 The next item of business is a debate on motion 12004, in the name of Angus Robertson, on Scotland's place in the European Union, and I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Angus Robertson to speak to and move the motion up to 15 minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer, and I'm pleased to move the motion that stands in my name. Tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of Scotland being taken out of the European Union. Not only, of course, has Scotland removed from the EU, but we were forced out of the single market and forced out of the customs union. The United Kingdom Government imposed an end to freedom of movement. It removed opportunities for our young people by abandoning the Erasmus scheme, and, as we all knew would happen, they broke their promises once again to Scotland's fishing communities. In short, not only did the UK impose Brexit on Scotland, it imposed the hardest and the most damaging of Brexit. All of this despite the fact that people in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union. The Parliament expressed its support for remaining in the EU and the single market on many occasions, and yet the people of Scotland and their elected Parliament were ignored time and time again. The Brexit referendum and its aftermath didn't just relate to the relationship between the UK and the EU, it revealed something fundamental about the very nature of the UK itself. The UK can no longer be described as an equal partnership of nations. It is a Westminster knows best state that routinely ignores the views of the people in Scotland, and that is democratically unsustainable. From a practical point of view, Brexit is an on-going economic disaster. Leader of the UK Labour Party, Keir Starmer, says that his priority is growth, growth, growth, while unfortunately the obvious problem with that is his commitment to Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Brexit has already increased inflation, Brexit is harm trade, Brexit has reduced investment and the list goes on. Scottish workers have lost income and consumers are having to pay higher prices for food, making the cost of living crisis worse. A recent study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that the UK economy is now estimated to be 2.5 per cent smaller as a result of Brexit. That impact equates to a cut of around £2.3 billion of public revenues for Scotland. Estimates from others such as the Centre for European Reform suggest that the damage has been even worse, but that is not the end of it. Analysis by the Cambridge economic metrics estimates that the economic damage will continue reaching 10 per cent of gross value added by 2035. Of course, the impact of Brexit is not only economic. Brexit has severely reduced the opportunities for Scotland to collaborate with European partners on cross-border challenges. It has removed our ability to live and work freely across the EU, and we have lost out on access to EU exchanges and EU funds. Despite the huge benefits of European Union membership, the overwhelming evidence of the harm of Brexit and the predictions that the damage is only going to get worse, neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party, sadly nor even the Liberal Democrats, say that they are fully in favour of rejoining the European Union. The Scottish Government takes a very different position. Scotland's interests need not continue to be wrecked by the UK Government's approach to Brexit. The views of people in Scotland, as expressed through democratic elections to both Westminster and Holyrood, need not be able to be ignored or overridden. The powers of our devolved institutions need not be able to be altered unilaterally by Westminster without the agreement of the Scottish Government, this Parliament or indeed the people of this country. The seventh paper in the Building in New Scotland series sets out the Scottish Government's alternative. Our vision is for an independent Scotland to join the European Union. Doing so offers Scotland the chance to regain what has been lost because of Brexit. It provides Scotland with what devolution cannot deliver, notably a framework to collaborate as equals with relationships governed by values, co-operation and by law. It means that, for the first time, Scotland would be at the table advancing Scotland's interests directly in the European Union. It would allow Scotland to contribute to the EU, bringing our expertise and resources to work towards shared goals. Willie Rennie The minister's board with his own speech, because I think that he's made the same one several times before. Nevertheless, has he drawn any evidence together about the impact of independence on ripping us out of the UK single market in the same way that he's drawn evidence about withdrawing the UK from the EU market? Surely he's done that basic homework. Willie Rennie knows that the European Union single market is, I think, around seven times larger than the United Kingdom. Unlike Willie Rennie, I'm not in favour of economic dependency, which he is. He is keen on the Scottish economy remaining dependent on the UK single market. I'm much more confident that, just like Ireland, it has been able to succeed economically and has a significantly higher GDP per head of population than the United Kingdom does. I think that we should take no lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who, once upon a time, were a pro-European party and, sadly, no longer are. I'm in favour of Scotland being part of the world's largest single market, with free movement of goods, services of capital and people. As I mentioned, the EU market is seven times—I want to make a bit more progress on this point, but I'll give way later to Mr Bibby—the EU market is seven times the size of the UK, almost 450 million consumers compared to the UK 67 million. Scottish businesses trading in the EU would have reduced barriers to trade to free flows of data and less bureaucracy. That was a position that was supported by the Scottish Labour Party. Indeed, it was supported by Mr Bibby's leader, Anna Sarwar, who said, and I'm quoting from him, that that is why nobody can credibly claim that they want to protect jobs and not support membership of the single market in the customs union. I'm the only candidate in this contest, as leader of the Scottish Labour Party, who supports permanent British membership of the European single market in the customs union. Pats, Mr Bibby would like, if I can give way to him now, to clarify if that is still the position of the Scottish Labour Party. I'm not sure about the position that the SNP is in the customs union, because in 2019, during the Brexit votes, the SNP did not vote in favour of a customs union when their votes were critical in that matter. Talking about his own position, Angus Robertson MP in 2008 said that the Lisbon treaty, the current foundational document of the European Union, was unacceptable and a travested. Does Angus Robertson MSP agree? I agree at that time that people should have a view and should be able to cast a vote in favour of the European Union. That was my support for there being a referendum at that stage. I know that Mr Bibby didn't take the opportunity to confirm whether the Scottish Labour Party's position is now to rejoin the European single market in the customs union. I'd invite everybody to listen very closely to his speech to see whether he clarifies that in the debate later on. I've been making the point that Scottish businesses trading in the EU would have reduced barriers to trade to free flows of data and less bureaucracy and they would benefit from the EU's network of highly favourable trading relationships across the world. Trading would be cheaper, trading would be quicker, online shopping would be easier and it would be safer and Scottish firms would be able to trade freely with more businesses and sell to more customers. The EU membership would provide more job choices and more career opportunities for people in Scotland. Our citizens would have access to more training, more research, more exchange opportunities and the opportunity to improve language skills through the Erasmus Plus programme. We could attract and retain people from across the EU to sustain our businesses, our world-leading universities and our public services and Scotland would regain access to the EU's law enforcement tools, which help in the fight against cross-border crime and other threats. Our citizens' rights, such as guaranteed minimum working conditions and social security rights, would be protected by EU law and of course for the first time Scotland would have a seat in our own right at EU decision making tables. With a voice in debates and a vote on outcomes, Scotland could contribute directly to the policies of one of the most influential actors in global trade negotiations on international human rights and equality policies and the evidence is clear. For countries of Scotland's size, EU membership works. So people here have a choice. We can continue down the road of a Brexit-based UK economy which suffers from low growth, low productivity, high inequality. We can seek to emulate the success of comparable independent countries in Europe that are both wealthier and fairer than the UK. Countries such as Finland, Denmark and Ireland. Indeed, the Financial Times reported in 2022 that, far from simply losing touch with their Western European peers, last year the lowest earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia. Perhaps the Conservative member would wish to reflect on that. We know that Scotland's exports are three times that of the EU. The London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance talked about the potential disruption with the rest of the UK could result in a reduction of Scottish income per capita of about 6.3 per cent. I noticed that the member wasn't prepared to reflect on the relative economic decline of Scotland and the rest of the UK as clearly demonstrated by the Financial Times. I think that that's a great shame because I think it's there for everybody else to see. In terms of Scotland's opportunities, I have already, in answer to others, made the point that the single European market is significantly larger than that of the United Kingdom. I have great hope. I have great expectations that Scottish business and exports, strong as they already are, could be even stronger but within a much bigger international market, namely the single European market whilst, of course, protecting and enhancing our position with trade on the rest of the nations on these islands that matter tremendously. I think that being part of that bigger single European market is absolutely key to reaching our full potential. Our commitment to the European Union is grounded in more than the practical benefits it brings, substantial though those are, and I have pointed those out to detractors in the chamber today. More fundamentally is our shared commitment to the EU's founding ethos of peace and security and the core values of human dignity, of democracy, of freedom and equality, human rights and the rule of law. In an age when intolerance and volatility seem to be on the rise, the values of the EU are more important than ever and co-operating with the EU improves our ability to tackle challenges at home and amplifies our voice in international negotiations. The European Union has demonstrated that countries can deliver practical benefits for each other through peaceful co-operation, and so we will seek to rejoin the EU as soon as possible after independence. Following 47 years as part of the EU, Scotland has a thorough understanding of how the EU operates with developed networks amongst policymakers in the European Commission, European Parliament, EU member states and their regions. We are committed to EU values and already have a high level of alignment with European Union law. In currently reserved areas, Scotland would build capacity as required to ensure that it would fulfil all EU membership obligations, and Scotland is therefore well placed to move through the EU's merit-based accession process smoothly and quickly. That view is shared by many very distinguished experts, for example Fabian Zuleig, the chief executive of the European Policy Centre, who said that for Europe, and I quote, "...rejecting a country that wants to be in the EU, accepts all conditions, is willing to go through the appropriate processes and follows European principles, should be inconceivable." When asked about the level of support in the EU towards an independent Scotland joining the EU, the former president of the European Council and now the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk said, "...emotionally, I have no doubt that everyone will be enthusiastic here in Brussels and more generally in Europe." Apart from anything else, we will rejoin not simply as a country with much to gain, but as one that has much to contribute. Just as the EU has lots to offer Scotland, so Scotland has much to contribute to the EU as a member state. Our vibrant culture would make an important contribution to a dynamic and forward-looking EU. Our academic sector is a leading source of innovation and research and could help to deliver new technologies of EU-wide importance. Our strengths in renewable energy could help to contribute to the transition to net zero. Reaching net zero is an environmental, moral and security imperative. It will help us to reduce our dependence on gas and oil imports from around the world, and Scotland's large sea area and high-average wind speeds mean that we have a key role to play. Our significant offshore wind and tidal energy potential could help the EU to deliver its sustainable growth strategy, and Scotland is already home to the world's leading wave and tidal test centre, the world's largest planned tidal stream array, and, according to its makers, the world's most powerful tidal stream turbine. Scotland is among the best-placed nations in Europe to deploy carbon capture and storage due to our unrivaled access to vast carbon dioxide storage potential in the North Sea. We could also support the EU's priorities to develop the offshore grid and renewable energy potential in the North Sea. It is widely recognised that green hydrogen has a crucial role to play in decarbonising heavy transport and energy intensive industries, and Scotland's surplus hydrogen production could help the EU achieve its hydrogen targets as part of its transition towards renewables. We also see it as a way of enabling ourselves and our European partners to collective decisions that reflect on Scotland's priorities. Our paper provides the evidence of what the people of Scotland have known all along. EU membership is central to Scotland's future economic, political, security and social prospects. No wonder that, in Scotland, people voted decisively to remain in the EU in 2016, and no wonder that polling undertaken since the 2016 referendum has consistently found large majorities in favour of EU membership. That is why I believe that Scotland's future is best served as being part of the EU. The UK Government neither got the fantastical deal that it promised, nor is willing to acknowledge that being out with the EU's single market and customs union is dragging the economy down. Despite the evident damage that Brexit is causing, given the position of the main parties at Westminster, the only route back to the European Union is for Scotland to become an independent member state, and that is why Scotland needs independence. Can I move the amendment in my name? The title of the debate is an independent Scotland in the EU. Here we are yet again debating a hypothetical, wrapped in speculation and inside a misconception. As a Covid inquiry takes evidence, I think that it is the most important point in the European Union, and I think that it is the most important point in the European Union. Donald Cameron. I thank Jamie Hepburn for that very important intervention. Here we are yet again debating a hypothetical, wrapped in speculation and inside a misconception, to misquote Winston Churchill. As a Covid inquiry takes evidence, at this very moment about the conduct of the SNP Government, its ministers and its civil servants, tries to get to the bottom of what went on during the pandemic, what does the SNP Government come to this chamber to debate a hypothetical question of an independent Scotland joining the EU? It is very tempting to take the debate. I must confess that I always enjoyed debating with Angus Robertson and Jamie Hepburn. They give as good as they get and they manage to do so with grace and humour. It is tempting to point out that about a third of SNP voters supported Brexit and voted that way. Over a million Scots, of course, voted to leave the European Union. SNP luminaries such as Alex Neil, no less. It is tempting to point out that great minds like him and many other nationalists see that it is simply illogical for those in the independence movement to complain about the shackles of Westminster on the one hand but then support being chained to Brussels on the other. It is tempting to point out that there are those in the independence movement like the former First Minister, Alex Salmond and his Alaba Party, who recognise that one viable path for an independent Scotland would be membership of Efter, not the EU. These are all rabbit holes, Presiding Officer, that I am very tempted to go down, but I won't, because rather like Alice in Wonderland, who of course went down the original rabbit hole, to do so would be to enter the realms of fiction and of fantasy. As Willie Rennie was right, he said that the Cabinet Secretary might be getting bored with the speech that he made because he made it so many times before. I mean, we've all made these speeches many times before, because back in the real world there are many more pressing problems for the people of Scotland want to see addressed. Problems such as the fact that there are nearly 830,000 patients waiting for NHS treatment across Scotland. Problems such as the fact that rural schools are twice as likely to be in poor condition compared to urban schools. The Highland Council area has the poorest school estate in Scotland, and it also happens to be at the bottom of the league table for literacy and numeracy. Problems such as the fact that more than 71,000 violent crimes were recorded last year. The highest total since 2011 to 2012. Those are the issues that people really care about, and they are issues that are getting worse, not better, because of this Government's narrow focus on the constitution. Mr Cameron has listed a lot of worthy things that we would all like to do, but does Mr Cameron recognise that the Centre for European Reform estimates that due to date, due to Brexit, that has cost the UK Treasury some £40 billion into actress eats? Of course, an independence Scotland would incur huge costs. Many of his party members are incapable of recognising the severe economic damage that independence would do to people in Scotland. Is there aren't just glaring problems, Presiding Officer, in our NHS, in our schools, in our justice system, on housing? The SNP failed to meet its 50,000 affordable homes target on time in the last Parliament. In the Highlands and Islands, available and affordable housing is at such a critical shortage that local authorities such as our Garland Bute declared a housing emergency last year. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will have seen the Herald newspaper dedicating this week its additions to publishing that paper from my region to highlight the acute issues of depopulation in the Highlands and the devastating consequences that can bring. What were the Government's solutions? A botched islands bond, which it scrapped shortly after consultation. A rural housing fund, of which only half has been allocated. A rural affordable homes for key workers fund that has secured zero properties almost nine months since it was established. On transport, a failure to dual the A9 despite promising to do so in multiple election manifestos. The national disgrace that is this Government's ferry replacement policy with two vessels sitting in a dockyard on the Clyde four times over budget and more than six years late. On infrastructure, a failure to roll out superfast broadband to every home and business in Scotland despite a cast on pledge to do so by 2021. I understand, I'm beginning to understand why the SNP Government brings forward debates like the one we are having today, rather than trying to defend such an appalling domestic record. It has nothing to say about the issues that people expect this Government to deal with, and it is becoming increasingly clear that people across Scotland are growing weary of these excuses and distractions. Now, of course, when the SNP Green Government works with the UK Government, rather than against it, so much can be achieved. Instead of using this debate to complain about a democratic UK wide referendum result that has long since been settled, we should be debating about how we can find new and better ways of working with our partners in the EU. It's now nearly a year ago that the Prime Minister agreed the landmark Windsor framework with the European Commission President providing a new legal and constitutional framework for the UK's relationship with the EU. I believe that this past year has shown that the Windsor framework and the associated negotiations around that has instilled a much more positive relationship with our close friends and allies in the EU, one that I hope continues to prosper and grow. Let us hope that the news overnight from Northern Ireland is a new positive chapter in that story. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the European Constitution, External Affairs and Culture Committee has recently begun an inquiry into the trade and cooperation agreement ahead of its review in 2026. As the cabinet secretary himself has recognised in the past, at official level, Scottish Government officials and UK Government officials worked well and constructively on a number of issues. Rather than breaking away from the world's most successful union and becoming a smaller state with less influence in the EU, Scotland is so much better served as part of our United Kingdom. Let me point out one aspect of that. There are many. As part of the UK, half a million Scottish jobs, around one in every four, is supported by the fact that 60 per cent of our trade exports go to the rest of the UK. That is approximately £48 billion. As part of the UK, Scotland has access to 200 UK-wide public institutions. As part of the UK, Scotland can use the pound, one of the world's strongest currencies, which ensures that pensions are protected and we are the world's sixth largest economy. As part of the UK, Scotland remains at its most influential. Our membership of the UN Security Council, the G7, the G20, etc. I could go on. That is why people continue to support Scotland's place in the UK and we on these benches not only respect that but we will continue to fight to protect that. The SNP may want to keep fighting battles that have long since ended, but the Scottish people are tiring of this Government's lethargy and incompetence. They want a Parliament that is focused on solving the challenges of our time and not focused on issues settled in referendums eight or ten years ago. What a crying shame it is, the SNP continues to bring forward debates such as this rather than focusing on the issues that really matter to people. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 12004.1 to nine minutes, Mr Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I'm not sure if the Cabinet Secretary is, as I am, a fan of fantasy football. If not, I would encourage him to become one because I think he would be better spending ten minutes of a weekend playing that fantasy game than subjecting the rest of us to hours of this exercise in fantasy politics today. Oes a valuable parliamentary time taken up with a debate on a paper few have read and even less are interested in. These papers do not focus on the priorities of the people of Scotland, are a waste of taxpayers' money and they aren't even convincing their own supporters, and therefore it's a further waste of parliamentary time debating them today. Don't take my words for it. Even former SNP cabinet secretary Alex Neil said recently that the Scottish Government needs to ditch the crap and get focused entirely on the people's priorities by delivering better services and supporting the Scottish people. The SNP should stop, he said, constantly contemplating our navels. I agree with Mr Neil on that. This is a transparent and desperate distraction from the SNP's mounting political problems and from the issues that urgently matter to the people of Scotland, because the truth is that this Parliament and the Scottish people don't need a made-up debate on Europe today. If we are concerned, as the motion states, about what best serves Scotland's economic, social and political future, then we should be debating more pressing matters. We should be debating the cost of living crisis that continues to affect the communities and families across our country. We should be debating the winter crisis in our NHS and spiralling waiting lists. We should be debating the outrageous and savage cuts inflicted on local councils by the Scottish Government and the degrading of our public services. At a time when the Scottish Government is spending nearly £2 million on the production of those papers, day centres for adults with learning disabilities in Renfrewshire are under threat of closure and merger due to this Government's budget cuts. Our most vulnerable adults face losing lifeline services that they rely on whilst this Government wastes vital resources on this charade. Of course, recent weeks have revealed, as Donald Cameron mentioned, the mass deletion on an industrial scale of WhatsApp messages by this Government. A clear attempt to fort the work of the UK Covid inquiry and a massive betrayal of Covid bereaved families and of the Scottish public. Why aren't we debating that? It's not just WhatsApps that have disappeared, but so too has trust in this Scottish Government. We know why we aren't debating these issues, Presiding Officer, because rather than face their own record, their own failings and therefore of ideas, this Government seeks to engage in a transparent diversion and yet another desperate attempt to pretend to their own supporters they have a plan when they don't. An attempt to create what we might even call a good old-fashioned rami to breathe some life into the SNP's dwindling poll numbers, and it is disappointing. Presiding Officer, like Donald Cameron, I have considerable respect for Mr Robertson and Mr Hepburn. I think that they are better than this, but this is a symptom of a party that has lost its way after 17 years in government. I work constructively with Mr Hepburn when he was Minister for Small Business. He did an important job in that brief and, in my view, he did that well. However, Mr Hepburn is unfortunately in a non-job preparing and glorified talking points in non-debates. Just a few weeks ago, I had a constructive meeting with the Cabinet Secretary where we discussed a range of useful ideas and issues in relation to matters affecting the culture sector. That is what the cabinet secretary and all ministers should be doing, using the powers to affect wheel change now. To hold that position, those positions are a great responsibility and a great privilege, but stuff like that, however, is a dereliction of duty. Just a few weeks ago, the cabinet secretary was praising the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs and Culture Committee for its unanimous report on devolution post-Brexit. He knows that the committee, as we speak, is embarking on inquiry into the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. If we want to debate Europe, surely it is a publication of the committee's report that we should do so. Let the committee do its work and let us debate the issue in full or proper possession of the facts and evidence. Nevertheless, we are here, Presiding Officer, and let's be clear that the Tory Government has made a complete mess of Brexit and of much else. Their botched Brexit has left no-one happy even Brexit supporters. They have burned bridges with our allies and partners and left businesses and trade and deal with Europe drowning in a sea of red tape. They have presided over economic calamity and political chaos. It is a dismal and disgraceful record. The answer, Presiding Officer, is not yet in more years of social division, constitutional upheaval and costly economic damage. Brexit itself should act as a warning of the consequences of drawing oneself from an economic and political union for the sake of a constitutional obsession, particularly one that does not command the support of the majority of Scotland's people. In early intervention, I asked Mr Bibby what the position of the Scottish Labour Party was, and he wasn't able or prepared to answer then, so will he do so now? Is it the position of Anna Sarwar and the Scottish Labour Party that it is in support of permanent British membership of the European Single Market and Customs Union? It's a yes or a no. We will seek to fix the Tory's Brexit mess and I'll come on to the details of how we want to have greater co-operation with our European partners. The SNP wants to ignore the inconvenience truth about the customs union that we have with the rest of the UK. The fact that we share a land border with the rest of the UK, a currency and so many institutions. Angus Robertson talked earlier about how big and important the single market was, but we are neglected to mention that the UK makes up 61 per cent of Scotland's export market. Their plans would make Brexit look like a cake walk. What is more, the Scottish Government's own analysis indicates that for an independent Scotland to join the EU would take years and possibly many, many years of complex negotiations. The Scottish Government should be honest about these trade-offs and honest about these costs. No, I'm going to make progress. People need change and that process can start by putting the Tories out and electing a UK Labour Government. Labour has set out practical and achievable solutions to fix the Tory's Brexit mess with a better relationship with the EU and improvements to the TCA. We need to use the scheduled review of the TCA to tear down unnecessary trade barriers. We also need to support our world-leading services and scientists by seeking mutual recognition of professional services. Labour will seek a better deal for financial services and a new defence and security pact with the EU. In the realm of culture, Labour has set out clearly its intentions to fix the visa touring issues for musicians and artists and to seek an EU cultural touring agreement. People also want a wider programme of economic and social change. The creation of GB Energy and a new deal for working people are just two important examples of practical, deliverable change that can prove people's lives. That, Presiding Officer, is in sharp contrast to the SNP. The SNP aren't principled on Europe, they are opportunists. The National Supposed EU membership in 1975 referendum in 2014, they were willing to forsake our place in Europe. Let's not forget that the SNP spent more money in the Shetland by-election than they spent during the entirety of the EU referendum campaign. In 2019, they did not even vote in favour of a customs union during the Brexit votes. The policy position remains unclear and confused. I asked the cabinet secretary about his own comments about the Lisbon treaty being completely and utterly unacceptable and a travesty. That seems hard to square with the more recent enthusiasm to render an independent Scotland subject to that treaty. The Government wants an independent Scotland to join the EU but seem ambivalent on whether or not they are prepared to join the Euro, something that many experts agree would be essential. The Government's own internal analysis released through FLI shows that it would take years for an independent Scotland to even join the EU, years of vast economic upheaval about which the Scottish Government is rarely candid with the Scottish public. That's why people can't take these debates and papers seriously. The sad reality is that this debate has more to do with the SNP Government's internal politics than it does with actual matters of substance and of pressing concerns to the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland deserve better. They deserve governments of both Scotland and UK levels that will deliver on their priorities and tackle their concerns. Mr Bibby, I now call on Willie Rennie to speak to and to move amendment 1 to 004.3. I always listen very carefully to the cabinet secretary. The more I listened to him this afternoon, the more it had echoes of Jacob Rees-Mogg. This is not some insult throw-away comment. If you look at the detail of what the cabinet secretary was talking about, there are many similar arguments to those that were made by the Brexiteers. A deadweight UK, slow economic growth, that was what Nigel Faraz and Jacob Rees-Mogg said about the EU at the time. That there is a huge market elsewhere in the world. Exactly the same argument that the cabinet secretary has made this afternoon is the one that was made by Jacob Rees-Mogg. And then overruling our democracy equally an argument that the cabinet secretary and Jacob Rees-Mogg have frequently made. So there are many similar echoes between the two arguments. It's the two forms of nationalisms that are taking over this debate. I think the one thing that we have learnt over the last few years that putting up barriers causes economic damage rather than creating economic opportunity. We've seen that the only real tangible benefit that we've had from Brexit has been the trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand. That was criticised by the agriculture secretary at the very time when it was going through. So we know that there are no real benefits from Brexit. We've seen none of the tangible things that Jacob Rees-Mogg talks about. And we know that that would be exactly the same if we were ever to be in the unfortunate position of breaking up the United Kingdom. I've noticed in recent weeks that several members of the SNP benches have been getting exercise by the new labels that are being stuck on to UK projects, not for EU. Which is the consequence of the Windsor agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol to deal with the Green Lane issues. But this is not something to point to the failure of Brexit, which I think of course it is. But it is also a warning about what would come if we were ever to be in the unfortunate situation of breaking up the United Kingdom. Because we would be replacing those labels with not for UK produce. That would be what would be on our produce in Scotland. So the thing that we very much get angry about now is exactly the thing that would happen if we were ever to break up the United Kingdom. So I think the SNP should just be careful with what they campaign about and what they claim they are in support of. I think that the cabinet secretary and I agree about the national institute's assessment of the impact of Brexit, the 2 to 3 per cent GDP drop, which is £850 per person. That has a big economic disadvantage to citizens in this country on top of the damage of Ukraine and also Covid. But it has also brought difficulties in attracting workers for important sectors such as social care and the NHS. And it has caused division. We saw that tensions were raised again last night in Northern Ireland with the protests outside the DUP meeting. So we know there are tensions, we know there is economic damage, we know there is a shortage of workers. But we have got to ask ourselves a question, what do we do next? Do we repeat those mistakes or do we learn the lessons? I am determined that we learn the lessons. I was opposed to Brexit, I am still opposed to Brexit. Of course I want to be in the European Union. I do not want to have gone through the last few years of arguing endlessly about pointless things that do not make any advantage for our country. But what I am learning now is how do we get back to position where we can reduce the economic damage, where we can get the workers back into our NHS and social care sectors and where we can eradicate the division. That is what I am wanting to try to do. And the gradualist approach has got to be the one that we are in favour of. That is something that the SNP used to be in favour of but they do not seem to be any more. But we need to have a gradualist approach of making sure that, for instance, on reach, that we bring UK reach together, on the chemicals assessment, together with the European reach. There is hardly any difference between the two either. So let us get them working together. Let us have mutual recognition on trades and professions. So that a worker from Wachtar Mwghti, who is a joiner, can go off to Brussels and do exactly the same job over there. That should be the opportunity that we are presenting for people. We need to look at the veterinary checks of eradicating some of the bureaucracy around that as well. Those are the practical steps that we should be taking together with implementing powers that we said we were going to utilise. For instance, on the TAFE scheme, which is the replacement for Erasmus in Wales. Now, just here, we have a pilot and a pilot that was delayed. So young people in Scotland are being deprived an opportunity that the SNP said in their manifesto that would be provided and they fail to deliver that. Whereas in Wales, there are students going to 23 European Union countries. There are going to 40 countries in the rest of the world, thanks to the programme that has been put in place in Wales. In Scotland, we are not interested, because it is not really the slogan that we are really after anymore. We were able to use Erasmus to try and make our arguments for independence, but no longer are interested. Because it does not suit the case anymore. The cabinet secretary said that he would take no lectures from me about Brexit. I am going to lecture him about this, because he needs to remember, as Neil Bibby quite rightly pointed out, that they were more interested in the Shetland bio-election than they were in the European referendum. They spent more money up there than the whole of Scotland. The whole of Scotland spent a fraction of the money. That does not look like a pro-European party to me. Alex Salmond, I remember this at the time. Alex Salmond used to be the leader of the SNP. No, not just now. I am just making this very powerful argument. Alex Salmond was more obsessed about attacking the UK Government than he was about making a positive case for Europe during that referendum. I remember two direct interventions. The only interventions from Alex Salmond in that referendum was to attack the UK Government. So they do not really care about Europe. It is only being used for their advantage as much as they can. We need to make sure that we make the positive case for Europe by working closely with our neighbours in Europe to undo the economic damage and the division and make sure that we can get the workers for the UK that we need. Let us not repeat the mistakes with independence. Thank you, Mr Rennie. I think that we need to hear you move your amendment. Very true. I will move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. I call Claire Adamson to be followed by Maurice Golden. I was trying to intervene with Mr Rennie there. I just find his argument about what we spent on the referendum. I think that he forgets that we won it here in Scotland by a huge margin. 64 per cent, not enough for you, would the 88 per cent of the vote in Scotland go for Europe? I mean this argument about we didn't do enough. I think that it is evident that the people of Scotland wanted to stay in Europe. There was much for all last week when British negotiators walked away from the trade talks from Canada. While there were concerns raised in news segments by food producers and whisky companies, what was not reported was that if we had not left Europe on the campaign base of the lies and the othering of European neighbours, our producers would be enjoying the comprehensive economic and trade agreement CETA, which is a modern and progressive EU trade arrangement offering the EU more and better opportunities in Canada. I sit as convener of the Constitution, Europe, Exxon, Affairs and Culture Committee, and myself and Donald Cameron sit as observers on behalf of this Parliament on the PPA. The PPA is composed of a delegation of UK House of Commons and Lord representatives and members of the European Parliament. The Assembly has discussed on many occasions and indeed made some progress on a number of the post-Brexit concerns that have been raised in the chamber this afternoon. The Windsor agreement did bring some meeting of minds with those areas. We now have participation back in horizon and carpentries programmes, which we gave up with Brexit. We have discussed youth mobility and exchange, which we gave up with Brexit. We have discussed touring artists and the burden on the multiple visas and cabotage, which did not apply before Brexit. It seems that we are spending our time picking and choosing to get back the very rights that we inconceivably gave up on the UK left Europe. Where is the big Brexit bonus? As has been shown in the chamber this afternoon, there just isn't one. It is led to our economy suffering from rising costs, borders to trade and from the inability to recruit and retain valuable employees into our own economy. A few European friends no longer enrich our communities in the way that they once did. I am presenting the plans for energy interconnectors, security issues, unrest on the European continent and in Gaza. All of that brings our world closer together and yet the Brexit disaster has left UK isolated on the fringes of Europe and, as I said, the Scottish people did not want this. It has happened against our wills and even when we tried to get some of the benefits afforded to Northern Ireland for very good and understandable reasons, that was denied to Scotland. We no longer have access to the European framework. The Royal Society of Scotland is conducting the Europe initiative. It has now held 10 events and a series under the RSE in Scotland as a project that looks at the future relationship between the United Kingdom and Europe, which is, they say, still unsettled. At the same time, they recognise that Europe itself is undergoing substantial change. We have to look closer to home for distinct Scottish issues and options. It is providing regular analysis of those issues, drawing on academic research, examining the policy and institutional options for responding to some of the challenges and engaging dialogue with government, business and civil society in Scotland. It is somewhat childish to suggest that this is not an appropriate place to be examining those very issues in our country's Parliament. We also have seen established the Scottish Council of Global Affairs, Glasgow University, Edinburgh University and St Andrews University, providing a non-partisan hub for expertise on international issues. If I quote Professor Philip O'Brien, who is the chair of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews, he says that it is time for Scotland to have a rigorous, non-partisan people-folks global affairs institute that can bring together brilliant researchers with a range of groups from across our society. Those are the very best minds of our country who are looking at our future, looking at Scotland's place in Europe, the motion that we are discussing today. It is really important that we in this chamber should be able to come to this open-minded with a view to discussing all the ways forward for Scotland. We will disagree constitutionally, but what we cannot ignore is that Brexit has been an absolute disaster for our country and that we must all come together and look to the future and the options open to our country. I believe that the best option is an independent Scotland and a return to the heart of European politics. Others will have other ideas, but let's discuss them and not be talking about the past and what people did in 1975. This is the future, and it is a future with Ukraine as a possible member of the European Union. We should remember what has happened in our world and look to Scotland's future in that European Union, too. The last time I debated one of those prospectus for independence papers, it was to discuss creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland. In this paper we heard that Scotland would be adopting a new fantasy constitution, which was to be triggered by a fantasy independence referendum, which will then trigger the adopting of a fantasy interim constitution before another fantasy referendum to adopt a permanent fantasy constitution. I hope that all made sense. It is quite hard to keep track of all the fanciful claims that have been made in those prospectuses on independence papers. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I want to ask the member if he believes that a question of fantasy or statement of fantasy could be vote no to stay in the EU. The disappointing aspect from the member is not representing her own constituents because, in 2016, the SNP promised to reduce journey times on rail from Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Glasgow by over 20 minutes, but just 3 per cent of that budget has been delivered so far. I am sure that the member's constituents up in the north-east are really disappointed by the fantasy promises of the Scottish Government. Just last month, in response to another one of those papers, the First Minister claimed that families would be £10,000 better off under an independent Scotland, but, previous to becoming First Minister, he also suggested that those prospectus for independence papers were a waste of time. He is right that they are a waste of time. Of all the many issues that we could be debating here today, it is this one. Unfortunately, the SNP has a real habit with its debates of ducking scrutiny by avoiding the issues that really matter to the people of Scotland. He suggests that we are seeking to avoid scrutiny. This is a Scottish Government publication. We have published this using Scottish Government resource, entirely legitimately. We have a mandate to do so. We have brought it here for debate, so it could be scrutinised. Why is it not up as game and engaged with the subject matter? Maurice Golden? Those papers are a waste of money. That is the fundamental point. The Scottish Government is paying £1.5 million a year to civil servants in their constitutional futures division to work on those prospectus for independence papers and similar projects. It is no surprise that the SNP has chosen the subject of EU membership for one of those papers, as it is one of its favourite subjects for grievance-filled bluster. Take the bluster upon which the Scottish Parliamentary continuity bill was introduced. The SNP would have had you believe that it was the most important piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament since devolution, legislation on which the Scottish Government's default position would be to align to new EU law as it was introduced. Despite the numerous opportunities to do so, the Scottish Government has only once chosen to align to newly introduced EU law and have provided no explanation as to why it has not aligned to every other new EU law that has been introduced. However, a lot of times with this Government you can learn more from the things they do not do. In the same vein with their vision for an independent Scotland in the EU paper, like all good propaganda exercises, it is far more interesting to know what it does not say. It claims that Scotland would have access to the world's largest single market with reduced barriers to trade, but any reduced barriers to trade would come with increased barriers with Scotland's actual largest single market in trade with the UK, which is a source of 67 per cent of Scottish imports and responsible for over half a million Scottish jobs, almost four times the number of jobs linked to trade with the EU. The paper also fails to mention the EU's requirement of a 3 per cent deficit and that Scotland currently has a deficit of 9 per cent. As for currency, it is anyone's guess as to what the paper is actually saying about currency. Of course, this is one of the major issues that the SNP has never had a coherent answer for. The paper states that the Scottish Government would apply to join the EU as soon as possible after independence while continuing to use sterling at the point of application. So an independent Scotland will apply to the EU whilst using sterling. It then says that Scotland would, as soon as practable, move from sterling to having its own currency and use Scottish pound. The process of establishing a Scottish pound would be closely aligned with the process of rejoining the EU. So during the application process, whereby Scotland's deficit is already three times higher than the EU limit, Scotland will be creating the new mythical Scottish pound just in time for EU accession. The paper states that we would then be able to keep the mythical Scottish pound as long as we want, and that other countries have done that, so we could too. However, the paper fails to also state that countries that have kept their currency have done so with existing currencies, not newly created mythical ones. So, who knows what the answer is? We could be using sterling, the mythical Scottish pound or the euro, but, Deputy Presiding Officer, the SNP will not let those small details get in their way of their constitutional obsessions. I urge members to support the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron. Thank you, Mr Golden. I now call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Cocap Stewart. Mr Stewart. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Scotland may be physically at the north-west of Europe, but we have always been spiritually and economically at the heart of Europe. You can see that from the history of my own city of Aberdeen, where for centuries we were trading with the Hanseatic League as were other parts of our nation. Our position at the gates of the Atlantic allowed us to form a bridge between Europe and America. We sat on the Baltic trade route from the Americas across the North Sea to the Low Countries, Germany, Scandinavia and on to the Baltic States. This European trade was vital to the development of modern Scotland. Despite the efforts of the UK Government, in the past it must not remain. Trade with the EU must be our future. The single market, a cornerstone of the EU, is not a romantic notion but a tangible engine of economic growth. Access to 500 million consumers opens doors for Scottish businesses unleashing their potential to compete and thrive. During his contribution, Mr Rennie spoke of the fact that 61 per cent of our trade is with the rest of the UK. Next year he may stand up and say 62 per cent or 63 per cent or 64 per cent. Some folk in this chamber seem to think that that is a good thing. That is a very bad thing because it shows our exporting capacity to Europe and to the rest of the world is shrinking and that we have an over-reliance on trade within these islands alone. That is not good for anyone. It is not good for Scotland, England or Wales. It is not good for Northern Ireland either. I will give way to Mr Rennie. Who has been in charge of the Scottish Government for the past 16 years that has presided over that? Mr Rennie well knows that the difficulty that there is is the fact that the large part of the levers of power when it comes to the economy is with the UK Government. Beyond that, we have seen a situation where trade with other areas has shrunk because of Brexit, a Brexit that Mr Rennie and his party now seem to support. To quote his leader, Ed Davie, he said that rejoining the EU is for the birds. I think that rejoining the EU is for the wise, not the birds and I will stick with that. As I said, access to over 500 million consumers opens doors for Scottish businesses, unleashing their potential to compete and to thrive. Brexit-erected barriers have dampened exports and are stifling innovation. It is no coincidence that UK growth started to fail even faster with the Brexit vote. Despite the massive deficient spending by the UK Government reaching its peak with trusonomics and the disastrous mini-budget, Britain's growth remains insipid. I mentioned to Mr Cameron, who is no longer here, that the Centre for European Reform estimates that to date Brexit has cost the UK £40 billion in tax receipts, which, to the surprise of no one, matches the £46 billion in tax-height hikes carried out by Rishi Sunak. It is quite simple. If the resources to fund our public services do not come from trade and business, it comes from our back pockets. It is that simple. Like Mr Cameron, I want to see more money spent on public services. There are probably a few Tories, but next to no one in this chamber who do not want to see more spend on our public services. Brexit has harmed that tax take, which means that there is less money to spend on the NHS, education and infrastructure. We must look to not just trading with 60 million people on the islands, because that is never going to compensate for being able to trade with 500 million people in the rest of Europe. As I say, it is taxpayers who are left to pick up the Brexit bill for that lack of trade. The British Government tries to tell us that, if we stick a union jack and not for sale on the EU and everything, that that magically is bigger than that 500 million, it is not. Scotland's trade, Scotland's place and Scotland's future has to be with that 500 million and that openness to Europe and to the world. How do we achieve that? We should look again at that traditional Baltic trade route and follow the example of the Baltic states. They threw off the shackles of a decaying empire and took their place alongside the other independent countries in Europe. That is what Scotland should do. We should give up on broken Brexit Britain and stand free as an independent nation within the European Union. Europe is an ideal for which one must be prepared to fight. These are the words of Simone Vale, the late French politician and Holocaust survivor. We have just marked Holocaust Memorial Day and it would be remiss of us not to consider exactly how the European project came about. Part of the ashes of war where so many lives were torn apart, nations across the continent yearned to build a better future. One which preserved the right of national sovereignty but saw beyond rigid borders and isolationism with each allied nation working together on common policy areas such as food production, justice, security, environmental protections and the promotion of human rights. The European Union, as it is today, is the home of 27 member states, around 450 million people. It is a co-operation of nations three times the size of the Russian Federation, a highly influential and formidable player on the global stage of which sadly we are no longer apart. No longer a part of the single market providing frictionless trade with our neediest international neighbours. No longer enjoying freedom of movement and enriching our citizens with broader horizons. The ability to live, work and even fall in love in new surroundings. Shockingly, no longer a part of the Erasmus programme, which gave students across our continent the invaluable opportunity to live and learn in a different nation, experience different cultures and learn different languages. Instead, I believe that it is replaced with a vastly inferior UK Turin scheme, which unlike Erasmus Plus, does not even cover tuition costs. I am grateful to the member. Would we enter the European Union with the euro, with the pound or with the Scottish pound? What significance would that have? I thank you for that intervention. I will come back to some of those points, but my points about what we are missing out on. Remember, Scotland did not vote for Brexit. As I was saying, the replacement of vastly inferior Turin schemes and the European project Europe has an ideal that has been stolen from us by a governing Tory party that was tearing itself apart on EU membership, costing them to Prime Ministers admittedly, but it cost the rest of us so much more. I am sure that colleagues on the side of EU membership will discuss some of the broken promises of Brexit years, a word that I cannot abide, Presiding Officer, as it attempts to heroise those who inflicted this dreadful mess upon us. The UK Government's own office for budget responsibility last year predicted that Brexit had caused long-run productivity to be 4 per cent lower, both exports and imports to and from the EU to be 15 per cent lower, but at least the UK can now forge its own trade deals with nations around the world. Unlike the trade agreement with Japan, signed by Liz Truss as international trade secretary in 2019, who boasted that one of its benefits is that it lifted tariffs on cheese products from the UK. What a triumph! We can now sell more cheese to a nation halfway around the world, whom 90 per cent of the population is lactose intolerant. Presiding Officer, there is not a single tangible benefit of Brexit that those who perpetrate it can cite. It turned the UK into an insular state on the periphery of real influence. It denied our citizens a myriad of crucial rights and privileges and it has made it harder for key industries such as agriculture and hospitality to employ seasonal workers and all without the democratic consent of the four nations of the UK. Unlike the European Union, the United Kingdom is not a union of equal partners. Scotland voted as a whole by 62 per cent to remain in the EU, but in some parts of my constituency that figure was as high as 78 per cent. That is why I am glad that we are debating this today. Brexit and EU membership cannot be allowed to drop off the radar of public debate. The Scottish Government's paper, An Independent Scotland in the EU, is an informed prospectus of what we can aspire to be as a nation. With Labour now fully absorbing the Tory policy of staying out of the EU, along with the Liberal Democrats, it is clear that the only route back is an independent country. I am therefore encouraged that it is the Scottish Government's position that applying to become a member of the European Union would happen as soon as possible after achieving independence. Of course, there are certain criteria for joining. These would be subject to the individual negotiation once Scotland has become a candidate country. I think that when independent, the Scots could apply and probably get in pretty quickly through the door marked accession. Not my words, Presiding Officer, but those of Lord Kerr, former ambassador and now permanent representative to the European Union. I am mindful of time, Presiding Officer, so I will come to a close. Scotland's brightest days lie ahead of us. Independence in Europe is normal. Just look around. Small independent nations such as Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, Ireland, similar population sizes to Scotland are in a true union of equals with equal say and voting power in the Council of Europe as larger nations such as France and Germany. We deserve so much better, and I believe that the door is open for us. I now call Alec Rowley to be followed by Christine Grahame. I have always believed, Presiding Officer, that it is a privilege to speak in this chamber, but I must confess that I am becoming frustrated by the Government priorities and their failure to use this chamber to acknowledge and to address the massive challenges that the people of Scotland are living through. Today we could be debating how we are going to tackle the increase in waiting lists within our NHS, what the Government is going to do to deal with the pressures social care is under, and the fact that it has kicked its unworkable national care service policy into the long grass. In five, we have ambulances lined up outside the hospital for hours on end, and we are not talking about this, or even, indeed, we are not talking of how we are going to fix it. GPs are struggling under pressure, more are due to retire, and the NHS board in five tells me it does not have a plan. Indeed, they acknowledge they do not have any idea how many GPs are due to retire in the coming years. The answer that GPs give is that GPs are private businesses. It is not good enough, and it requires the attention of this Parliament. I would have, Mr Rowley, recognised, as many others do, that one of the significant pressures that the national health service is facing right now is the inability to recruit from other parts of the world, including, for example, from the European Union. I certainly would acknowledge that the national health service is facing massive pressures, and part of that is to be able to recruit from abroad. The biggest reason is the failure of this Government to workforce plan for our national service, and it is high time that this Government accepted some responsibility, because we are not going to sort the problems in Scotland until we have a Government that will accept their responsibility for doing so. So there is so much more we need to be addressing. How are we going to fix Scotland's failing public transport system? Or what are we doing to ensure further education can survive the latest round of budget cuts? Only last week I asked the Education Secretary in this chamber to make Government time available to discuss the crisis in our schools and what must be done to address the issues. But here we are today, another debate about building borders with England and fantasising about independence in Europe. Mr Rowley is a reasonable man, and a man who is always asking for increased funding for public services, I fall into the same category. Does Mr Rowley recognise that that estimated £40 billion of lost tax receipts that have occurred because of Brexit have had a major impact on public service spending across these islands? I am glad that Mr Stewart said across these islands, because I would acknowledge, but I would equally say to you that the waste that we have seen in Scotland because we have not prioritised our public services, so we have not prioritised the powers that we have in this Parliament, that is part of the problem. But as long as we have a Government that will not accept its responsibility for running public services in Scotland, then we can hardly make any progress. I believe, as I am sure a large majority of this chamber agree, Brexit has been bad for the UK. But we are where we are, and we must face up to the reality of that situation and act in the best interests of the people of Scotland. I also believe that this country would be in a better position now if it were not down to the disastrous attempts of successive Tory Governments to negotiate the terms of that exit from the EU. But the UK voted by a majority to leave the EU and has spent a considerable amount of time negotiating the details working to distangle our economic, political and social system from the EU. I know the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs and Culture Committee is about to do an inquiry into trade and co-operation agreements with the EU, so if the Scottish Government is serious about this issue, why not wait till the committee reports before we have such a debate? I want to be clear that I fully support freedom of movement and have argued in the past for devolved migration powers to this Parliament, but I do not think that that in itself will fix every problem that Scotland faces, indeed far from it. In fact, I would go further and say that if people coming into this country will face the same problems that people living in this country are already facing, a massive shortage of affordable and social housing, ever increasing waiting lists in their healthcare, a social care system buckling under the pressure of an aging population and a clueless Government with no idea how to fix it. So, instead of spending their time arguing about what could be, I will close my contribution in this debate by actually looking at what is on the table, what could actually improve the conditions across the UK and anything close to a reasonable timescale, a UK Labour Government, to end the division that has come from Brexit both within our country and with that, with our closest neighbour. Labour will prioritise in Government to improve relations with its closest neighbours, supporting businesses, improving the Brexit deal to help trade investment, clean energy, including a new public energy company GB Energy being created and headquartered here in Scotland. It is for the SNP Green Government to decide if it will make the most of what that new arrangements are in the best interests of the people of Scotland or if they will continue to argue that until they have every power, they cannot make use of any power. Scotland deserves better than this SNP Government. I thank Alec Rowley for his Labour campaign message and I say to him that we could do more for the NHS in Scotland and public services. The same is true of England, where strikes prevail, incidentally, if the UK economy, which dictates our economy, was not in such a mess as even Sir Keir Starmer admits. Back to that better together mantra in the 2014 referendum campaign, which no doubt my mind costs us that small percentage of votes to take us over the 50 per cent hurdle to independence, namely that you can only guarantee Scotland's EU membership by staying in the UK. Well, what to do? Accept this mess because someone, including Alec Rowley, would say, well, we are where we are. I'll come back to that. Let's start at the very beginning. It's a very good place to start. In 2016, Scotland voted everwhelmingly to remain in the EU by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. We can't say that often enough. Every single one of Scotland's 32 local authorities voted to reject Brexit. I can't say that often enough. So we were dragged out and it was done in the middle of a pandemic, brilliant timing. I say to Neil Bibby, the 1975 referendum campaign as to whether to join the European Community, the SNP campaign, yes, it did campaign, no, but crucially in quotes, not on anyone else's terms. Well, we not only joined on someone else's terms and checked with Scotland's fishing community, we left in the same way. How sensible we were then to reject leave, because since then we've had food shortages, a fishing sell-out, export crisis, workforce shortages to name but a few. Scotland, like the rest of the UK, is now forced to pay the price of the Tories damaging hard Brexit. What happened to the oven-ready meal? Promises made and not in any particular order of merit were better together campaign director Blair McDougal telling Scotland that Boris Johnson would never become Prime Minister. The biggest and most disputed claim put forward by the leave camp was that Britain sends £350 million a week to the EU and that money could be used instead to fund the NHS. The UK provides strength, stability and international clout. Move over Liz Truss, her tenure as Prime Minister and the pound fell down to the lowest level ever recorded. Instead of the UK having surplus cash to use at its leisure, it has instead seen its economy shrink. The Centre for Economic Reform said in December that Brexit has left the UK economy 5.5 per cent smaller than it would have been had it remained. Then Donald Cameron with pensions won't know to protect your pension. The UK has the lowest pension out of all neighbouring countries and at the bottom of the league in the developed world, according not to Christine Graham but the OECD, taking back control of our borders. Net migration has been unusually high in the past two years. The Office for National Statistics estimates that net migration to the UK was 745,000 in 2022 up from 184,000 in 2019 before the pandemic and most migrants are legal and have increased. Meanwhile Brexit has created a shortage of workers in the UK certainly, as I mentioned you in dispatches. Does Christine Graham not accept that we have a problem in Scotland where people are not coming to stay in Scotland and that's partly down to the fact that we don't have the houses to house them in and the public services to offer them? I don't like to say to such a nice man to stop shooting yourself in the foot. You know perfectly well that our capital budget is dictated by what Westminster divvies out to us. You know that, I beg your pardon. The member knows that as well as the rest of us. So you're too clever to pretend otherwise but I know you've got to try and fight the corner for the Labour Party no matter what. Anyway we've got a shortage of workers and the workers are in very important areas and it's contributed significantly to it. Now we come to levelling up. Broadly that's the money that used to come directly from the EU to Scotland for projects. It now comes from London bypasses the Scottish Parliament which has responsibility for infrastructure straight to local authorities and so on. Deliberately undermining devolution. No border down the Irish Sea well there is. And while I welcome the probable return of power sharing in Northern Ireland, certainly for the good of the people, what is that 3.8 billion? An enticement or a bribe? Details are to follow. Cross-border England Scotland, I say to Neil Bibby, look at the north of the North Sea to Sweden and Norway, both countries and members of the Schengen area and there are therefore no immigration controls. Sweden is part of the European Union and crucially the European Union customs union and yes, there are customs checks between the two countries. These checks are performed by the Norwegian customs and excise authorities and the Swedish customs service. They are sporadic along the Norway-Sweden border. Cars are not usually forced to stop and to combat smuggling. The use of CCTV surveillance has been increased with systems using automatic number plate recognition. It works. It's not a problem. The reality is that Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK, let alone Scotland, but the scales have fallen from the eyes of many, deceived by false promises and in Scotland that threatened the 2014 referendum that we've thrown out if we voted yes. No wonder we are denied a referendum now. The sense of Brexit progress can be measured in the latest unheard study, which found UK-wide that 54 per cent now feel it was the wrong decision, while less than 30 per cent now mildly or strongly agree that it was the right movement of time. Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has ruled out rejoining the EU on the single market if his party comes to power. He has steadied the Labour ship by veering into soft Tory territory as the managing director of Iceland, Richard Walker, let slip recently once he sought to be a Tory MP. They are happy that Sir Keir Starmer has moved into central Tory territory. The Tory amendment is pretty pathetic and tedious. It was a Tory government which, by whisker of leave votes, UK-wide caused a constitutional earthquake. We are still suffering the aftershocks, as for the Lib Dem amendment, which reads at one point line 6 of a very wordy amendment, typical of a liberal amendment. Quotes, those essential steps to EU membership will help to restore the economy, etc. So I'm pleased to see that their long-established skills have fenced that can remain undiminished. Regine or not? Who knows, do they? So I go back to the beginning. As you know, people often say when faced with the results of bad decisions, well we are Mr Rowley where we are. Now if I was given a wrong turn and ended up facing a precipice, I would put the car into reverse gear in the blink of an eye and independent Scotland will do just that and rejoin the EU. I now call Ivan McKee to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Turn me on now. Good, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate. I've just noticed it and maybe I'm not correct here, but I think that four of the last five speakers have been SNP backbenchers and I don't know if that's because the opposition parties aren't taking up their speaking slots in this debate of interest. I'll have a look at that later, but that kind of talks to my first point very pertinently because it's unusual in a democracy to have an issue where there's a clear majority in favour of a particular course of action, but almost all parties are opposed to taking that course of action, particularly in Scotland. It's absolutely across the rest of the UK now as well as Christine Grahame has identified as a very clear majority in favour of rejoining the European Union. It's unusual to have that on such an important issue as we have for us today because despite the efforts of some on the opposition benches to talk down this issue, it's usually critical to Scotland's economy and to much else besides. We can understand the Tories because they're running scared of Nigel Farage who's playing cat and mouse with them and they're absolutely petrified of what reform or whatever party he's running just now is going to do to them at the forthcoming election. We've got Labour running scared of redwall voters in Tory seats and it's a consequence sitting on the fence on this as in much else in Keir Starmer's lack of manifesto for what a Labour Government and lack of principled positions from Labour on what they would do if they won the next election. We've got the Lib Dems scared of bluewall voters in Tory seats abandoning their pro-EU position and even their motion can't bring itself to argue for rejoining. It's only the SNP are unambiguously in favour of rejoining the EU recognising the importance that that could deliver to Scotland's economy and society and reflecting the clear, very clear position of the vast majority of Scottish voters. The reality of the hard Brexit that we've ended up with, no fee movement, no single market, no customs union and the economic impact that has had has been mentioned on growth, on tax revenues and access to that European market for business. I can't remember. I think Donald Cameron was in favour of remain back in 2016 because I think he's a more reasonable chap than some of his colleagues. Maybe he's going to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's where he was. I don't know on what planet he is where he can stand up and talk about rural depopulation and not recognise the link between that and Brexit, where he can stand up and talk about the virtues of the Windsor agreement but not ask the question why is that good for Northern Ireland but not good for Scotland to have the ability to be part of the European market. Neil Bibby, if Labour stands up and fails to recognise the damage done by Brexit to our economy, to our tax base and as a consequence to our public sector funding and talking about Labour shortages without recognising the impact that Brexit has had on the ability of people to come and live and work and share their skills in Scotland. Labour policy on the EU is talking about the aspirations that it has to forge those closer links, but it is only recognition of how that would come about and why the EU would give those benefits to a third country without very significant negotiations. The only way to secure that is to be a full member of the European Union. This tired old nonsense about some experts have said at some point that we need to join the euro. Clearly debunked misinformation being spread by the Labour front bench. The third of the Brexit boys—I am not going to leave you out, Willie Rennie—the opportunities are all about trying to make small steps to remove barriers that are rejoining with solve in one step. Why has it not rejoined mentioned explicitly and clearly in the Lib Dem amendment and why have they deleted the calls to rejoin and ambiguously the EU that are in the SNP motion? The failure to deliver the benefits of Brexit, some colleagues have talked about trade deals. No US trade deal, of course. Canada trade deal has been falling down because of a disagreement over cheese. The EU, of course, has been mentioned, has a seetha deal with Canada. The New Zealand and Australia deals have badly negotiated and are going to cause significant problems for Scottish agriculture. Even on that alleged benefit in Tory eyes of restricting immigration, we recognise that that is a hugely damaging step. Even on their own argument about Brexit leading towards reduced immigration, that is the issue that is still ripping the Tory party apart of that obsession with stopping people coming to these shores. As Christine Grahame has mentioned, we should never forget what we were told during the 2014 referendum that voting no to independence would guarantee EU membership how ridiculous that position looks now. The other point has been made very well by the Government front bench in the motion that Brexit process clearly showed Westminster's contempt for the view of the wishes of Scottish voters and their complete unwillingness to negotiate or entertain any separate deal for Scotland vis-à-vis the EU, as has been agreed for with Northern Ireland. In conclusion, our unashamed vision is clearly articulated in the Government's paper, and by the cabinet secretary in his comments today, there is an independence future in the EU. It reflects our values, very different from the values of the Tory party. In fact, nobody knows where Labour's values are these days. It enables free movement, it enables vast economic opportunity. Scotland is a part of the European family of nations, like other small, successful European countries. It is very important that we keep this item on the agenda. I keep reminding voters in Scotland of why we have the damage in Brexit, the damage that is causing to an economy in society, the fact that rejoining is overwhelmingly popular, that the SNP is the only party that is offering that, and we take that message forward to the voters of Scotland. Thank you, Mr McKee. I now call Jeremy Balford to be followed by Karen Adam. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have to say that I am once again baffled. We have been brought to this chamber to debate a topic that we have no jurisdiction over, and this time about an organisation that will not even a member of. We are seeing before our eyes the dying days of a nationalist Government. They are losing the argument about the breaking up of the United Kingdom, and they know it. The dreadful record of failure and secrecy has been exposed day by day, and they have no fresh ideas on failures that they have created. Therefore, they have decided to waste all our time by spending an entire afternoon of chamber business on an exercise that will have no positive impact on the people of Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, come the end of this Parliament in two and a half years' time. I am sure that we will begin to hear a number of excuses about how the SNP has run out of time to deliver legislation and yet again broken promises to the Scottish people. However, the truth is that we are content to waste all the time in the world discussing their own constitutional obsession instead of people's priorities. The SNP likes to throw around accusations of democracy denier, but it is actually they who are in denial. They have decided that the results of two referendums in 2014 and 2016 are too inconvenient for the narrative that they are trying to spin. Instead, they stick their heads in the sand and insist that the public somehow were duped. I appreciate you taking an intervention. I am a substitute on rural committee. Would you not agree that the convener of that committee, who happens to be on the Conservative benches, has actually tried to delay the bills and passing of legislation in this place, and you are actually blaming the Scottish Government? I think what he is trying to do is scrutinise this out-of-touch Scottish Government, which is bringing forward proposals and hate any form of scrutiny. The truth is that the majority of people made the assessment that we are better offered as a member of the United Kingdom. Two years later, a majority of people in the United Kingdom made the decision that they would no longer be a member of the European Union. That's it. It's really that simple. We do not need to rehash this over and over again. The SNP must accept that rejoining in the European Union is nowhere near the top of people's list of priorities. Most people do not care about constitutional grievance. They care about high-quality public services. They care about the children's standard of education. They care about having access to the NHS. Of all of these topics, we would be far more better debating, but they won't be because they don't like scrutiny. I thank Jeremy Balfour for taking intervention and for taking the trouble to be brought to the chamber this afternoon to do his job. Is he aware of the £40 billion mentioned by Kevin Stewart that is having me loaded on to make up for the Brexit deficit? The additional information today is that £2 billion will be added to council taxpayers' bills in England. That's the cost of Brexit and that's why we can't improve public services to the extent that we'd like to, isn't it? Perhaps before I enter, I should point out to the member who may not know that I've actually been in hospital for 10 weeks, and in those 10 weeks I did not miss one vote, so I asked him to withdraw the statement that he made about being dragged to his chamber. They would also be far more worthy of investment on what the public want them to do. People do not understand what is going on. I'd be interested to know how much money they have spent on this independence movement, how many more nurses, carers or teachers could have been paid with the money that has instead been decided on this paper. The cabinet secretary has been wasted so that there is no hypervillian in your constituency left here in the capital. Just for clarity, I've been able to put this in the record. The sum total of what we've spent on the production of these papers thus far represents 0.00025 per cent of the Scottish Government budget, so not quite as much as I think is being thought by the member in an awful lot less than was wasting the morass of Michelle Mone procuring PPE equipment for hundreds of millions of pounds spent by the UK Government. I look forward to when I bring forward my disability commissioner, and I'm told that it's too expensive, and it's less than that figure that he will come back and tell me that that is not a good use of money. Presiding Officer, this is not a serious debate. If it was, the SNP would be able to answer the most basic questions, like how long would it take to rejoin the EU, what currency would they suggest we use and what other border situation would it be? It's in there but it's fantasy, Minister. It is fantasy. We have no honest answer because they know the answer. It's ridiculous. It's an absurd proposition, for example, to abandon a strong currency such as a pound and shack ourselves to a euro, but that's what they would do if we joined the EU. It's ridiculous to suggest that we put ourselves through that one, and as one SNP advised, he would describe Brexit ten times over. I would encourage the Government to reconsider wasting Scottish people's time on money and vanity projects. Instead, get on with the day job, deliver what people's priorities are and if you can't, move over and let us do it instead. I now call Karen Adam to be followed by Bill Good. I have to say that it's not often that I'm agreeing with my colleague Jeremy Balfour there, but I do agree with the statement that we are in the last days of a dying nationalist government, and it's the one in Westminster. This debate marks the publication of the seventh paper in the series of the Scottish Government's Building a New Scotland series, but the first paper in the series set out a detailed analysis of the UK's performance across a range of economic and social indicators relative to that of 10 European countries, including Norway and Denmark. The former being a member of EFTA, and the latter being a full member of the EU. The analysis put forward in that first paper comparing the economic and social performance of the UK, and therefore Scotland within it, to 10 comparator countries suggest overwhelmingly that independent countries of Scotland's size do better. This is particularly true of independent countries of Scotland's size within the internal market, be that via EFTA, or as a full member of the European Union. I stood atop the picturesque cliff top at Roseheart in my constituency last summer, and I looked out across the North Sea. Aside from the spectacular coastal scenery, those rocks are the closest point of our mainland to Norway. If you were to look at the 16th century map, the Carta marina, you would be forgiven for thinking Scotland was just a stone's throw away from both Norway and Denmark. While the first map of the Nordic countries to give details and place names greatly exaggerates our proximity, our relative closeness both in geography and culture has meant that for many centuries the commercial and social connections between Scotland and the rest of Europe, particularly its northern reaches, have gone from strength to strength. It came as a surprise really to no one, therefore that Scotland voted nearly two to one to remain in the European Union. Scotland is European, I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I will continue to say it for as long as I have the privilege to be a representative in Scotland's national parliament, because the democratic will of Scotland will not be ignored. That might be an inconvenient detail for the Unionists, but remaining within the European Union is the clear will of the Scottish people. Scots now find our membership of the internal market, our freedom of movement and the social, cultural and economic benefits that came with it, stolen from us. Stolen from us by a UK Government and an indifferent Westminster Opposition who delivered us the hardest of Brexit on a vote one by the narrowest of margins south of the border and based on so many lies. Lies about taking back control of a Britain bursting at the seams and the most egregious one affecting the coastal communities who put their faith in the UK Government to deliver for them a sea of opportunity. Speaking with fisheries stakeholders recently, I was given numerous examples of seafood processing businesses still suffering the consequences of this denial of Scottish democracy. More than seven and a half years on from the vote, some of those businesses are composed of up to 90 per cent migrant workers and our loss of freedom of movement coupled with hostile immigration policies is threatening Scotland's flagship industries. We've all heard the stories of shellfish rotting on the way to the European markets because of the new UK Government red tape, but it's not only fisheries that have been let down. Our farmers are being undercut by the few trade deals the UK Government has managed to negotiate. We couldn't export our seed potatoes and our soft-roots were rotten on the vine each harvest without the adequate numbers of seasonal workers to pick them. All of us have heard of the woes of the hospitality sector with staffing shortages. I've had meetings in my constituency with hoteliers and, Presiding Officer, the lack of chefs, for example, has been extraordinarily detrimental to local services. Perhaps the saddest of all is the impact Brexit will have on the futures of Scotland's children. The last couple of weeks, some of my children have been preparing their university applications and this has caused me to reflect on the opportunities that they may have in years to come. With the UK Government's refusal to negotiate membership of the Erasmus Plus programme, Westminster has deprived so many young Scots of the opportunity to live and learn, exchange across the continent. I urge the Scottish Government to do all it can to restore Scotland's membership of this cross-border educational, social and cultural initiative, which does so much to build friendships across borders and maintain lasting peace in Europe. Independence offers Scotland the opportunity to rejoin the European Union and regain all that we've lost. Scotland's history is interwoven with the histories of our European neighbours and Scotland's present is as European as our past. Scotland's future, Presiding Officer, is an independent state in the European Union. Listening to today's arguments, it's clear to me that the benefits of being part of the EU far outweigh those of not being a member. The Scottish Government's accompanying document to its building a new Scotland, an independent Scotland in the EU paper, on why EU membership matters, a number of benefits are listed. Although those points have been touched upon throughout today's debate, I feel that it's important just to reiterate some of them, to recognise the practical day one benefits to ordinary Scots of EU membership. Let's recognise the fact that, as a Scottish citizen and an EU citizen, you would have the right to live, visit, study and work freely in any EU member state without burdensome paperwork. You would have the right to equal access to healthcare if you fall sick or have an accident while travelling in the EU. You would also be able to use your driving licence throughout the EU. You would have more job choices with your professional qualifications being recognised throughout the EU. You would also have the right to establish your business in any EU member state. The rights would be protected by EU law, benefiting from guaranteed minimum working conditions and protected social security rights. You would be able to boost your career opportunities and improve your language skills through access to the Erasmus Plus programme. Thanks to being a member of the world's largest single market, you would enjoy more product choice at the supermarket for the best prices. In answer to points over the effect of the current UK arrangements, let's also recognise the fact that you would continue to be able to move freely between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Ireland with no new passport or immigration checks through the common travel area. You would also continue to have the right to live, work and access services, including housing, education and healthcare in the UK and Ireland under the common travel area. Those are facts, not conjure or hope, not conjecture, but simply plain facts, facts that need to be recognised by all parties across this chamber, regardless of our personal views if we are to have an informed and honest debate about the issue. If we are to be honest with the people of Scotland, we need to be clear in our position regarding EU membership, regardless of our position on Scottish independence. For whilst I believe that independence offers the best route towards EU membership alongside a continued positive relationship with the rest of the UK, for those against independence, I do not believe that this precludes them from supporting EU membership. I would ask all of us to be honest with ourselves and honest with the people of Scotland of the undeniable benefits of EU membership. We have heard today of the benefits of EU membership for ordinary Scots and the benefit to our economy and businesses are equally undeniable. As an EU member state, we would be able to be part of the world's largest single market with almost 450 million consumers compared to the UK's 65 million. Scottish businesses need to be able to sell to more customers and trade more freely with other businesses. Checks on goods between Scotland and the EU would be removed and measures would be put in place to smooth checks required as a result of Brexit on goods moving to and from England and Wales. EU membership would be making trading cheaper and quicker and would be an important factor in attracting foreign investment to Scotland. Scotland would be able to draw people from across the EU to work in our businesses, study at our universities and contribute to our public services. People living in Scotland would be able to offer their services throughout the EU and Scotland would have the opportunity to influence future EU regulations and standards in ways that reflect the interests of Scottish businesses. Online selling would be easier and safer with better protection for businesses. Scotland would have the same opportunities as other member states to access EU funding such as support for agriculture, infrastructure, regional economic development and guaranteed participation in programmes such as Horizon Europe which supports research and innovation. I believe that it is clear that if we are to be true to the pledge that got us elected and that is to best serve the interests of our constituents and of Scotland, we need to support EU membership. To be honest, the way to do that, having listened to the other political parties in here, is through independence. I support today's motion. We now move to the wind-up speech. I call Willie Rennie around six minutes. It has been a bit of a superific debate. The only element of excitement was when Ivan McKee was talking about John Mason being turned on during the debate. I suspect that he was talking about the microphone rather than anything else, but never rest. It was a dangerous double entendre. That was the only excitement from the whole debate, I would argue, because in reality this is more about independence than it is about the European Union and the SNP are desperate to show up their support across the country, which is leaking away very fast. It will be a deep concern to them, which is why they are scrapping around trying to find issues to show up their support for the party. First of all, Mr Rennie, I affirm your contribution, exciting and riveting. You should not have stopped me from intervening, but could you please explain to me whether or not the Liberal Democrats are at some point in the future in favour of rejoining the EU? It is not a secret. We are a pro-European party, and we would love to be a member of the European Union. What we are dealing with—this is where the SNP failed to strike reality—is that people today are worried about how they are going to pay for their energy bills. They are worried about how they are going to house themselves. They are overcrowded. I have lots of people in North East Fife who are desperate for a home. Those are the issues that people are facing now, not some esoteric debate about potentially joining the European Union at some point. Of course, we have to improve the economic conditions for the country, which is why my gradualist approach of making sure that we break down the trade barriers so that it is easier for people to trade across Europe. To make sure that we trade as easily as possible across the European Union to help people in their jobs here in Scotland, that is the sensible approach that people in this country are desperate for politicians to address rather than some remote debate, which is a proxy for the debate about independence. I wonder if Mr Rennie has looked at the motion that we have lodged. There is nothing within our motion that is inconsistent with him taking and articulating the approach that he has laid out. His so-called gradualist approach could be easily accommodated within a simple straightforward declaration that Scotland's place would be best served by being part of the EU. Why is he not supporting that? I do not support the SNP's approach to this, because this is about trying to secure independence and using Europe in order to secure that. What was curious about this debate is that there was a conflict between different members of the SNP. Some, like Clare Adamson, said, let's not talk about the past, from the party that celebrates Banach Burnin argues over the stone of destiny fragments, whether they are in Alex Salmond's house or in SNP HQ. Kevin Stewart went on to start reading out lyrics from the quarries before Clare Adamson started talking about the ancient connections with Norway. If we are going to be serious about this and deal with those constituents and their concerns that I am deeply concerned about in their energy bills in their housing, then we need to just be rid of this pointless debate. There is pointless debate on independence, which the SNP lost in 2014 and just simply cannot accept. Yes, we will take an intervention. I recognise Mr Rennie that my constituents, such as his, have many problems that they are facing at this moment. Some of those problems have been exacerbated by Brexit. One example is a shortage of medicines at this moment in time. Of course Britain hosted the European Medicines Agency, which has now gone elsewhere, and Europe intends to bolster the supply of medicines that puts medicine supplies here at risk. Does he not think that it would be a good idea to join the European Union and rejoin the European Medicines Agency? Of course I would love to have pragmatic solutions to those medicine problems. Of course I would like that, but Kevin Stewart needs to face reality that we lost the argument on Europe and we need to find pragmatic ways of moving that forward. However, the other thing that the SNP did not talk about in this is the currency. Maurice Golden was bang on with this. When he said that he described—I am trying to develop the point that Maurice Golden, I thought, eloquently made in his contribution—he said that the policy in the meantime would be for an independent Scotland to keep the UK pound, the British pound. Then it would move towards its own currency. That would take some years, some say up to 10 years, but we know that it would be impossible for any country to join the European Union if it had adopted the currency of another country if it was outside the European Union. Potentially we have that 10-year period where Scotland is developing its own currency, where we are both independent and outside the European Union. We know that it has been deeply damaging to be outside the European Union. To be outside of both is super-isolation. Maurice Golden explained that incredibly well. Not unsurprisingly, none of the SNP benches talked about it. The other issue that the SNP did not talk about was the immigration issue. They did say that there were negative impacts from Brexit on immigration, and I accept that. I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, they did not say why Scotland seemed to be incapable of attracting even a fraction of the net 700,000 immigration to the UK. If we are an incredibly attractive place, as the SNP says that we are, surely they would be flooding over the Scottish-English border, but they are not. What hope would we have that an independent Scotland would be able to attract all those hordes of people that we say were desperate to attract to the country? Another issue that the SNP just simply did not address is that it only picked up the issues that advance its argument not for the EU but for independence. However, the main thing—and that comes back to Alex Rowley's very powerful point—is that it gets the feeling that the SNP is not prepared to use any of its powers until it has all its powers, sacrificing people in the process in order to make its case for independence. I don't think that's in Scotland's interest. The mental time in the chamber could have been used to address the many people in Scotland still struggling with the cost of living crisis. We could be discussing the vast area of health and social inequalities still present in Scotland, or addressing the serious problem with NHS and mental health support waiting times. Instead, we are here once again to talk about independence. The SNP is doing down on politics of division in a desperate attempt to distract from the real problems facing people in Scotland. As Maurice Golden and Neil Bibby outlined, the SNP is wasting money working on myths and fantasy. Instead of hypothetical papers outlining a series of hits when and maybe the Scottish Government could be implementing politics right now that can minimise the damage caused by Brexit. Willie Rennie highlighted that the UK's withdrawal from the Erasmus programme meant the loss of opportunities for thousands of Scottish students to travel and study abroad. This opportunity was also lost to thousands of international students who would have wanted to visit and study in Scotland. If the Scottish Government are serious in their ambition to build a more vibrant, visible and connected Scottish community around the world, then they must replace the Erasmus scheme. In order to maintain good relation with the EU, the Scottish Government must commit to renewing an international student exchange programme. The Welsh Labour Government have already implemented the Tate scheme to replace Erasmus with funding of 65 million over five years. There will be an estimated 15,000 participants from Wales by the end of August 2026. The Scottish Government must implement an international educational exchange programme now to ensure Scotland stays visible and connected in terms of education. The best answer to being outside the Erasmus Plus scheme is to be back in it. Is the position of the Scottish Labour Party or indeed the UK Labour Party that, like Horizon, it is in favour of rejoining Erasmus Plus? Again, it is quite simple, yes or no. I find it very difficult to understand our Cabinet Secretary on Ministers. Obviously, the SNP had... We are out of Europe now. Why are we talking about the past when a lot of colleagues have mentioned that let's move forward? If they can do it in Wales, why can we not do it in Scotland? Why are we just talking about what we have done? Why should we not move forward? Claire Adamson outlined that the Brexit disaster has isolated the UK from the benefits of EU members are receiving as part of the customs union. By the Scottish Government's own admission, an independent Scotland joining the EU would take years of complex negotiations and deals. Not to mention the chaos that would ensure from trying to separate Scotland from the place with which it shares a border, a currency, countless institutions and an internal market. If Brexit has taught us anything, it is that withdrawing from an economic political union is suited in difficulty and regret. Neil Bibby highlighted the mess that the Tories have made over Brexit. The created division and difficult relationship with our European allies and economic partners and created a sea of chaos for business seeking to maintain trade and business in Europe. But as has already been said in this chamber many times, independence is not the solution to the Brexit chaos. Presiding officer, Labour want to make Brexit work. Revisiting old roads will only create more division distractions from the real and immediate problem facing people in Scotland. We would seek to end divisions between the UK and the EU to Brexit and the rest of our relations in Europe. Labour's priority in government will be to improve our relationship with our closest neighbours to help businesses and working people in Scotland across Britain. We would review and tear down unnecessary trade barriers and seek a new defence and security pact with the EU. I've got a lot to go through. A lot of SNP speakers have their chances. Let us have our chance to bring our points across as well. Kevin Stewart spoke about the doors that have been closed for Scottish businesses in terms of trade because of Brexit. In 2025 there is a shadow review in the trade and cooperation agreement that the UK and the Scottish government should be working together to take these opportunities to fix mistakes in Brexit process. That is the serious work that Scottish government could be doing to mend broken relationship with our EU counterparts. Alex Rowley highlighted that the Scottish government should be looking at it actually could do now to improve conditions in Scotland. Instead, continue fantasy of the ideological pipeline of independence does nothing to help the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland deserve better and Labour are prepared to pave the way to make this happen. Finally, Kevin Stewart spoke of the Balkan states throwing off their imperial rulers. Are the SNP still trying to compare Scotland's union with the UK to an imperial colony? That is insulting to all those countries that fought hard for independence from Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. The SNP needs to focus on what the people of Scotland desperately need instead of doubling down on useless arguments for independence. I'm pleased to be able to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and I will be supporting the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron. The issue of Scotland's relationship in Europe is indeed an important one and it is a topic worthy of time within this chamber. Unfortunately, however, today's debate has focused on some of the old constitutional arguments that we've heard repeated since 2016. We may well be in a new year, but the SNP Government's assertion and addiction with the grievances, fuel policies and grandstanding about the constitution is and continues to become an old story. The SNP's latest independence wish list, titled An Independent Scotland in the EU, follows the same pattern that all the previous independent papers have seen since 2022. That means that it is happy to make bold claims about the future of independent Scotland but even happier to superside any of the potential problems that may arise from that under the car. A common theme throughout the Scottish Government's paper is that it is somehow inherently undemocratic when the wishes of Scotland differ from the wishes of the United Kingdom as a whole. The paper states that Scotland is a devolved nation within the United Kingdom. It does not have a seat at the table or a voice in the debate. Not only does it ignore the fact that Scotland sends 59 MPs to the House of Commons, it also has mistakes the belief that having a seat at the table is a political union, which means that it will always agree with one another. The truth is that all political unions involve a certain amount of give and take, and that would be no different for an independent Scotland in the European Union. As Spice has pointed out in the very analysis of the SNP paper, even through an independent Scotland we would have some small influence in the EU council. Spice highlights that it is not necessarily the case that it will always achieve the outcome that Scotland wishes and Scotland may often have to compromise to achieve an EU position. In terms of talking about the equivalence of the two unions, he mentions that we send 59 MPs to Westminster soon to be reduced to 57. That is, of course, a number of 650 before we get to over 800 unelected members of that legislature. He is right to refer to the occasions that political neighbours will not often agree with one another, but we do not recognise that the set of arrangements that exist in the European Union is that they are truly equal partners because they are full member states of the European Union, unlike the sub-state entity that Scotland is. The minister makes a point, but the best union that we have had is the union of the United Kingdom. The strength that has been cleared over generations in the possibilities that have been made is very much the case. It is hardly surprising that the SNP condemns this kind of political give-and-take because they do not want to see give-and-take. They want to ensure that they have and continue to have the concerns that they have raised. They have made many points today, but they have made these points many, many, many times before. We see a similar doubling down from the SNP paper when it comes to issues like trade. An independent Scotland in the EU is keen to talk about opportunities of rejoining the single market. However, it is very little is said about the risks of leaving the UK's internal market. We have already heard and we know that Scotland's exports to the rest of the UK are worth three times more than the exports to the entire EU. Given that, it is hardly surprising that research by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found that trade disruption within the rest of the UK could result in a reduction from the Scottish income per capita of at least 6.3 per cent. He said that it was questionable what influence we had in the EU. To give one example, between 1979 and 2020, the Highlands and Islands received over £1 billion, £1 billion and £24 million, my understanding. My late mother was influential in obtaining some of that under objective one. Surely that is a very good example of us having a positive voice in Europe, even though numerically we were not strong. Will the Conservatives, as a gesture of goodwill following the £2.5 billion sweetener to Northern Ireland, put in a couple of billions so that we can get on with during the A9, A96 even more quickly? I acknowledge and thank the member for his intervention. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution that the member's late mother did make in her time. That is well documented and should be recognised. Yes, he makes a very valid point, but if this Government was managing to, for example, dual the A9, we would not have to depend on funding coming from other places. Given that it is hardly surprising that we find ourselves in this position and even Scotland where to rejoin the European Union straight away, this would have certain issues in certain timescales. We have already heard today about some of the problems that may arise. Spice also talks about the lack of answers on many issues. The paper does not really go into address the volume of trade that currently happens. The SNP is happy to celebrate benefits of free trade when it does not involve other parts of the UK. Just as the previous independence paper talked about, the Scottish Government simply shrugs its shoulders and confronts more serious issues when it comes to independence. Today we have heard lots of comments and I would like to spend a little bit of time if I can on that. I also wish to note that we do not seem to have any members from the Green Party with us today in the chamber or making a contribution. That is just something that I note. Donald Cameron spoke about a third of the SNP voting for Brexit. A million people in Scotland voted for Brexit. The SNP talks about how the chain reprocesses would take place in Brussels. We should be talking today about the priorities that face many people in Scotland today. That is health, education and law and order. These are all documented. We should be, as I say, spending time addressing some of the issues that should be done by the Scottish Government. However, we have talked and heard today about failing targets. We already know that our housing targets have failed. We already know that the A9 dualling has failed. We already know that its time is being focused on things that are not relevant to people. The priorities of Scotland and its population are vitally important. However, it is not. What we seem to have today is the focus on the fantasy politics. Neil Bibby talked about that when he said that there were real fantasies that were being done on a day-to-day basis. Debates today are all the debates. They are not discussing the things that we should be discussing. They are not looking at the way forward. They are not looking at the possibilities that are happening in Scotland. They are not looking at a constitutional division. Willy Rennie talked about the two forms of nationalism? That was a very valid point to make. He talked about the wrangling that goes on and the difficulties that take place. My time is tight, so I think that I am coming towards my conclusion. Maurice Golden talked about the currency issues, and they were vast about where we would be in this whole process. He talked about the failures within the fantasy, the money that is being wasted, the way that things are working and people are not working for the people of Scotland. Jeremy Balfour touched on the idea that the SNP has been in government and continues to be in government and that they are not looking at the priorities and waste of time and waste of the paper and the policies and the funding that is taking place to deal with all of this. To conclude, it is quite clear that at the beginning of my speech I talked about the relationship with Europe and how that is vitally important. As the worst of the historical understandings that we have within Europe and across different levels, despite the fact that the Scottish Government would have us believe that Scotland can continue to have a strong relationship, we need to have a strong relationship within Europe. However, that will not be helped by becoming independent. It will happen if we continually explore and look at what we can achieve rather than manufacturing grievance. The UK Government and the Scottish Government want us to work together to maintain a strong relationship in Europe. More importantly, that will help the whole United Kingdom and work together. I look forward to hearing more things in the future, because I have no doubt that there will be many more debates of this nature, but I support the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron today. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I now call on Jamie Hepburn to wind up the debate, minister, a very generous 10 minutes or so. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking those members who have taken the time to contribute to the debate. I am somewhat disappointed though that there has not been a bit more engagement from those benches who are ranged against the motion that we have led today. That might seem an unusual thing to say, but I welcome a debate about Scotland's future. I would have hoped that I would have had more participation, Mr Kidd, wherever he might be. There he is. I suggested that the reason why he was speaking, the sun was still shining, was to welcome him to the debate, but in fact it was because we saw a lack of participation from certain quarters to engage in the debate today. I think that that is a matter of regret and hopefully more will debate. When we return to this issue again in the future, I will give way. Neil Bibby. The only party that does not seem to be represented in this chamber is the Scottish Greens. Is that who he is? Minister. I am not a member of the Scottish Green Party, but ordinarily, Mr Bibby, you and members are lined up to take part in debates in this place. Where are they today? A meager contribution from Mr Bibby's party. We will talk about the purpose of today's debate. The background, of course, is, as the cabinet secretary laid out at the beginning of the debate, that we are approaching the anniversary of the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. It seems entirely appropriate, then, that we would debate this issue at that juncture. It is also entirely appropriate that we debate this issue when we consider the harm that has been wrought to the UK economy, the Scottish economy as a consequence of Brexit that we see. It was mentioned by the cabinet secretary that there is a 2.5 per cent reduction to the UK economy. We have seen the OBR saying that they forecast in the long run a 4 per cent reduction to UK GDP as a consequence of Brexit. We know that there has been social harm. We know that there has been damage to our businesses and to our public services as a consequence of Brexit. The other purpose, of course, is to bring our band series into this place to be debated. It is entirely legitimate. If we are going to take this work as we have a mandate to do, I will come to that in a minute when I come to Mr Cameron's amendment. If we are going to take forward this work, I will bring it to this chamber to be debated because I think that it is the right thing to do. The Parliament should have the chance to engage with this material and I hope to see more of that in the future. The other opportunity, and we deliberately worded our motion as we have to provide everyone with this opportunity, was the chance for Parliament to come together to do as we have done before, to reasset our perspective that Scotland is best served by being part of the European Union. We have voted in favour of that proposition several times. We have worded the motion deliberately, purposely, to enable people to do so. The Scottish Government's perspective is, of course, that independence is the root and the means by which we can re-engage with and become part of the European Union again. I recognise that others do not agree with that perspective. That is why I intervened early. Mr Cameron seemed a little surprised at that and he dismissed it a little by suggesting that my intervention was important. It was an important intervention because he suggested that the title of this debate was an independent of Scotland in the EU. The debate is not still as that is what Scotland's place in the EU. For all those who supposedly say that they believe that Scotland is best served by being part of the European Union, they still have the opportunity to vote in favour of the motion that you have laid to back that proposition. Let me turn to the amendments that have been laid by other colleagues, the first from the Tories. I have to say that they deride our motion for being predictable, while I am afraid to say that the Tory amendment was entirely predictable. It seems to be necessary, once again, to remind the Conservative benches that it is entirely proper and appropriate that the Scottish Government takes forward the activity that we were undertaking. Why is it appropriate? Why is it legitimate for us to undertake this activity? We stood on a platform of saying that we would undertake this activity. We actually derived a mandate from the people of Scotland to undertake this activity so that they can complain as much as they want. We are going to keep taking forward this activity and bringing it back to this place to be debated. Incidentally, as an aside, I have to say to Jeremy Balfour who suggested that this debate would somehow push a legislative agenda off the table. We would take that rather more seriously if we did not see the Conservative convener of the Rural Affairs Committee unilaterally without recourse to the committee, determining that that committee would not meet to consider stage 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn bill on his own without recourse to the wider committee, which will cause a delay to that legislation. I have to say that the suggestion that the cancellation of a committee meeting is a means by which the Government can be held to account is a new one on me, Mr Balfour. Of course I will give way to Mr Carsten. I am really surprised at the intervention that appears to be a personal attack. The decisions to postpone that meeting were taken for the best interests of the committee. You should know, as a member of Parliament for quite some time, that it is at the discretion of the convener to set the agenda for that committee. That is a matter for the committee rightly, but my perspective, quite clearly, is when one of Mr Carsten's member and his group comes forward and says that it is this Government that is delaying the legislative agenda. Frankly, it is his group that is delaying the legislative agenda. Let me turn to the amendment in the name of Mr Rennie. I have to say that it is somewhat circuitous and begrudgingly refers to EU membership, unlike the very clear position in our motion. I want to return to that point. I am going to reiterate that point. I am going to read out, because it is not a long motion. I am going to read out our motion to Mr Rennie. The Parliament notes the Scottish Government paper building a new Scotland, an independent Scotland in the EU, and believes that Scotland's economy notes the Scottish Government's paper, not necessarily supports the Scottish Government's paper, Mr Cameron, and believes that Scotland's economic social and political future is best served by being part of the European Union. There is nothing inherent in that proposition that is inconsistent with the position of the supposed gradualist approach that Mr Rennie has laid out. Not one I agree with, but there is nothing within our motion that would delegitimize his position in being able to support our motion. I will gradually give way to Mr Rennie. I love when the minister gets all cute. What is really important to understand is that the minister, seven minutes into his speech, not once has he talked about the currency. Mr Golden set out a very clear challenge to the SNP, not once has the minister responded to that. Will we spend years outside both the UK and the European Union under his proposal or not? I will return to the issue of chronology, because I will not first come to the Labour purposes, because I think it is a peculiar area of attack on the process. An independent Scotland would undertake to join the European Union as somehow being a weak position. I will come back to that. Let me turn to the Labour amendment. It is somewhat disappointing to see the proposition that has been laid out—probably predictable. Let us take the detail that supposedly what is not needed is Scotland rejoining and re-engaging being part of the European Union, but it is just a change of government. Let us look at what the Keir Starmer prospectus is—the number of U-turns that he has laid out on social security, where he wants to see the two-child cap and the rape clause administered more fairly, as if such a thing was possible. We have seen their U-turn on their green pledge. We have seen the U-turn on the abolition of tuition fees in England. We know very clearly that that is not much of a proposition or a platform for change. Ivan McKee was right to suggest that we do not know what Labour's values are, although, frankly, that might be because they have no values as is very clearly laid out by the lack of comment by the Labour Party heading into this election. We have an opportunity—I will give one more time to Mr Ruby. I thank Mr Hepburn for giving way. I have talked about the change that a Labour Government will bring in terms of fixing the Brexit mess that the Tories have left, but also about a positive policy agenda that I outlined. What we actually need is change, because this debate has been a completely pointless debate that is not talking about the priorities that people have in terms of the cost of the living crisis, the NHS crisis and many more, and it is about the change of government to tackle the real issues that your Government are ignoring. I will come to why this debate is important in a minute, but let us look at what Annas Sarwar said in 2017. The Cabinet Secretary made this point. I am the only candidate in this contest, the Labour leadership contest, who supports permanent British membership of the European single market and the custom union. I say to Mr Sarwar and his colleagues on those benches, prove it today by voting for the motion that we have laid before this Parliament. Let me turn to the issues around the motion that we have laid. I am very clear that what we have laid out in our proposition in our paper is a compelling case for an independent Scotland rejoining the European Union. There is Donald Cameron, Maurice Golden, Neil Bibby, Alex Rowley, Willie Rennie, Fousal Chowdry, Alexander Stewart, and we should focus on the issues that matter. Our place in Europe does matter. Brexit has put additional costs on businesses that are constituted to less choice. Consumers are having to pay higher prices for food that exacerbates the cost of living crisis. The London School of Economics has published the report, highlighting that post-Brexit trade barriers drove one-third of the increase in food prices between December 2019 and March 2023, raising food price inflation by 8 per cent. We have also seen the damage to an economy and a lack of investment coming into the UK and Scotland. Do not just take my perspective for arguing why this is an important matter. Mike Park, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association said that it is costing more than taking longer to get the fish into the continent and that there are a lot of paper trails required and red tape. Maurice Golden spoke of fantasy promises. What about that for a fantasy promise by the UK Government that will be a benefit to fishing communities that are the length and breadth of Scotland? An absolute fantasy from the Conservative Party. Alison Carrhan, who relied on European trade for her cosmetics firm in Falkirk, said that her business with the EU plummeted by more than 60 per cent and that it forced her to reduce her staff by half. The Scottish Government voices our voices from people across Scotland setting out why this is an important issue. The only reason there can be for opposition to our motion today, worded carefully as it is, not predicated by necessity on independence, can be that those other parties now support Brexit. The position of the Tories, Labour Party and even the Liberal Democrats is clear. They are born again, Brexit here is the only way for Scotland to rejoin the European Union as by becoming an independent nation. I urge us to vote for the motion in the name of Angus Roberts. That concludes the debate on Scotland's place in the European Union. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is an announcement by the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee on people's panel on Scottish Government effectiveness in consulting and engaging the public on its net zero targets. I call on Edward Mountain, convener of the committee, to make the announcement. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There seems to have been quite a lot of heat in the chamber this afternoon. Let's see if I can add some light. I'm very pleased to notify you and all the members about a new people's panel that starts its work this weekend. The panel comprises of 25 individuals randomly selected but reflecting the demographic balance of Scottish society. Over two intensive weekends they will reflect on this question. How effective has the Scottish Government been in engaging the public on climate change and Scotland's climate change targets? The work of the panel advances no fewer than three strategic goals of the Scottish Parliament. Firstly, to make more use of tools of deliberative democracy, like people's panels, as recommended by the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee in its report on embedding public participation in the work of the Parliament. The net zero is pleased to be pioneer in this area. Secondly, it promotes post legislative scrutiny in the provisions of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 that lie behind the question that the panel is considering. We all agree that we need to do more to hold to the light laws that this Parliament has made to see how well they are actually working. The panel's work will do exactly that. Thirdly, there is the convener's group agreement that tracking Scottish Government progress against net zero targets is a collective priority for committees for this session. The panel's work will contribute directly to that. I expect that we will want to pay careful attention to what they tell us when the committee scrutinises the next Scottish Government's climate change plan sometime later this year. This is new territory for all of us, and one thing I've learned is that there is a considerable amount of time needed to prepare the ground for the panel before it even begins work. My thanks would have to go at this stage to the parliamentary staff for their endeavours so far, particularly the participation in communities team. I also want to thank the distinguished members of the expert panel group, drawn from academia, business and the third sector, who have kindly given up their time to help us ensure that the panellists get a broad and balanced selection of views, data and information on their deliberative journey. I look forward to welcoming all the panellists in person to this Parliament this Friday, and the committee really looks forward to reporting back to the Parliament on their work and what we have learned about it later in the year. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron is agreed to, the amendments in the name of Neil Bibby and Willie Rennie will fall. The first question is that amendment 12004.2 in the name of Donald Cameron, which seeks to amend motion 12004 in the name of Angus Robertson on Scotland's place in the European Union, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote, and there will be a short suspension until our members to access the digital voting system.