral today, I apologise for that. If I can just say, it is important to get that on the record, because people in Murray would have been concerned that their Murray MSP was not here, and I am grateful for that opportunity to explain to him why he was not in the chamber to speak about a hugely important issue for Murray. Mark Ruskell went on to give his opinion on opposing Trident, but he did not explain why more Scots support Trident than oppose it. Bruce Crawford mentioned the city deal and MOD rationalisation. Although I accept his concerns over the timing, it was good to hear him agreeing with the general principles. Mike Rumbles spoke about his 15 years in the army and highlighted, I think, very importantly family life for service families and the benefits he believes could be achieved by stabilising army life with the consolidation of three primary hubs. Marie Todd would not take a single intervention. I tried and I tried and I tried and she would not take a single intervention. Could it be because in an eight minute speech she could not bring herself to welcome the huge investment by the UK Government in Murray, an area that she represents as part of the Highlands and Islands region? Edward Mountain, with his experience in the armed forces, is now hoping to convene a task force with local politicians and businesses. I am grateful to hear another volunteer to a group that I will be happy to join in Davies Stewart and I am sure other politicians will join forces with that. Maurice Corry, in a very brief contribution, did mention his armed forces career and continued that as an armed forces champion as a councillor on Argyllin Bute Council and highlighted rightly that decisions are taken on the advice of defence chiefs and I think that that is important. I just want to briefly finish, if I can, deputy Presiding Officer on how proud we all are about what the military do in Scotland, in the UK and around the world in protecting us. We are equally proud to call them our friends, our neighbours and to work with them locally. I hope our service personnel know after today's debate despite the political points made by all parties that we are indebted to their service, their sacrifices and their support. I now call on Keith Brown to close this debate up to 11 minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you as well to those who have made helpful contributions to this afternoon's debate. I think that, as I said when I opened, those are far-reaching defence cuts and perhaps the most far-reaching defence cuts ever made in Scotland. They will have a detrimental impact across Scotland and all of us in this chamber have a responsibility to the communities that we represent to make our collective voice heard on this issue. I cannot think that I have not had an answer to the question why there is not a single Conservative MSP who will oppose anyone. If I can just finish this point, I will take your intervention in a second. A single Tory MSP will oppose a single closure where your colleagues in south of the border feel perfectly able to stand up for their communities alongside representatives of other parties. On that point I will give you the other sources. Will you clarify your remarks then, because you can confirm that I oppose the closure of Kinlos? You are saying that that was a genuine closure. If that did not happen, then why can't you accept that I oppose those closures? That is an example of Conservatives working in their constituencies to oppose those closures. Keith Brown, I remind everyone yet again that there are not private conversations between people during debates. You should always speak through the chair. Keith Brown. Thank you deputy Presiding Officer. My understanding of what Douglas Ross has said is that this was a proposal that was never going to happen. The closure was never going to happen, but he prevented it. He was the one that—it's just bizarre. Not only did he not prevent it long before the decision was taken, he deserted the field and said that it was done. It was safe. I am confident in my sources that this was a last minute decision and it was overturned. If you are not confident, if you don't know your story, you should talk to your own Conservative ministers. The Conservative members should talk to their own ministers and their own Governments, and obviously they haven't been doing that, otherwise they would know. In the case of the HM Naval Base Clyde, the Scottish Government's position, of course, on the nuclear deterrent, which I never mentioned at the start of my speech, because I did try initially at least—and I know that it was perhaps foolish—to see if there was common ground between us. That was the approach that I took at the start, and of course that was immediately exploded by—not just now, I'll try to make some more progress—an absolutely dire, dire tribe from Jackson Carlaw. He will regret, I think, for many years to come, his description of the bases that are to be closed as a heritage tour. That is what he said. Communities across this country will know the Conservative view of those bases in terms of their relevance, their importance, as we heard very eloquently from Christine Grahame to the local communities, described by the Conservatives as a heritage tour, dripping contempt for those communities and the people who are trying to maintain that link with the armed forces in their communities. Again, we saw right away which way that was going to go in terms of the Conservatives, immediately going to the constitution once again. They are utterly obsessed by the constitution. Not mentioned in my motion, trying to have a debate about a decision in terms of closing bases. That was what we tried to do, and of course he went off in his own kind of way. Why is it the case? As I said, there is not one single Conservative MSP that can actually muster at this stage, no-wants. Can it muster any opposition to any of the closures, whereas colleagues south of the border have a spine? Maybe they have collective ownership of the Tory spine this week, but at least they can oppose it when the people here can't, Deputy Presiding Officer. So what we have seen is that there is no opposition to be had from the Conservatives. That will haunt them in the next two months during the course of this election, Deputy Presiding Officer, when people want to put questions to Conservative council candidates and parliamentary candidates as to why they have so supinely allowed this closures to take place without any opposition whatsoever. Dave Stewart, I thought, made a very good contribution, and he also pointed out the fact that this was about communities. Edward Mountain had talked about this, it's not about buildings. I agree, it is about people, it's about communities, those who serve in the armed forces and the communities that work with them. First of all, this is perhaps the most important point of this debate, in my view. For the last seven years, I have been minister for veterans in the Scottish Government. I have been able to tell all the events, including the one that was mentioned by Dave Stewart, the one this week when we had one in terms of the armed forces visit scheme, that within this Parliament we have a consensus that all the parties respect and support the members of our armed forces. We agree that we all support the members of our armed forces. What we had from Maurice Golden in the words he said was, all military personnel are expendable to people like me and people in this party. I will ask him to think about that. There are two things that apply. First of all, I find it profoundly offensive. I think that many other people would do as well. If you heard what Bruce Crawford had to say about his son and his father as well, profoundly offensive, I am not saying that it's going to worry the Tories too much that I find it offensive. However, it is the case, and he should know this, that veterans and those in the armed forces are very grateful for the fact that, at least we agree on that basic point, although we have fundamental disagreements in terms of Trident and other aspects. We do have a general agreement. I will give him the chance, either now or during the course of the rest of my summing-up, to intervene and clarify his remarks. I am sure that he cannot mean that we think that the members of our armed forces, every single person, is expendable. I am sure that he didn't mean to say that. I am happy to give him the intervention if he wants to come back in and correct that. If not, it certainly changes my script for what I am able to say to veterans, the armed forces and the outside world about the views held within this Parliament. Mike Rumbles said in a bizarre intervention, that it was the SNP's fault that those closures were taking place. It was down to the SNP. I think that his logic was that they had failed to prevent it. If I can just make the point first and I let you come in after that. Maybe it was Min Campbell's fault, the original decision in terms of Lucas, or was it? It makes the Mike Weir's credit that we have so far kept for five commando, but it makes no sense at all. It just shows the desperate measures that Mike Rumbles will go to to try to protect the Conservatives, perhaps potential future coalition partners, rather than to talk about the important issue here, which is a close to the basis. I have all taken intervention from Mike Rumbles. I think that the minister has deliberately misunderstood the point that I was making. With 50-odd MPs in the House of Commons, I would have thought that, if they worked together with the UK Government on issues like this to influence events, it is obvious that they have not done so or have been able to do so. Keith Brown I think that confirms for everyone how bizarre the intervention was from Mike Rumbles previously. The idea that a Conservative Government—and it always seems to be a Conservative Government—Germ Day spoke about the various chopping and changing that has happened since 2010 until this point about changes in the UK Government's approach to military bases and how it has chopped and changed. Actually, Gordon MacDonald did exactly the same thing. It goes back further than that in relation to 4.5 commando. Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s wanted to abolish the entire Royal Marine Corps, as I remember. That has been going on for a long period of time. It seems to me that we could have had a bit of consensus about the fact that perhaps there would be a different approach from the Conservatives in Scotland or even the same approach as those of our colleagues south of the border who are willing to oppose it. Unfortunately, we have not been able to have that today, which is unfortunate. Edwin Mountain I will do it from Edwin Mountain. Edwin Mountain You accuse us of taking one line on this issue. Are there any bases in Scotland that you do not think can fit for purpose and that should perhaps be considered for closure to benefit the troops that are actually being posted there? Keith Brown It is a very fair point, but I can refer Edwin Mountain to the point that I made when I made my opening speech. I said to Mark Lancaster at the very start before any decisions were taken in relation to any of those closures. Fort George was the one most in point, because the Scottish Government, as you will know, has a very fundamental interest in Fort George. If there were concerns about the fitness, the suitability of any of the bases, let us work together and see what we can try to achieve. That has never been done. That is why, as was pointed out by Christine Grahame, the motion that you have put forward, the amendment that you have put forward, talks about continuing engagement with the Scottish Government. There has been no engagement with the Scottish Government. It is the case that we are going to have to help local authorities to pick up the educational consequences, the employment consequences. The thing to have done would be to try and work together on that. Instead, we have been totally excluded from that. Of course it is the case that not all bases are fit for purpose, but you have asked me that question. Can I ask Edwin Mountain the question? Does he think that Glen Cross barracks fall into that category, not fit for purpose, not suitable as a Ministry of Defence facility? I am happy to give away. I am sure that the minister listened to what I said earlier during the speech that I do not know my way around Glen Cross barracks as well as Christine Grahame does. I have to take on advisement what she said. I asked you a specific question. It is unfair for you to throw it back at me. Is there one barracks in all the barracks that are earmarked for closure that the Scottish National Party thinks is not suitable for soldiers in the 21st century? I just have answered the question. Surely it has got to be the case that the UK Government can make a case for any basis that they feel need to be closed, and they should talk to the Scottish Government about it. Tell us what the detail of it is so that we can actually respond to it. That is what they have refused to do. That is why they cannot be the dialogue that I would have thought that Edward Mountain would have known, given his remarks in the speech about the condition of Glen Cross barracks, just to remind him that £60 million spent is recently as 2006 and now being shut. On that point, it seems to be that the Tories south of the border have possession of the Tories spine this week, but if it is possible for some Tories to come on board and say that they will be part of the programme, I am saying now that I would predict that not all those base closures will go ahead. I will be held to that in future years. It is on the record, you can hold me to that. I think that not all of those bases will be closed, so it is possible. As Dave Stewart made the point, if we stand together and we make the case, we can stop some of it, especially the more absurd of those closures. That is all this motion seeks to do. However, it seems clear from the Conservative response that there is no chance that they want to be part of this. They want to slavishly follow the line handed down to them from London rather than stand up for local communities. I predict that they will pay a heavy price at the local and forthcoming general election. When their candidates are unable to say, we will stand up for the local communities affected by those closures. I would conclude on that last point, since I see that Maurice Golden has not sought to intervene on me and come back and clarify the remarks that he has made. It is now the case because there were murmurs of approval from the Conservatives when they made the comment that the Conservative position is that the SNP—myself and the SNP—support would believe that all military personnel are expendable. That is the view that explodes the consensus that we have had in this Parliament for the past seven years. I will give way to Maurice Golden if he wants to try and rectify that. Maurice Golden was clearly in reference to the way in which the SNP is treating this issue. I would hope that Mr Brown would recognise that, but how many military personnel will there be in an independent Scotland? People will look at that comment and realise that it is the position of the Conservative party that they believe that there is no consensus in this Parliament that we respect the armed forces personnel of this country and that one party at least in this Parliament believes military personnel to be expendable. It is a despicable thing to have said. It is profoundly insulting to people across the chamber. We have had your chance to rectify that. The Tories had the chance of trying to support the local communities trying to oppose those bases. They refused to do it. I hope that it is more small pass and that the rest of us in this chamber will oppose those closures. That concludes our debate on defence-based reforms. We move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 5176, in the name of Clare Adamson, on behalf of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on Standing Order rule changes for supermajorities. I call on Clare Adamson to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Under the Scotland Act 2016, there will be a new supermajority requirement for legislation on certain subjects relating to Scottish Parliament elections. Those include the number of MSPs, the electoral system and who can vote in Scottish Parliament elections. Any bill on those subjects will require a two thirds majority of MSPs to be passed by the Parliament. The SPPA Committee has considered how to translate those requirements into standing orders. Today, we proposed some changes to the rules. A report sets out the details of those changes and they include a new requirement for Presiding Officer to make a statement about whether a bill requires a supermajority to be passed, a requirement for the Parliament to vote on every bill after the conclusion of stage 3 debate in order to formally record the result, and a procedure for what happens if the Supreme Court disagrees with Presiding Officer's decision on a supermajority question. Once those new standing orders are in place, the new powers over the Scottish Parliament elections can be commenced and transferred, and I am pleased to move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 525520, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 52520. Formally moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, I put the question that the question is that we agree motion number 52520. Why are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motions 5193 and 5194 on the approval of SSIs. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 5185.3, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, which seeks to amend motion 5185, in the name of Keith Brown on defence basing reforms, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll have a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5185.3, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, is yes, 31, no, 80. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 5185.1, in the name of David Stewart, which seeks to amend the motion, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 5185.1, in the name of David Stewart, is yes, 74, no, 36. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 5185, in the name of Keith Brown, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 5185, in the name of Keith Brown, on defence basing reforms, as amended, is yes, 74, no, 37. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 5176, in the name of Claire Adamson, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on supermajorities, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 5193, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? And we are agreed. The final question is that motion 5194, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Point of order, Stuart Stevenson. Presiding Officer, I want to raise the point of order under section 7.3, respect to other members. I am not under the circumstances going to name the member who has caused me to do this, because the member has already made a ffalsum and proper apology. However, I just wanted to clear for the record and for future reference for members here, that if a member is to accuse one of the members here for being absent, they should properly have made inquiries as to the reason that that person is absent. So that they do not infringe rule 7.3. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. I think that the point was noted during the debate by the member concerned too, but I thank the member for raising that point. Another point of order, Clare Haughey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to also raise a point of order under standing order 7.3. Today, at First Minister's questions, Ruth Davidson said, in relation to the 0.7 per cent aid commitment that, and I quote, Theresa May herself gave the commitment to the aid budget when she was in East Kilbride at the DFID headquarters, where the aid is administered all around the world. But if you read the speech that the Prime Minister gave that day, it gives no such commitment. So why did Ruth Davidson mislead Parliament? Will the UK Tory manifesto commit to an up point 7 per cent, as Ruth Davidson seems to be claiming, or will she now take the opportunity to correct the record? Can I thank Ms Haughey for raising that point of order? It is important that all members treat each other with courtesy and respect. In this case, I think that Ms Haughey is asking me to intervene in a matter that will be settled during the general election debate. I would encourage Ms Haughey and Ms Davidson to resolve the matter in the general election debate, and not in the parliamentary chamber, if possible. I conclude decision time.