 The next item of business is topical questions, and I call question number one, Mark Griffin. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to protect local authorities from the risk of bankruptcy. Despite the decade of austerity from the UK Government, Scottish local government revenue funding is 2.6 per cent higher in real terms than it was in 2013-14. Scotland is facing the most challenging budget since devolution as a result of a UK Government autumn statement that failed to deliver the investment needed for Scotland's public services. An autumn statement that delivered a real terms cut to vital public services, including NHS England. The Government will do all that we can within our powers to ensure that public finances are on a sustainable path. Work is on going with COSLA to establish a new fiscal framework through the Verity House agreement, and decisions on local government budget for next year will be confirmed in the Scottish budget. Mark Griffin. Yesterday, the IFS challenged the assertion from government that local authority funding is increasing in real terms. They said, Not me, the figure being asserted by the government is highly misleading because you are comparing apples with pizza. That's their quote. It compares 2023-24 funding after additions for pay to the original 2022-23 that was announced in December 2021. A month ago, Shona Robison said that the amount needed to fully fund a council tax freeze would be figured out by negotiation, but the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Finance Minister have not been able to tell me what fully funded means. Yesterday, COSLA has said that it needs £14.4 billion to stand still, £300 million for that council tax freeze. Will the councils get that funding to prevent the bankruptcy being warmed up? Obviously, the budget process is under way and discussions are on going with COSLA. As we go into this budget round, we know that this is one of the most difficult challenging times that we have seen. I know that the Deputy First Minister's door will be open to suggestions from the Labour Party and the Conservatives as to how the pot of monies Scotland has can either be increased or distributed in a different way. I know that the Deputy First Minister will be keen to hear any suggestions from Mr Griffin. I appreciate the minister saying that this funding settlement is challenging. I do not think that challenging covers it when councils are saying that they could go bankrupt. They have already considered sweeping cuts to libraries and leisure services. The housing regulator has warned of systemic failures and homelessness services. When councils are threatening bankruptcy, when people are being failed by repeated cuts, surely the Government must see that local government services are breaking down. That will fall to government, so what bankruptcy will mean for a local authority? What preparations have they made for that to take place? Would they step in to provide the services in that area? I think that Mr Griffin is getting ahead of things. Local authorities in Scotland have a different framework than they do in the rest of the UK. We have seen a number of local authorities in England that have gone bankrupt, not just Birmingham, not just Nottingham, but a number of authorities in England based with leadership of all the main English political parties have gone bust. Because of the austerity that has come from the UK Government, here in Scotland, things have been different. If you look back to the GMS interview from Dr Jonathan Carr on 6 September, the day that Birmingham had announced that it was going bankrupt, Dr Carr West, the chief executive of the LGIU unit, made the point that Scottish councils have not seen the same sustained austerity that English councils have seen over the last 13 years. We are starting from a safer place. That does not take away the challenges that we are all facing right across the public service. We are going to have to make difficult choices. Is Mr Griffin and his party prepared to make some of those choices? If so, please come and speak to us and let's see what we can do for the public service across the country. Given that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said that, and I quote, he won't turn on the spending taps if he comes to office, does the minister share my concern that ultimately Scottish local authorities will continue to be at the mercy of Westminster spending decisions, regardless of which UK parties are in power, and that transformational change will only come with the full powers of independence? The challenges posed by the current cost of living and climate crisis require additional funding, and the autumn statement delivered the worst-case scenario for Scotland's finances. Labour's leader Keir Starmer has indicated that he is likely to follow austerity is deeply worrying. It makes all the more clear that only the full fiscal powers of independence can ensure that people of Scotland can continue to receive the high-quality front-line services that they expect and deserve. None the less, Minister, bankruptcy is something that is being talked about by Scottish councils. Does the minister understand just how angry councils are that two months on after the First Minister announced that there was going to be a council tax freeze without any consultation? We still don't have the details about how that's going to be funded, and that's impacting on councils as they come to crucial decisions. The council tax freeze will help people right across Scotland. It surprises me that the Conservatives don't support the council tax freeze, making sure that Scotland continues to be part of the UK with the lowest council tax anywhere across these islands. It's really important with the cost of living crisis that we do everything that we can with our powers to support hard-pressed families. However, we have said that we are speaking to COSLA to work out a fair settlement that meets the criteria for full payment of the council tax freeze. However, I would have thought that the Conservatives of all parties would be supporting the Government in taking this action. Today's international PISA analysis shows the worst performance ever for Scottish education. Does the minister believe that 16 years of council underfunding has been even partly responsible for this decline? I'll refer the member back to my first answer, which makes the point that local government finance in Scotland is 2.6 per cent higher in real terms than it was in 2013-14. The Scottish Government is working really hard with our colleagues in COSLA to look at how we can loosen the ring fencing that is applied to that funding to make sure that councils can make more decisions that suit their local needs better. However, the difference between what's happening in Scotland compared with what's happening in the rest of the UK in terms of financing of local government is black and white. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the declaration by more than 20 countries from four continents at COP28, to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, recognising the key role of nuclear energy in the future? For what reason is it reportedly discounting nuclear power? Thank you, Presiding Officer, because it is not safe, it is expensive and it is not wanted in Scotland. Also, it is not needed in Scotland. We have an abundant natural energy resource in capital, which can and is contributing to our energy mix. As we are seeing from experiences elsewhere in the UK, new nuclear power takes years, if not decades, to become operational and will push up household and business energy bills even more. Under the contract awarded by the UK Government to Hinkley Point C, the electricity that will be generated will be priced at £92.50 per megawatt hour. We know that the Tories care little these days about achieving a pathway to net zero but this SNP Government still does and we believe significant growth in renewables, storage, hydrogen, carbon capture provide the best pathway to net zero in Scotland. At the weekend, we had very cold weather with not a gust of wind. We relied on nuclear power to keep the lights on in Scotland. Given this, why is Scotland's government so hypocritical being happy to import nuclear power and allowing our jobs and investment in the industry to go abroad? The national grid ESO conducted a study of the effect of the earlier than expected closure of nuclear generation in Scotland, which concluded that the system would be secure. On the cost of nuclear power, compared to what I would want to see, which is greater investment in pumped hydro storage, we can see that in August the UK Government announced a further £341 million investment to be made available to speed preparations for construction at size will see, taking in addition to the £870 million stake that already exists. I would far rather to see a market mechanism to see the support for pumped hydro storage coming. Imagine if we had an equivalent funding support for pumped hydro storage is what is given to nuclear power. That would allow us to see power from the glens rather than white elephants from Westminster. I was going to thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer, but it wasn't an answer to the question I asked. Maybe it was one he thought I'd asked in his mind. What we are in a position is I went to Tornes the other day and saw a very safe nuclear power station that employed plenty of people in Scotland. I asked them if they were to redesign the nuclear power station what they changed. They said nothing. What they do is good for Scotland and keeps jobs in the local economy. Why won't you accept that on the belief that safety is the paramount failing of nuclear power, which no one else agrees with? The evidence of the alleged hacking of Sellafield this week and what we have seen from Russia's invasion of Ukraine points very clearly at the worries that are around safety. Those are not just concerns that we have here in Scotland. We know that colleagues in the European Union are either moving away or continuing to oppose new nuclear. The announcement in Mr Mountain's question previously spoke of hypocrisy. It comes off the back of the Prime Minister spending as much time in the air and his private jet going to COP as he did, spending time negotiating a route by which we can address the climate emergency and can take advantage of the economic opportunities that we have in Scotland by making a just transition to renewables. Let's listen to both the questions and the answers, please. A number of supplementaries is going to start with Ivan McKee. Due to the high costs and the decades that it takes to build, notwithstanding safety and disposal of waste concerns, it appears that nuclear would do nothing to address the urgent need to drive down energy prices. Can the cabinet secretary provide further details of any assessment that the Scottish Government has made on support for nuclear risk and pushing bills even higher and why significant growth in green renewables provides the best routes for affordable and clean energy? Yes, I appreciate that from Ivan McKee. The UK Government has awarded a contract for difference for 35 years for Hinkley Point C at £92.50 per megawatt hour based on 2012 prices, higher than the strike prices set for offshore and onshore wind in the next allocation round at £73.64 respectively. For that reason, significant growth in renewables provides the best pathway to net zero for Scotland, delivering a climate-friendly energy system that delivers affordable, resilient and clean energy supplies for our people, businesses and communities. Of course, it is only with independence that our full energy potential will be realised. Scotland's massive renewable energy resources can be the bedrock of a new independent country. With independence, we come in the model for how an economy can transform itself, decarbonising and creating well-paid, secure jobs. Nuclear energy is costly, dangerous and will leave a legacy of toxic waste and higher bills for generations to come. The Tory's epic failure to deliver Hinkley Point to time and budget shows just how unreliable and costly new nuclear is. In contrast, in Scotland, we are getting on with the job, building out new wind and solar at pace. Will the cabinet secretary join me in welcoming the new pledge from 118 countries at COP28 to triple their renewable energy capacity? Does he agree that locally sourced renewable energy is the real solution to ending our alliance on climate-wrecking fossil fuels? Yes, I do, and I appreciate that from Mark Ruskell. He is absolutely right. The OBR has forecast as estimated that it could cost as much as £263 billion to manage the legacy of the UK's nuclear industries. That is quite the burden to be passing on to future generations. The Scottish Government's position on nuclear power is clear. We do not support the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We welcome the commitment of so many countries to accelerate the transition to renewables. The Scottish Government's draft energy strategy and just transition plan sets a high level of ambition for the further deployment of renewables of more than 20 gigawatts of additional generation capacity by 2030. Enough renewable generation to power every house in Scotland for seven years. With the green industrial strategy that we will be publishing early next year, we are also making sure that we take maximum economic advantage of the massive energy potential that we have coming through. The Government is anti-science. That is the bottom line. What the cabinet secretary would win in a herald competition for water boundary? He would win first prize, because all we have heard is water boundary. Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy and is widely accepted as such, including by the cabinet secretary's friends in the European Union. My friend Edward Mountain mentioned Tornes, where we have the last remaining nuclear power station. The question is this. What about the jobs? What about the skill base? What about the high-income jobs that the nuclear industry brings to Scotland? What about our statement on apprentices? How many apprentices will lose their positions at Tornes when he gets his way? There are a few questions in there from Mr Kerr on the position of our friends and neighbours in the European Union. In April, Germany shut down the last of its three nuclear power plants, joining other member states, which have no nuclear power stations and remain opposed to nuclear power, including Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal. Several other member states, including Spain, have plans to phase out nuclear power. It is perhaps because of the cost and the risk that it poses. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that the Prime Minister was only willing to spend around 12 hours at COP as an opportunity to expand the opportunities that it has. Apparently, flying in separate private jets from the Foreign Secretary speaks louder than the words on the actions that we are demonstrating, which will be included on the jobs that Mr Kerr appears to be so concerned about that we will look to harness from our green industrial strategy, taking economic advantage from the renewable power that we have in abundance in Scotland.