 The final item of business today is the member's business debate on motion number 9, 9, 2, 3 in the name of Margaret Maculach, in the future of DFID in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak mutterns now or as soon as possible. I call on Margaret Maculach to open the debate, seven minutes or thereby. The Parliament is it's motionited when showing solidarity with parts of the world in poverty or distress. Nobody here could or should try to monopolise concern for the world's poorest. It's something we all share. Whatever the outcome of next month's referendum, the challenge of poverty in the world will still be with us, and people of conviction and good conscience will keep on working, keep on fighting and keep on campaigning until the day it's not. The purpose of my motion is not to snatch the moral high ground as part of a wider referendum debate, nor is it a blanket endorsement of the aid policies of the present UK Government or even the last one. It's to make sure that Parliament doesn't adjourn tomorrow without hearing the implications a decision we might make next month could have in our international aid effort and the people tasked with delivering it. DfID's East Kilbride office at Abercrombie House supports a total workforce of 600, of which around 550 are UK-based home civil servants. That's 43 per cent, almost half the total number of civil servants working for DfID in the UK. East Kilbride is home to the department's second headquarters, responsible for policy and research, supporting regional programmes for Africa and Asia and leading government priorities such as tackling hunger and malnutrition. Half of the UK aid is now delivered through DfID in East Kilbride. Even the establishment of the international development fund in this Parliament was informed by specialists in DfID—an example of what the best of both worlds means in practice. In the event of a yes vote, DfID would have viewed its presence in Scotland and the Secretary of State is on record as saying there's no logical reason why it would remain. The international development select committee expects the East Kilbride office, which contributes £30 million to the local economy, to close within five years of a yes vote. East Kilbride staff, many of them invaluable, specialist, high-quality jobs, could face relocation or redundancy, and there is little to substantiate that assurances to the contrary. I don't have time and also any of your questions you should have asked in your white paper. The international development agency, which expects the East Kilbride office, which contributes £30 million to the local economy, is to close within five years of a yes vote. As I said, East Kilbride staff, many of them invaluable, specialist, high-quality jobs, could face relocation or redundancy. In evidence to the committee, the minister, Humza Yousaf, guaranteed that there would be ample opportunity for staff currently based at Abercrombie House to continue employment either with a UK Government retaining a base in East Kilbride or with the Scottish Government. That isn't much of a guarantee and I'll explain why. Firstly, the idea that DfID would continue to run half of its aid programme out of a foreign country is, as one of its top former civil servants, David Fisher says, simply not credible. There are examples of countries that pull expertise that there are DfID staff working with multilateral agencies in places like Geneva and New York, but there is no precedent for the UK employing almost half a department of home civil servants in a single foreign country. Secondly, the headquarters of an independent Scottish development agency would require fewer staff than the 550 civil servants currently employed at Abercrombie House. At 8.3 per cent, our population share of DfIDs, 1,300 UK-based civil servants, Presiding Officer, we ask them to be quiet while I finish please, comes to around 110. This is more in line with the staff and figures provided to the external affairs committee by the ECDPM for small independent countries such as Ireland. If the remaining workers are to be offered jobs elsewhere in the Scottish Government, then what will those jobs be? What will they pay? At what grade and where will they be based? Does the minister dispute the figures of just given? If so, can he tell us later on this evening how many people will be employed in the Scottish Aid Agency? Let me finish. Why none of this has been set out or costed in the white paper? Or is the minister really suggesting that an independent Scotland would still need 43 per cent of DfID staff to spend 8.3 per cent of the budget? You can answer that when you are winding up. With a month to go until the referendum, the future of civil servants in my region remains unclear and that uncertainty is unacceptable. Thanks to the work of DfID, the UK is now widely regarded as a global leader in development, and it has cemented its position as the world's second-biggest aid donor. The commitment to the development index, often cited by the Scottish Government, makes a balanced critique of the UK aid, but it also places the UK in the top third of the rankings and sets out some of our key strengths. High net income, no tied aid, financial transparency. Last year, the UK became the first of the G8 nations to meet the 0.7 per cent aid to national income target. He has never answered our questions or answered yours, but the current Government is completing a journey started by the last. There is even a consensus in support of enshrining that target in law. The white paper makes some welcome statements about overseas development, even if there are only three pages on the subject, but it glosses over important facts. If Scotland were to become independent, DfID's budget would be expected to fall by £1 billion, and it is far from clear how Scotland and the UK would manage the transition period and minimise the impact on existing aid commitments. Not only would a new independent aid agency face set-up and administration costs, but so too would a restructured DfID. The costs of fragmentation and duplication would inevitably eat into front-line aid spending. Of course, it does not have to be that way. As part of the UK, we pull and share our resources, and we can use our global reach, our influence and our combined wealth to shape the world around us. As the second largest aid donor in the planet, we have a powerful voice in the world, which we use best when making rich countries confront poverty and sustainability. The creation of DfID, the growth in the aid budget, our emergence as a global leader in the development, none of it would be possible without the combined efforts of public servants working in Scotland, London and around the world. What we have achieved, we have achieved together. That surely is a positive, progressive, humanitarian reason for continuing union between Scotland and the UK. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate, and I call on Linda Fabiani to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Four minutes are there by please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Normally, in a member's debate, I would thank the member for laying the motion and I would have supported the motion. I couldn't do that, because there are things that are very, very wrong with this. There are two issues, particularly that I think are completely erroneous in this motion. One is about the job losses in East Kilbride, my constituency, and the other is about the fragmentation of aid spending. I will go on to say more about those. There has been an on-going campaign by Better Together in East Kilbride. It has been going on for about a couple of years now, telling civil servants, both in HMRC-based there, but particularly indifferent that their jobs will go if they vote yes. It's shameful, scaremongering, and it has been going on for a long, long time. I think that it's important to be scaring people like that. It's on a par with what came out today to the DWP civil servants from the chief civil servant. Let me tell you why, because it's made very, very clear. When this Government makes things clear, it tends to carry them through, and I think that our record stands on that. The Scottish Government will offer continuity of employment and has a no compulsory redundancy policy in place. That's more than the UK Government has. Let's face it—laboratory UK Governments have cut civil service jobs all across Scotland, so the real threat to differed jobs in East Kilbride is a no vote. The UK Government has been committed to cutting jobs in Difford since 2014. Westminster International Development Committee, which includes in its numbers Margaret McCullough's friend and the no campaign Michael McCann, concluded in one of its inquiries that the number of differed staff in East Kilbride will decline from 2014. Then we got on to Mr McCann himself. He has been asking parliamentary questions about Difford for quite a while now. A recent one, he said, I warned that the UK Government had drawn up secret plans to axe a third of the workforce at the Department for International Development in East Kilbride. The UK Government is sacrificing staff in East Kilbride in order to protect the department's London HQ. As I say, the threat to jobs in Difford in East Kilbride is coming from the UK Government. Yet again, we have a Labour party that is more than happy to tell one story down the road and tell another up here. What is more important to them is that they try and do down the SNP, and to do that, they will even cover up for what Tories and Lib Dems are doing. I find that absolutely appalling. The other thing that the motion quotes is the stuff from Mr Dave Fish who I met some years ago and had a lot of respect for, but he has been writing for the Better Together campaign on their website. He is entitled to, but I think that a lot of holes can be picked on what he is saying. One of them particularly is about the fragmentation of aid. When you look at the evidence that is given by the NGOs in Scotland, when you look at the evidence that is given by many respected people who have been working in international development for years, it does not matter what size an aid programme is and how effective it will be. Let us face it. The contribution to development index, which ranks overall contributions and effectiveness to development, has the UK in eighth place. The top three are Denmark, Sweden and Norway, small independent countries that work together to put out good international aid. Are we hearing from Margaret McCulloch that the UK cares so much about international aid and poverty worldwide that it would refuse to work with its nearest neighbour Scotland to make sure that countries and poverty were getting the best deal? I will end here. I want Scotland to be independent. I want our international development budget to be part of a wider international strategy that means no illegal wars that the Labour Party took us into. That means no locking up asylum-seeker families that the Labour Party took us into and that the Lib Dems and the Tories have carried on. That is how we can be a real transformation to poverty and development and fairness in our world. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Mark MacDonald. Presiding Officer, I would like to congratulate Margaret McCulloch. I am bringing forward this important motion and commend her concern for jobs in her constituency. It is not terribly well known throughout Scotland, as an East Kilbride, how many different jobs there are in East Kilbride, nearly half of all the UK-different jobs. That is a fact that should be publicised to everyone in Scotland. I can certainly understand Margaret McCulloch's concern for the jobs, particularly for the individuals involved, but her motion clearly points out the massive contribution that it makes to the local economy more generally. I hear what Linda Fabiani has said. Clearly, there are a lot of promises in the white paper. If there is a yes vote, some of us have been saying that they cannot all be delivered. If it came to a yes, I hope that that particular promise would be, but it is a simple fact that every promise in the white paper could not possibly be delivered any time soon after a yes vote, just because of the fiscal difficulties of an independent Scotland. Margaret McCulloch is absolutely right to say that those jobs certainly would not stay as UK Government jobs in the avoid of a yes vote. Dave Fish, who has been referred to by previous speakers, if I can give his full quote on that suggestion that the UK would continue to employ hundreds of people in what would be a foreign country, is simply not credible. That seems to be an obvious statement of fact. Another interesting comment that he made, just to move on from the jobs issue to the wider issues, is that a yes vote would massively reduce Scotland's ability to impact and influence efforts to reduce world property. I am not dismissing what an independent Scotland would aspire to do, and hopefully they would be able to keep their commitment on international development, although the same caveat about the fiscal difficulties. I certainly do not underrate what the Scottish Government has done when all is said and done. I was a member of the administration that started that devolved Scottish dimension to international development, but it is a simple fact that the UK has achieved remarkable things in international development. Transformational change has been described in terms of the work that they have been done, and it has been remarkable progress. I thank the member for giving way in that point. I do not take away from anything the good work that the UK Government has done. I have always been fair to give them credit where credit is due, but why does he think that eight out of the 10 countries that were mentioned by his colleague Mark McCulloch and the CDI contribution to development index, why do you think that eight out of 10 of those countries are small independent countries of Scotland's size, and if they can do well, why on earth could Scotland not do well and make transformational change? I do not take away from the contribution of small countries and I indicated that hopefully an independent Scotland would do that as well. I am just saying that they cannot, in the nature of things, have that impact that a large country in the UK can have. I think that we should praise the UK in this regard if I can just briefly be part of political. Let's go Labour tripled the health budget between 1997 and 2010, but to the credit of the Conservative Party they have also committed to 0.7 per cent of GNP, which most countries in the world have not achieved. The simple fact is that the UK is the second biggest aid donor in the world, and if you remember that the top one is the US, who has a massively smaller percentage of GNP, you could legitimately argue that the UK is the number one aid donor in the world. It has played a massive part in the development of the international development agenda, and it is that kind of contribution to the big debates and decisions about international development that whatever small country is simply cannot make. Obviously, we can make a practical contribution as other small countries can, but we cannot have that massive impact, both in terms of the policy agenda but also in terms of the transformational change, which many people certainly talk of in relation to the UK. My final point picks up Linda Fabiani's point about international affairs more generally. Of course, we all know that the SNP liked to remind us of the negative side of that, and I have been known to do that myself in relation to Iraq and one or two other issues. However, there is a very positive story to tell about the UK and the international development agenda as part of that, but that leads to the conclusion that, potentially, on a whole range of issues, the UK can be a massive force for good in the world. On many of those issues, the reality is that an independent Scotland, while making a small contribution, would only be an observer. Let us remember the positive contribution that the UK does make and can potentially make for decades to come, and let us not throw that away. I now call on Mark McDonald to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. I begin by apologising. I will have to leave at the end of my speech. I will not be able to stay for the remainder of the debate. It is unfortunate that the member's business system has been used in this way to shoehorn in the debate. Let us be clear about that. That is entirely designed to be part of the wider referendum campaign and is not in any way designed to highlight local issues. On the points that have been raised so far, I find it very rich that we are talking about the 0.7 per cent contribution to the international aid budget, given that, after 43 years, the UK had failed to achieve that, including the time when Malcolm Chisholm himself was a minister in the UK Government. He did not manage to achieve the 0.7 per cent, despite having the large economy that we are told about. It is very rich to be talking in those terms. It also misses the point that 0.7 per cent is the target because it is talking about your share of your budget. It is not talking about the actual monetary terms of the budget, because it recognises that economies across the world vary in size and it is about countries putting forward a specific share of their economy, of their budget, to help the aid budget across the world. The idea is that, because Scotland's economy is not of the same magnitude as that of the wider UK, we would somehow diminish our efforts towards contributing to international aid and international development. I find that unfortunate. It is a very neat encapsulation of the 2W2 poor argument, but what we have seen and what has been highlighted by the ministers is that small nations—let's be clear. In the grand scheme of international populations, we are not actually small. We are around about mid-table when it comes to populations of countries, so I think that we should be wary of always referring to ourselves as a small nation. We are smaller, undoubtedly, than some of the nations of the world, but we are still capable of punching above our weight in a range of areas. I believe that international development is one such area. I thought that the minister who has been on the record as saying that 0.7 per cent for him is just the beginning of the aspirations that Scotland should have in terms of our contribution to international development. I think that that is a pretty inspirational goal to set and to seek to achieve 1 per cent in very short order is absolutely what we should be aiming to do. One of the things that concerns me is the idea that you either have to be all-in or all-out. You either have to be all-for what the UK is doing in terms of international development or you must be dead set against it. We on those benches are not saying that everything that the UK Government is doing or has done in terms of international development is wrong. That is not what we are suggesting nor would we seek to characterise it in those ways. However, what we are saying is that an independent Scotland may choose to pursue different priorities for expenditure and different priorities in terms of how aid is defined. Definition of aid is an interesting point because there is a debate currently taking place within the UK Government. Indeed, David Cameron himself has suggested the possibility that military aid could be factored in and military expenditure could be factored in to the contribution to the aid budget. I do not think that that is something that we should aspire to. The idea that, for example, arm sales to regimes could count as aid is something that we should be deeply troubled by and also be very hesitant towards. Lastly, on the point about jobs, I have no local interest in this. I am not a member representing East Kilbride or Central Scotland, but the idea that somehow we will not require one jobs and two expertise after independence is fanciful. The idea that you can say that the diffid budget will drop after independence because Scotland will be an independent country will Scotland will have an aid budget. Scotland will have an aid budget and an international development budget and will require to fund that appropriately. The idea that you would simply start with nothing being spent in Scotland and nobody working on this in Scotland is fanciful and is bordering on misleading. We are in a position where we have the opportunity to put Scotland out there in the world stage to advance the values that we hold and to pursue the priorities that we would have as an independent nation across the world. We can use the point 7 per cent as a starting point and the minister has aspirations to go further, which I share. We can also work together. The one thing that irritates me in this whole referendum debate is the conflation of independence with isolationism. The idea that being independent means that you only ever do stuff yourself, you do not work with others. The difference about independence is that when you work together and collaborate, you do so on your own priorities and on your own terms. That does not currently happen as part of the UK. If working with the rest of the UK after independence is something that we would seek to do on a particular issue, that is fine, we can do that, but we should also be able to take our own path and lead our own way in other areas as well. Thank you so much and I now call on Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Maureen Watt. Presiding Officer, I welcome the debate today on the future of the Department of International Development in Scotland. I thank Margaret McCulloch for tabling that motion. Can I state at the outset that I am extremely proud of the fact that DFID is based in East Cobride, not least because last year it provided over 43 million people in other countries with clean water, better sanitation or improved hygiene conditions and reached over 11 million people with emergency food assistance. The chair of the House of Commons International Development Committee has acknowledged that almost half of the UK's aid programme is delivered from its headquarters in Scotland, which also contains the number of DFID senior staff. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, as the motion confirms, there are 600 people employed in Abercrombie House in East Cobride. Almost 60 per cent of the workforce lives within 10 miles of the office. That in turn means that many local businesses, not only benefit but have, especially in these difficult times, come to rely on having DFID's headquarters in East Cobride. At present, Scotland can be proud as part of the UK that the international aid budget is staggering £11.4 billion and that the United Kingdom, with a population of 60 million, is the first country to honour the commitment to spend nothing.7 per cent of the gross national income on overseas development obligations. In an independent Scotland, with a population of just five million, this vitally important work in global development in some of the world's purest countries, and with some of its most vulnerable people, would be adversely affected by a fall of around £1 billion in the DFID age budget. I thank the member for giving way. She might be inadvertently said that she seemed to suggest that the UK Government was the first or the UK was the first country to meet the 0.7 per cent target. That is not correct. Of course, small, independent European countries have already met it. The UK is far behind. I take good word for that minister, but it is certainly the first British Government to reach the target that was confirmed earlier. Worse still, as Scotland chooses to separate from the rest of the UK, the DFID headquarters must inevitably relocate to south of the border, which in turn would have a devastating impact on the local economy. Here, the Scottish Government's assertion that an independent Scotland will be able to protect and maintain those 600 jobs is simply not credible. Furthermore, the future of lesser known work that DFID supports such as the international citizen service, ICS for short, would also be affected. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of meeting two young people that had volunteered for ICS when they held a photographic exhibition in the Parliament building. The programme helps 18 to 25-year-olds from throughout the UK to volunteer overseas and gives them the opportunity to gain valuable skills and experience regardless of their income, qualifications or work history. ICS is led by the VSO, Voluntary Service Overseas, but funded through DFID, which recognises the positive impact that volunteering overseas can have not only on the communities in which the organisers are involved, but also with those who volunteer. The Scottish Government's white paper is silent on whether a programme like this would continue to be funded. Therefore, there is a legitimate concern in the event of Scotland choosing to leave the UK that young Scots would lose out on this in some cases, life-changing experience and the opportunity to help make a meaningful contribution to fighting poverty overseas. The UK is a force for good in the world with a disproportionate amount of influence overseas for a nation its size. It makes no sense to seek to weaken this influence by fragmenting the UK and putting at risk 600 jobs and the viability of local businesses in East Kilbride, all of whom rely on DFID HQ located there. Many thanks and I now call on Maureen Watt to be followed by Dave Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I refer to my convenership of the cross-party group on Malawi. I, too, am pleased to be taking part in this debate, although perplexed as to how it qualifies as a member's debate and note that very few members have signed the motion. This motion is just the latest part of project fear, which, better together, are running hard with at every level of the campaign, on the doorsteps in the media and in here, because they have no vision of how the UK can improve the lives of Scots here at home or of those who we help abroad. As others have pointed out, the workers at East Kilbride are civil servants and, as such, have to work in the civil service and are often moved about and required to move. As others have noted, the rest of the UK Westminster does not have a no compulsory redundancy policy as we do in Scotland. Indeed, it was stated in DFID's annual report on accounts in 2012, and I quote, that the numbers of staff in both locations increased from March 2011 and it will increase to March 2013 and thereafter decline. We know that the UK civil service jobs in Scotland as a whole have declined under successive UK Westminster Governments. In 2005, it was 35,300 in Scotland, in 2010, 33,000 in 2014, 27,000, and almost 25 per cent decrease, with more to come. We know already that Scotland in no way gets its share of civil service jobs, even though successive Westminster Governments have said that we will get our share. Nothing happens despite the promises. I am sure that, rather than being fearful for their future, many of the civil servants in East Kilbride relish the prospects of using their skills and flexibility in the wider context of Scottish international development and international affairs and, indeed, in other departments of a new exciting civil service. I was interested in the European and External Relations Committee's inquiry on international development, where many of the witnesses highlighted the areas in which Scotland can take a leading role in international development in areas such as renewable energy or climate justice, on governance or public finance management. I attended the evidence-taking session of the Westminster International Development Committee on the implications of Scottish independence here in this Parliament, and the very clear message that NGOs here in Scotland gave Malcolm Bruce and his other two committee colleagues was that they liked the type of international development work undertaken by the Scottish Government, even with its very limited budget. Quoting from their Westminster report, they said, many Scottish-based NGOs think that the Scottish Government is more effective than DFID in engaging with them, and that is even with DFID staff in Scotland. My experience in meeting with so many NGOs and others through my involvement with Malawi is that very many relish the prospect of not 0.7 per cent of an independent Scottish budget being spent on international development. That has been SNP policy since the beginning of the 70s and one of the main reasons why I joined the party back then. In contrast, the prospect with the union, as David Cameron has suggested and others have mentioned, is of spending international aid money on overseas military interventions. Toby Elwood MP, the PM's envoy to NATO, has drawn up what he calls detailed proposals for Downing Street, suggesting that there is an overwhelming case for military spending to count towards the not 0.7 per cent target. That fills me with horror, and I am sure that it fills many other Scots with horror, too, and I am sure that it will influence many people's choice on the 18th of September. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I congratulate Margaret McCallach for securing this evening's debate and for our thoughtful opening speech. 1997 was, of course, a crucial year for international development. Labour was swept to power in the Westminster landslide victory and was committed to a step change in both foreign aid and debt relief. The overseas development administration was scrapped and replaced by the Department for International Development. The UK at the time was, of course, one of the first parliaments in the world to have a fully fledged cabinet member for development at the heart of government. At the time, I was a young, fresh-faced black bencher, strange as that may seem now, Presiding Officer, and I was on the cross-party group for international development. I knew the Secretary of State for International Development, Claire Short, well. She was passionate and committed to development and very well served, I might say, by my friend George Fawkes, who was a very able deputy over the years in international development. The success and significance of those times can be measured by what was achieved between 1997 and 2010. The last Labour Government, as we have heard, trebled the UK's aid budget, committed the UK to spending 0.7 of GNI on official development assistance by 2013. More importantly, I think, freed 28 countries from debt through debt cancellation and debt relief and untied UK aid so that developing countries were given more of a say over how to spend that aid. Other members have touched on some of the successes that provided 43 million people access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene, support for over 10 million children to primary and lower secondary education, ensured that three million births took place safely with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors, and reached over 11 million people with emergency food assistance, and provided 45 million people with access to financial services to help them to work their way out of poverty. Something that many members who would have been attached to very closely the Make Poverty History campaign at the G8 in Gleneigol is a very important campaign. By the time that Labour left office in 2010, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee had recognised the UK as a world leader in international development. Again, I emphasised the breadth of the difference operation around the world, the regional programme in Africa, Asia and Caribbean, the support for 28 countries across Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and the humanitarian assistance—I apologise, I'm really short of time, I apologise to Linda Fawiani—and multilateral aid through global organisations in which the UK hits above its weight, for example the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Food programme. On coming to this Parliament, I sustained my interest in global aid effort and I was asked and very proud to become convener of the cross-party group on international development. I was extremely impressed with the work that committee carried out in the past and the work that this Parliament carried out, particularly triggered off by Jack McConnell and of course parliamentarians across the party divide, to forge stronger links between Scotland and Malawi, with genuine cross-party support. At that time, the Scottish Executive's international development policy was new, but today our contribution to developing world is even greater and our relationship with countries with partners is even stronger. It's worth reflecting on the role that differed play in supporting the Scottish Government at that crucial time. Today the two Governments of combined aid efforts are complementary, what we've achieved, we've achieved together. Thanks so much. I now call on Claire Adamson, after which I'll move the closing speech from the minister. Normally, like my colleagues, I would be pleased to speak in this debate this evening. However, on this occasion, I'm afraid that the debate that has been called by the Labour member and with the support of their Better Together partners is simply a cynical ploy to pour fear into the hearts of hard-working civil servants. I take that personally. I take it personally because my mother worked for the land revenue for an entire working life and my brother has worked for the Procurative Fiscal Office for his. Both of them are PCS members and my brother has served as a shop steward for the PCS. It would be very helpful if members didn't come in brandishing copies of the White Paper but actually read the White Paper and the answers and the information that is in there. The PCS union, many of whom the members in DFID and the HMRC office, which has also been put under fear today by the UK Government, many of them will be PCS members. The PCS has put some key demands down for answers of people campaigning in the independent referendum. I won't be able to go through all those tonight, but it is very important that we look at some of the key issues. One of the demands is to end austerity cuts, but Alasdair Darling has told them that, if it is a no vote, we will have tougher and deeper cuts than those of Margaret Thatcher and that Ed Balls has committed to continuing the austerity agenda set by the Tories. The Scottish Government, however, in the White Paper and the early priorities for action within sound public finances, says that the Government will ensure that Scotland has a stable and sustainable public finance underpinned by a discipline of framework designed to ensure that Scotland's finances are appropriate for the country's economy and able to withstand the changes in economic circumstances. The PCS also says that public services should not be for private profit. In the section on games for independence, it states that public services can be kept in public hands. The Scottish Parliament has the power to keep the NHS in public hands, but it could not stop other services such as the Royal Main being privatised by Westminster. The direction of Westminster is a reduced public service, a reduced civil service, and we should not ignore what the consequence of a no vote could be. The PCS is also looking for us to invest in renewable energy. The White Paper states that Scotland could look forward to a further energy bonus from our green energy resources with expected sales of £14 billion by 2050 from offshore. No thank you. The opposite members would not take interventions earlier. With expected sales of £14 billion by 2050 from offshore tidal and wind energy. I suggest that you can find yourself to the motion. It is a very broad motion, but I do not see renewable energy and I am not seeking a debate. I will take on board what you are saying, Presiding Officer, but this, to me, is an attack on civil service workers. Civil service workers belong to the PCS unions and this is what they want out of the independence debate. I do not think that it was us that turned this into a debate about independence. Taking on board what you have said, Presiding Officer, I think that if we look to the final thing that the PCS has demanded, that is the repeal of all anti-trade union laws and a charter for change of union rights. This is also, in the White Paper, a commitment to work with the STUC, to work with companies for board representation on boards. 18 years of a Labour Government and a failure to repeal any of the anti-trade union laws that were brought in by Margaret Thatcher. Had we had a real Labour Government, that might have been different and I used that term very appropriately because it is a term that Roy Hattisley used on radio for this morning to describe the Blair years and a Government that did nothing to improve international relations and simply damaged the reputation of the UK and the world with its illegal wars. Our civil servants demand our support. They do an excellent work. We have an opportunity with independence to continue on the great work and the expertise that people have done. They must look to how the future may, with a no-vote impact on their jobs, do the people in Difford want to be supporting military intervention to be included as part of that UN target that is the want of the current Tory Government. We have a choice of two futures, one that has commitments, one that answers the questions that the PCS and civil service are demanding in the white paper, and one that leads us down Tory cuts, Tory austerity, and in continuation of threats to the civil service in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What we see in this motion and from the opening speech by the member was nothing but an exercise in scaremongering, fear-baiting and the politics of cynicism all rolled into one. However, it does, if nothing else, give me the opportunity to offer my assurances and reassurances once again and commitments that the Scottish Government has given in relation to the UK Government's Department for International Development. I have previously said in this Parliament that I think that everywhere I have spoken on the public record that people will be able to see that I have given fair credit to Difford for the good work that they do. I have also met the staff who work in Abercrombie House on a number of occasions at a number of different events. There is absolutely no question in my mind as to their commitment to the cause of international development. My concern has always been, of course, for much of that good work that they have done, even when they have not met the 0.7 per cent target. Much of that good work has indeed been undermined by the UK Government's other policies, foreign affairs or trade. Some of those were mentioned, such as arms and defence sales to Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, General Saharto, Argentinian military junta, just to name a few, or indeed if it is being for foreign policies such as the illegal invasion of RAC that was mentioned by members during the debate. We have offered reassurances in terms of jobs to Difford. In fact, I offered those reassurances when I was questioned by the Westminster Select Committee inquiry on the future of development in the event of independence. When they came to Scotland, I said and I reiterate again here that we would work with the UK Government to preserve continuity of employment of all civil service jobs in Scotland. We have said that before in terms of defence jobs. Other jobs that are reserve functions—we say it again in regards to those 604 jobs that are in Difford in East Kilbride—they make a massive contribution. I do not doubt that for a second, but their expertise is a great asset to a future Scottish international development and, indeed, even an external affairs function. They would be a brilliant asset. Margaret McCulloch said that they would not be the same size. She questioned the New Zealand's example. The problem is that when you are comparing like with like, you must compare countries that have the same ambition that an international development function in Scotland would have. We have said very clearly in our white paper that she has there on her desk, if she wishes to open it, that we have committed to at least 0.7 per cent. We are aspirationally going beyond that. If you look at countries that are a population the size of Scotland, such as Denmark, they have a population of 5.59 million, meet the 0.7 per cent target and, in fact, exceed it, their number in terms of their international development and external affairs staff make 846. Sweden has a population of 9.52 million—yes, of course, a bigger than Scotland but still under that 10 million bracket—they have 735 staff. That is because they meet that 0.7 per cent target. When you look at countries that have the ambition that Scotland has and the scale that Scotland does, we could well maintain those jobs but not only would we be able to maintain and continue the employment of those jobs, yes, just in this final point, but also not only would we be able to continue that, but of course other opportunities would be available in an external affairs function as well. I will give way to the member. I do not doubt the sincerity of what he hopes to do and the assertions that he has made. The difference is that, at present, we do not know what currency an independent Scotland would have, we do not know the start-up costs, we have got flat-jating oil prices and we have got a defence policy that sees the loss of thousands of jobs. With that tally of uncertainties, then I do not think that it is credible that the 600 jobs or the nothing.7 would be protected. I would not go into set-up costs. I have here, of course, the 12 times the figure that the UK Government came up when it came up with set-up costs. Of course, Patrick Dunlevy, Professor Patrick Dunlevy's figure of £150 million to £200 million for start-up costs was well rehearsed, but it was also mentioned that those would be recouped through efficiency savings. The uncertainty is exactly what I want to come on to because although we have said that we would preserve continuity of employment and further cemented that by saying that we have a policy that members are aware of of no compulsory redundancies, no such commitment is forthcoming from the UK Government. That is where the uncertainty to jobs for DFID lies. In fact, even opposition parties, those in the Labour opposition, have not committed to no compulsory redundancies. Ed Ballas has not committed to no compulsory redundancies. In fact, if he has, please do intervene and tell me otherwise. Well, I did not think so. When it comes to the threat from jobs at DFID, that comes from the UK Government. I am going to read some of the quotes from Margaret McCulloch's good friend Michael McCann MP. He says, I have also made it clear that compulsory redundancies should be avoided at all costs without, of course, realising that this party has not quite committed to that. I have asked the minister to keep me updated with any developments. It seems to me that the Government is not doing all it can to protect British jobs. Her very good friend Michael McCann again says, Today my worst fears have come to pass, despite the department's previous denials. Staff in DFID were called to a meeting and told that excess of 140 jobs will go. But more than that, he owes it to the staff of DFID to reverse this crazy decision. So she does not believe me, maybe she will believe her very good friend Michael McCann MP. And if she does not believe her very good friend Michael McCann MP, perhaps she will, as other members have done, look at DFID's own accounts that were examined and scrutinised by the international development select committee. They say very clearly that there will be a reduction in staff and they show very clearly by this graph that there will be a reduction in DFID staff in 2014-2015. So the threat to jobs does not come from a yes vote. It comes from staying within the status quo. The Scottish Government has a very ambitious vision of the role that Scotland could pay as a good global citizen, as well as, of course, committing to that 0.7 per cent target, which the UK has finally—again, I have been faring commending the UK Government for doing that and eventually getting there. It took us a Conservative Government, of course, to get there. In fact, in Margaret Mitchell's own motion, she uses the words at last that the UK Government has at last reached that target. It is important to realise that that is £87.5 billion of missing eight. For those 43 years that have been missed, £87.5 billion of missing eight is not something to be proud of. However, look at those countries that have reached that target. In the 1970s, Sweden was the first to meet the target in 1974. In 1975, it was the Netherlands. In 1976, it was Norway. In 1978, it was Denmark. All four countries have consistently met it. What do those four countries have in common? Of course, they are small and dependent European nations. The remarkable criticism says that there is no way that Scotland could have the same impact as the UK, almost questioning the audacity of Scotland to even think that it could have the same impact of the rest of the UK. My point is a very simple one. Look at the contribution to development by the CDI, the index that was mentioned by his own member and her opening remark. However, when you look at that, yes, the UK is commendable in eighth position, but the other nine out of 10 in that are small, independent nations. That does not rank the size and monitor terms. It ranks their impact, their contribution and what they will be able to have achieved on the world stage in tackling poverty. To end, our vision for international development is above and beyond what other members have suggested that a small country should look to do. We want to legislate for that 0.7 per cent, but we want to do aid better. Of course, we will work with the UK Government in the future to do that, and any Government that wishes to do that. However, I am disappointed that a member's debate is distasteful and a motion is distasteful. Of course, that has been used to scare those in civil servants that are hardworking across the country. Let me give an absolute assurance once again that, in the case of a vote for independence, we will preserve continuity of employment for not just Difford staff, but for civil servants that are hardworking across the country.