 Rwyf yn digwydd i etm cardboardiau aeth i fewn i cwyl yr ydydd, rydyn ni'n ei cwyl yn butchsylfaeth iawn o'r byd i ffrannu Cynlluniaeth Cym procedure paen i dylpodaeth neu syddolio maith yn myh Helurd ac unig o'i ein hordiadau 의�. Dyrgaidd nytiel yn iawn o'r byd neu jwoodaeth i nesaf y companyll gan cynniaf confused ym family cymuned Genad hyshiftig, ynurity Cel Lywodraeth yng Nghymru, hefyd i amser wedi gweld eich cyf weten cy Roll çekgs bobl I'm very pleased to have secured this afternoon's debate to discuss the critical issues within my wider portfolio as a result of the EU referendum. The shock and dismay expressed by our cultural and creative industries and our tourism sector was immediate, heartfelt and emphatic. We have overwhelming support from these sectors for our place in the EU. The Creative Industries Federation, for example, has stated that 96 per cent of respondents to a survey of their membership were in favour of remaining within the EU. In the five months since the referendum, I have been incredibly encouraged by how these sectors have mobilised, harnessing their collective resources to initiate key pieces of work, such as the reports produced by the Creative Industries Federation and the Scottish Tourism Alliance, which have provided invaluable feedback on areas of concern. Brexit has not yet happened, but the referendum result had immediate effects. The devaluation of the pound resulted in performers at the Edinburgh International Festival in August needing to be paid in their own currency rather than in sterling, increasing costs to the AIF. We know that parts of our tourism industry have seen some short-term benefits through the initial devaluation of sterling, but there have also been increases to operating costs, particularly in relation to fuel and food prices. We have also seen an inevitable loss of UK Government influence in the EU and some ostracising of the UK from decision making processes, but our voice must continue to be heard in decision making and our interests represented in, for example, digital single market negotiations, as they will affect our Creative Industries long-term development. While we have already seen the immediate impacts of the vote to leave the EU, the longer-term effects are far less certain and far more concerning. The Scottish Government is exploring all options to avoid a hard Brexit and preserve the benefits that we know our sectors gain from our relationship with the EU. The leaked memo outside Dining Street, if in any way true, points again to the UK Government pursuing a hard Brexit and a hard Brexit must be resisted not just for Scotland but across the UK. We know that our sectors are resilient, not least because of the exceptional offer that we have in terms of our landscapes, history, heritage, culture and our events and festivals. However, we must ensure that there are no limitations placed on our labour supply so that the skills required by our cultural, creative and tourism businesses remain accessible and the future of those industries is not put at risk. Over 21,000 staff from the EU are employed in Scotland's tourism industry. That is almost 17 per cent of those working in the sector and a hard Brexit with no protection for existing EU employees could have catastrophic consequences for the industry. There are also concerns about future infrastructure investment in the hotel sector and our ability to attract and support new direct air routes as well as protecting the UK more generally as an aviation hub. We know that Scotland already attracts many European visitors and they are contributing substantially to our economy. In 2015, visitors from Germany made 323,000 trips to Scotland, spending £175 million. There were, further, 196,000 trips from France, with our French visitors spending £118 million. We must continue not only to sustain but to grow that contribution, to support this vital industry and to strengthen its place as one of our key growth sectors. That will rely on Scotland maintaining our warm welcoming outlook and we must ensure that our European neighbours are in no doubt that Scotland wants to maintain our close relationship with them. We cannot allow the UK Government's efforts to change those relationships, to tarnish and diminish Scotland's positive international reputation. Scotland enjoys a worldwide reputation for the warmth of its welcome. That reputation has been crystallised in recent months through the success of Visit Scotland's Spirit of Scotland campaign, launched by the First Minister in February. That launch fundamentally changed the way that Scotland is marketed around the world. One global brand with one global welcome, and that welcome is now particularly important for our visitors from the EU. Under all other parts of the United Kingdom, we may be seeing the reputation suffer and are perhaps being viewed as a less than welcoming place to visit, Scotland's doors remain open and that welcome is there. Our most recent Arnaught and Holt Nation brand index score was 61.8. That score ranked us in 17th place and showed that our reputation abroad is still strong, at least similar to and sometimes ahead of other competitors. We must remember that seven of our top 10 visitor markets are in Europe, so we need to make sure that they know that Scotland has that welcome. Our existing relationships with our European neighbours encapsulates who we want to be as citizens of an outward-facing nation, and no matter what happens, those relationships will not suddenly cease to be. Scotland is and has been throughout our history an open and outward-looking country in our contemporary culture and place as a world-class destination reflects that. The Edinburgh International Festival's festival slogan this summer, Welcome World, was a fitting and timely focus for a festival that has become the largest of its kind in the world and which is the model of international co-operation through culture and the arts. Founded in 1947, it was rooted in the idea that culture must be a positive force for reconstructing a shattered post-war Europe. However, as the Edinburgh festival has now developed plans to celebrate its 70th anniversary in 2017, it has deep concerns about the impact of leaving the EU and what that could have on its globally respected work that brings the world to Scotland each year. I note that the Labour amendment stresses the importance of this anniversary. Fergus Lennon, director of the Edinburgh International Festival, told the Herald on 18 November about the dramatic negative impact that the referendum result was already having on their budgets through the fall in Stirling. Donald Shaw, artistic director of the Celtic Connections, suggested that the same issue has already caused them to cut back on the number of American artists coming to the 2017 festival. Those are significant concerns to the position of our festivals and their international outlook. The European capital of culture programme demonstrates the tangible benefits of cultural exchange through the EU, places that hold the title can expect to achieve cultural, regenerative and economic benefits. I have today written to the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Karen Bradley, urgently seeking clarity on her intentions for the UK participation in the capital of culture programme. Dundee are aiming to hold the title in 2023 and have already invested a significant amount of time, energy and funding into their bid. They must not now have the rug pulled from under them. The EU enriches Scotland's culture by bringing the culture of other countries to us both for business and pleasure and supporting Scottish artists, tourism and hospitality organisations to develop their international networks, creating perspective and influence. That interpersonal connection is very valuable in those sectors. We already know that artists and performers from outside of the EU can already experience difficulties in bringing their work to the UK in terms of administrative burdens and costs associated with obtaining visas. European artists currently do not face the same difficulties and we will oppose any changes that could negatively impact on them and the significant value that they add to Scotland's culture and the value that they add to our experience of the wider world. Access to the labour market of 500 million people is vital to our sectors in both economic and cultural terms. Our national performing companies have significant numbers of artists from other EU countries helping to deliver the excellent performances they produce. Almost 40 per cent of the performers at the Scottish Bally come from the EU. Our tourism sector depends on the numbers of EU nationals that work within it to reiterate 21,000 EU nationals' work in Scotland's tourism industry, 70 per cent of the total workforce. Already the sector is experiencing difficulties in recruiting chefs and staff with certain language skills. Reducing the ease by which those skills can be accessed from around the EU will only exacerbate those difficulties and seriously harm the sector. We need our sectors to have unrestricted access to as wide a pool of talent as possible in the EU, filling skills gap and making sure that companies have the right people to deliver their services. The EU membership has also provided a framework for our sectors to grow. I mentioned proposals for the EU digital single market. That could add €415 million to the EU's GDP. Access to an EU-wide single market for digital goods and services would have huge benefits for Scotland's creative industries and their development, but we must also ensure that the proposals meet the needs of our stakeholders. I have spoken twice at the EU culture and audio visual council on digital single market issues and will continue to use all the channels available to me to represent the interests of our stakeholders as those proposals develop. However, it is unclear how strongly the UK Government can now influence the shape of those proposals and realise their potential for our sectors and indeed whether we can participate even in them. That is vital in both an economic and cultural sense. As the EU currently constitutes a market for our cultural and creative offer, an EU regulation also supports artistic creation. Rebecca O'Brien of 16 Films, the producer of Ken Loach's Pamdor-winning I, Daniel Blake, has stated that all of the companies' films in recent decades have been European co-productions. Leaving the EU does not necessarily stop this type of artistic and creative collaboration, but it is likely to make it significantly more difficult and impact potentially on funding. An EU funding for culture and tourism provides important financial resources to our sector. Equally as important are the development opportunities that the EU's funding programmes provide for our cultural and creative sectors. For the 2015-18 European regional development programme, Visit Scotland will draw down £11.7 million, which will go to help our tourism SMEs to internationalise their business. That is £11.7 million of support that could be lost if that funding ends. That is only a small part of our European funding. It could be felt hardest amongst our young people. 34 per cent of the tourism industry workforce in the UK is under the age of 25, three times the proportion working across the economy as a whole. Loss of current considerable EU funding would be detrimental to youth employment. Since the launch of the Creative Europe programme in 2014, 33 grants have been made to projects involving Scottish organisations. Those grants have a total value of €11.5 million, but it is the networking and the learning opportunities that those projects provide, which are of equal importance as the monetary value and the interconnectedness of the free movement of people in gendering the creativity of ideas and connections, particularly in our creative industries and our cultural sector, which are really important and have a great value in and of themselves. EU funding is important to our sectors, but those relationships and the knowledge that European collaboration can help us to develop is also a critical part of our relationship. The importance of protecting Scotland's relationship with the European Union is clear for these sectors. For culture, for creative industries and tourism, it is particularly relevant in terms of workforce and freedom of movement, where we rely on or strong networks to maintain our position as a modern progressive nation with a global outlook. Our ties with Europe are historic and we need to protect them if we can continue to reap the benefits, both from an economic perspective but also to protect our commitment to cultural and intellectual collaboration. Scotland's culture is one of the many that make up Europe's rich, diverse and shared heritage. Scotland is not separate from European culture, it is our culture. We are determined to protect all our close relationship with our neighbours' ads to the lives of each and every one of us in this country. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Jackson Carlaw to speak to and move amendment 2795.1. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Mrs Carlaw has given me strict instructions that I am to keep my blood pressure in check during this debate, but here we are again. Mercifully, at least in this, the twelfth debate in Brexit, this magnificent confection of SNP smears, scaremongering and grievance is set to detain us for only a couple of hours. In moving the amendment in my name, I also welcome the contributions of John Lamont and Rachel Hamilton, which will focus on tourism, Jamie Greene and the Digital Economy and Douglas Ross, who will draw the threads together at the conclusion. Let's begin then with Scotland, a European nation, in which Nicola Sturgeon, like Pauline in the silent movie era, tells us that she is in peril. Who is this pamphlet aimed at? What the source of Scottish cultural history was thumbed through and by whom to equate the significance of our vote in June with Dolly the sheep? What did this nonsense cost the taxpayer? Let me start then with a quote from chapter 5, The Conclusion, in which, with all the bounty of the richest fountain of largesse, Mr Russell and Ms Hyslop state, whilst we accept that the formal EU negotiating role belongs constitutionally to the UK, well gee thanks, it's also clear that Scotland's political history and current constitutional framework make it imperative that our distinctive voice and view are heard loud and clear in London and throughout Europe. There is a difference between representing our distinctive voice and the vacuous parade of European capitals that Mr Russell and Scotland's only vita, the First Minister, have indulged themselves in, with seemingly no tangible benefit of any material kind since June. As the actor Tom Hanks reportedly admonished serial winters after the US presidential election, it's time to put on your big boy pants and get on with making a success of the country as it is and not as you would have it. Mr Russell and Ms Hyslop, it's time for you to both put on your big boy pants and stop the ceaseless whinging across Europe and wider world culminating in this Armageddon motion for the culture and tourism sector on the decision none of we three voted for in June but which gained 17 million votes and a majority across the UK. Brexit means, in a moment, Brexit means that Alex Neil was on the winning side of that vote, we three were on the wrong side and Scotland and the UK will be leaving the European Union. Assuming that the opinions of Mr Carlaw's constituents have not changed, when will you have the courage of your constituents' convictions and start to speak up for what they believe about this? On with me for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. What they certainly didn't do was to vote for you to hijack representation of the European referendum as an excuse for independence to be trailed out all over again. What benefit is it to culture, tourism or our creative industries to be called the Scottish shambles by the Government of China? To campaign naively like some political ingenue on US polling day against the president-elect of the United States? A country with massive influence in our business and creative arts and artists? To be slapped down by the Government of Spain after waffling on about discussions? To be snubbed by Chancellor Merkel? To be told by Denmark that they will not intervene in the UK discussions? To be dismissed by the Czech Republic and be told that it is premature to address the question of an independent Scotland at its relation to the EU? To be slapped down by the President of France, who made clear negotiations will be conducted with the United Kingdom, not with a part of the United Kingdom? Finally, to be told by Norway that, despite the former First Minister blunderbusing around the globe, Scottish membership of EFTA is not possible and urged the FM to engage in a constructive dialogue with the UK Government on that matter. This overreaching, fuelled by the messianic subservience of our party, is leading Scotland up a blind alley. At this rate, it may become necessary for the First Minister and Mr Russell to voluntarily surrender their passports before they do any further damage. Their six-month mission has failed to deliver. Their approach is distancing Scotland from the real discussion and debate, undermining Scotland's voice and the negotiation that is soon to come. Contrast the tweets, statements and behaviour of Mr Russell and the First Minister with Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, no supporter of the UK Government, who last week tweeted about the positive discussions that he was having with the UK Government to make sure that the world knows London, which also voted to remain, is open for business and that he is working to ensure the best deal for London and the UK. Enough then of sashaying across the tar market number 10, sweeping past the Scottish news teams to grandstand for the benefit of the UK media, Scotland needs its Ava Peron to get on with the day job and to make sure that the subtle variables that can be negotiated in this process are achieved and not squandered. If the UK no longer has full membership of the EU's single market, it is highly likely that such regulations would continue to apply and would pose a significant threat to broadcasters and jobs in Scotland. Can we get to the motion in hand, Mr Carroll? I remember when ITV stopped showing Miss Marple and Poirot in Scotland, the voter reigns supreme. I very much doubt that the rest of Europe is suddenly going to switch off the opportunity for Scottish programmes, Scottish broadcasts and Scottish participation. Any more, any more than Britain is going to stop screening Scandinavian or other European television programmes. It's a complete nonsense from this Government. Scotland's creative artists have thrived without the EU. As Lewis MacDonald points out in his amendment, it was a Jewish immigrant who founded the Edinburgh festival, the 70th anniversary of which we are set to celebrate. A very important point was to look at the European Union. It was a Jewish immigrant who founded the Edinburgh festival, which was the 70th anniversary of which we are set to celebrate. All the talent that Fiona Hyslop referred to in her earlier motion thrived before we were in the European Union. Did Jack Buchanan need to be in the European Union to become a major global international star? Absolutely not. Our acting talent, musical talent, directors and artists are the toast of the creative arts the world over. Are there challenges? Of course. We are set to unpick a framework that has evolved over 40 years, but we are not doomed to fail as those two lamentably insist that we are. Will EU nations no longer wish to see our productions? Of course they will. The creative industries are worth some £84.1 billion annually to the UK, but we are not doomed to fail. Will EU nations no longer wish to see our productions? Of course they will. The creative industries are worth some £84.1 billion annually to the UK, some £3.7 billion to Scotland, with some £71,800 employed in the sector. Perhaps we will even be able to reverse the savage 11 per cent cuts to Scottish culture imposed by this government in the last year. As I observed, in the recent debate on the BBC charter, the Scottish Government needs to do far more than whinge about Brexit. We need studio capacity, the Pentland studio proposals in which the reporter was expected to roll back in June remains moribund. Scottish Enterprise lagged behind its northern Irish counterparts in appreciating its role in investing and securing new business for Scotland. Brexit is at a challenge, not a brick wall. Working with the UK Government, we can secure a flourishing funding for the arts and tourism working together. Working together, I commend my amendment to the chamber. I thank Jackson's Carlaw and I call on Lewis MacDonald to speak to a move amendment 2795.2. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Much of the focus of debate since 23 June has been on the economic impact of leaving the European Union and how to maintain the benefits that we have derived from being within the EU. Unfettered access to the single market membership of the customs union has indeed been critical to jobs, business and growth in Scotland and across the United Kingdom for over 40 years. However, our place in Europe is not just about trading investment. It is also about culture, our interaction with the rest of the continent and our shared values and aspirations for the future. The Government's motion today talks about Scotland's culture, creative industries and tourism sectors. Much of its focus is on economic aspects of those such as EU funding and collaboration mechanisms, access to key EU markets and proposals for the digital single market. We agree that all those industrial sectoral issues are important and so are creative Europe grants to projects involving Scottish partners, access to skills and talent and research and knowledge exchange. However, the cultural implications of Brexit go wider and deeper than simply the economic impacts and the institutional relationships between Scotland and the European Union. The choice between engagement and isolation is an economic and a political choice but it is also a cultural one. That is why, Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name and it is also why we on this side reject the Conservative amendment today. Indeed, with every passing week and we have just heard a very good example of it, the Tory's embrace of Brexit appears to become closer and warmer. To talk about the benefits that Brexit may bring to Scotland's culture, creative industries and tourism, at the same time as denouncing the potentially severe negative impact of jeopardising Scotland's unfettered access to the UK single market through more referendums, makes no more rational sense than it does to reject Brexit and embrace independence. It is simply fantasy to claim that such benefits may come from the UK Government concluding free trade agreements with the EU and other countries around the globe. What we are actually contemplating is the UK withdrawing from agreements with 30 of our friends and neighbours, which go far beyond free trade agreements and give access to a single market of 500 million people. Saying that you favour free trade while embracing the prospect of tariffs and visas does not disguise the reality of what Britain walking away from Europe could actually mean. Culture counts, the campaign to highlight the value of culture in Scotland, with 46 national umbrella and membership bodies across the arts, heritage, screen and creative industries, gave evidence on the implications of Brexit to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee. Their description of the nature of culture is one that I think everyone would endorse. Our cultural life is an expression of who we are, they say, who we want to be and how others see us. This is as much true of our collective national identity at home and abroad as it is of the many and diverse artistic expressions we exercise as individuals. Donald Dure spoke in similar terms at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. This is about more than our politics and our laws, this is about who we are, how we carry ourselves. Culture in that sense is more than an aggregation of economic benefits. It is culture a life that makes us human and it is Scotland's open and welcoming culture which we must seek to protect in the difficult and dangerous times that lie ahead. Our amendment therefore highlights the inclusive and outward looking character of that culture because those characteristics are more important today than they have been in many years. The cabinet secretary made mention of it. The Edinburgh International Festival will celebrate its 70th anniversary next year, more than two generations of welcoming the world. In 1947, Europe was only beginning to recover from the devastating impact of the Second World War. That this country should host a festival of arts and culture as a beacon of hope for Europe was an idea of which began with the Jewish entrepreneur Rudolf Bing, who fled from Austria to Britain in the 1930s. It was endorsed by Herbert Morrison, leader of the House of Commons in the post-war Labour government, and Edinburgh overtook Oxford as the host city of choice on the University of Henry Harviewood, who worked in Edinburgh for the British Council. The Edinburgh festival is in Scotland and off Scotland, but it is not just for Scotland or by Scotland. Its artists, its audiences and its purpose are and always have been for and by the rest of Britain and the rest of the world. It grew up as a symbol of hope out of the darkest times in the modern history of Europe. We in our time cannot fail to see the risk of dark times ahead. We know that there are those who want Britain to turn its back on Europe, just as there are those who want America to turn its back on the world. The need to look outwards, not inwards, has never been greater and it is as urgent a need here in Scotland as it is anywhere else. Labour's vision is of a Scotland in the 2020s, which has not turned its back either on the rest of Britain or on the rest of Europe. It is that vision that we propose and will be voting for today. We now move to the open debate. We have plenty of time in hand this afternoon, so feel free to make and take interventions. I call on Ash Denham to be followed by John Lamont. Our creative industries are one of Scotland's success stories. Think of a book adapted for a series for Amazon with sweeping Scottish scenery featuring historic castles. You might well think of Outlander. Think of a top video game and you may well think of Grand Theft Auto. Think of an arts festival and you will almost certainly think Edinburgh. The success of the few that I have mentioned here is that they are just as famous outside of Scotland as they are within it. That is because Scotland's creative industries have an impact. They showcase Scotland, they showcase our homegrown talent and they bring people here in their millions. The sector contributes much to the country in many different ways, but the contribution to the economy is also significant. Data published by the Scottish Development International in June this year showed that Scotland's creative industries contribute £3.7 billion in GVA to the Scottish economy each year. That is employing 80,000 people and has a total turnover of £5.2 billion. I am an Edinburgh MSP and Edinburgh is home to both the international festival, the fringe and a variety of other programmes that make Edinburgh the largest arts festival in the world. There are now 12 major festivals in Edinburgh, the festival city. The theme of the 2016 Edinburgh festival was Welcome World and this was to demonstrate the international outlook of Scotland's festivals. The international festival in August is a state-of-the-art world-class cultural event that projects Edinburgh on to a world stage. The festivals combined attract 4.5 million people, generating £280 million for Edinburgh and £313 million for Scotland per year. A survey reported in the Herald recently reported that 94 per cent of tourists say that festivals are part of what makes Edinburgh a special place to visit. Festivals are important and integral to the city, but they could be under threat. A change to immigration rules or to funding streams due to Brexit could pose a serious risk to the festivals. Fergus Lennan, director of EIF, said that the political culture of battening down the hatches was the opposite of the movement that inspired the creation of the festival in 1947 as an example of international cultural exchange to unite people and that we should seek to maintain that. Festivals Edinburgh stated that it was detecting increased caution in international partners in committing to medium to long-term collaborations because of the uncertainty due to Brexit. According to the Brexit report recently published by the Creative Industries Federation, access to international talent is a pivotal issue for the city. With thousands of international performers programmed every year, changes to UK visa requirements for non-EU performers have already made booking these acts far more difficult. Festival organisers are concerned about the impact of tougher visa conditions if they are also extended to European performers as well. European visitors constitute the largest international market, so any changes to the ease of entry by requiring additional visas could damage visitor numbers. It does not make sense to me to make it more difficult for visitors to visit us. The Edinburgh international festivals are among those who have reported an immediate impact on their business planning from the fluctuations in Stirling. Given lead times, the international festival traditionally negotiates contracts with acts in Pound Stirling in order to protect against fluctuation in international markets. Since the referendum, artists are now insisting on payment in their own currency. This leaves both budgets and profits for these festivals more vulnerable to the changing performance of currencies. Another Scottish success story is video games. With the right conditions, this could be a growth market for Scotland, attracting large amounts of investment money. Scotland is now developing a reputation as a place where creative companies can be built and where they can grow and flourish. In order to grow companies, we must be able to attract the best talent from around the world. Chris Vandercull of 4J Studios, which, among other things, develops Minecraft, which is a particular favourite of my sons, believes that the UK Government needs to do so. We need to adopt a more enlightened immigration policy, as skills shortages in the tech sector are constraining growth. He says that foreign students who come to study video games development here were, I quote, fairly heavily lent on to get out of the country after graduating, which he said was disastrous. He goes on to say, quote, in our immigration policy we are very well structured to invite people in who have already proven themselves, but they are already settled and what we need to do is attract talent that is early career and that doesn't quite fit the home office boxes that are there at the moment but that is exactly what we need in our companies. Creative industries are, by their very nature, collaborative, engaging across borders, bringing ideas and people together. A hard Brexit challenges these principles, principles that underpin the success of these sectors and that is why a hard Brexit is not in Scotland's best interests and must be challenged. John Lennon, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is now the 12th debate that we have had on the EU referendum result. The 12th opportunity for the SNP to stand up and talk about how great the EU is and how everyone in Scotland wants to remain a member. What, I ask, has been achieved so far? Little in the way of clarity on the Scottish Government's position but much in the way of grievance. We have spent less than half this time debating education, a topic that is supposedly the SNP's number one priority. Nevertheless, I am happy to speak today on the implications of the UK's decision to leave the EU for culture and tourism and will focus my remarks on tourism as one of the most important sectors for the border's economy. Presiding Officer, the border's is and will remain a fantastic tourist destination, one that attracts visitors from all parts of the world, fiercely proud towns, each with something to offer and a lot of hard work being carried out by organisations such as the Scottish Border's Tourism Partnership. Let us not overemphasise the impact Brexit will have on tourism. The UK is not part of the Eurozone, the Schengen area or other features of the EU that impact most on that sector, so withdrawal from the EU will not result in major change. Tourism was not a major consideration in the run-up to the referendum and there has not been an influx of warnings from tourist leaders since June about the consequences of Brexit. The SNP chaired Scottish Affairs Committee opened an inquiry into Scotland's place in Europe shortly after the vote and not a single Scottish tourism organisation has responded. That is not the major issue that the Scottish Government is trying to claim that it is for our tourism sector. The Government's motion speaks about the need to maintain freedom of movement and the First Minister has said that she wants a deal to maintain membership of the single market. We have repeatedly heard from the SNP that one of the benefits of Scottish independence would be our ability to operate a totally different immigration system. However, in the same breath, they claim that they will not have a hard border with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is, of course, a complete nonsense. The First Minister is in Ireland at the moment. She will see that the Irish quietly align its immigration system with that of the United Kingdom in order to make the common travel area work. The Scottish Government will also be well aware of the fact that Northern Ireland is treated as a special case because of its recent troubled history. A soft border with the rest of the United Kingdom would only be possible if, like Ireland, Scotland was not part of the Schengen area and if, like Ireland, we align our immigration policy with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the SNP members or indeed the minister could clarify why it would be in the interests of the tourism sector to put up a hard border with the rest of the UK, our nearest neighbour and largest market. I agree with Willie McLeod, the executive director of the British Hospitality Association, that predicted industry growth will be threatened as the demand for staff cannot be met from the domestic job market. Any curves on access to the European workforce will constrain the industry, impacting on the way that we all now live. That is about freedom of movement as part of the single market. Does the member understand that the leaders of our tourism industry are seriously concerned about access to skilled staff unless we have access to a single market, including freedom of movement? Is he against a hard Brexit? Yes or no? The minister has failed to answer the point that I made about the impact of a hard border with the rest of the United Kingdom. You cannot have a separate immigration policy in Scotland compared to the rest of the United Kingdom without having a hard border. That is a point that the minister has singularly failed to answer. Leaving the EU presents us with a major opportunity to boost tourism. Those are not my words that those of Alex Neil. Since the EU referendum result, 57 per cent of businesses feel confident for the next 12 months compared to only 21 per cent who are concerned according to the Scottish tourism alliance. Businesses responding to this particular survey realise that there are real opportunities to remove red tape, which is a common complaint about many aspects of the EU, improve efficiency and raise Scotland's profile internationally. The fall in the pound has produced a short-term boost, but Brexit can also provide the opportunity for Scotland to explore new and emerging markets outside the EU. I give way to Mr McDonald. I am very grateful to Mr Lamont and I am simply curious to know whether he agrees with Alex Neil. I agree that we need to accept the democratic wishes of the United Kingdom electorate and now need to, despite the fact that I voted to remain part of the EU, respect that result and move to the best deal from my constituents in the Borders, the best deal for Scotland and the best deal for the United Kingdom. The SNP members are shouting up and saying, what is that? I am more clear what the SNP's position is on that either. What was highest on the list of concerns for businesses who responded to this survey? The survey by the Scottish Tourism Alliance. What was highest on the list of those businesses concerned? A survey about Brexit. One of the most common concerns expressed by businesses in the tourism sector was the threat of a second independence referendum. The SNP members say that they want what is best for Scotland. They say that constitutional uncertainty in leaving markets is bad for business. What the tourism sector wants is for the threat of a second independence referendum to be taken off the table. Tourism in the Scottish Borders has a very bright future with the right support and the right marketing. There are a whole host of opportunities to promote the Borders as a great destination for fishing on the Tweed, exploring the Beretshire coastline, visiting our abbeys or attending one of our many common ridings and festivals, a point that I am sure the Deputy Presiding Officer would wholeheartedly agree with. One very positive idea, the Borderlands initiative, seeks to promote the south of Scotland and north of England as a tourist destination. A constituent of mine, Brian Moffitt, is a champion of this idea and has written extensively about the shared history and potential of the Borderlands. I last raised this idea with the Cabinet Secretary at the beginning of October and I wonder whether it should even manage to give it some further thought and consideration. It certainly is in Scotland's interests to maintain a strong relationship with its European and other international partners. The Scottish Government needs to work with the United Kingdom Government to make sure that this happens and ensure that tourism in the Borders and elsewhere in Scotland is given a bright future. I will give John Lamont the opportunity, because he spoke about clarity a few months ago from the Scottish Government. I will give Mr Lamont the opportunity to provide some clarity on his party's position on the deal that the UK will get out of Europe if he wants to take that opportunity. What is it that the Conservative Party and the UK Government want out of any deal for the UK leaving the European Union? It is very clear that what the UK Government wants to achieve is the best deal for my constituents in the Borders, the best deal for Scotland and the best deal for the United Kingdom, recognising the 17 million votes to leave the European Union. The SNP needs to get the prospect of having a second independence vote removed from the tables to allow tourism in other sectors of the Scottish economy to move forward without that threat hanging over it. I am once again a lack of utter clarity from the Conservatives. It was a genuine opportunity that I provided the member to say something on the record, but unfortunately once again the Conservatives are lacking in any way, shape or form in terms of clarity and also detail in terms of going forward with the European question. There are a couple of points that I want to touch upon to provide some information in terms of some personal experiences that certainly happened to me some years ago. Two of Scotland's cultural worldwide brands, or so I thought, are the kilt and the bikepipes. As every member knows, I take my responsibility as a parliamentary piper seriously and I enjoy playing our national instrument, but we all have to start somewhere. My first attempt at busking internationally was in West Berlin in 1988, outside of the Kaiser Wilhelm Church. I took part in a German exchange trip through school, but being a 16-year-old boy, I was a bit conscious about wearing a kilt too often. Prior to playing, I got changed into the kilt in a bar, in a nearby bar, and when I was leaving to go and actually play, the barman shouted, ah, Englander. In 2001, I was the best man and a piper to a friend's wedding in a small village in France. The local mayor was delighted with such an international gathering because my friend Tom is Polish French and members of his family had travelled from Poland and Germany to be there. Then there was me, standing there, pipes, kilt, the whole lot, and according to the mayor, once again, I was referred to as Ongli. The fact that I was born in England, they were factually correct, but they weren't to know that, but the thing that got me was how and when did the kilt and the bikepipes become a symbol for England. Those two events taught me a few lessons and they also awakened me to a few points. One of which was that no matter how far travelled Scots are, we still have an educational and a cultural job to undertake when highlighting our country. The 2014 referendum will have helped with that, but possibly my two anecdotes may well be redundant now, but when we start telling people about their culture, history and tourism offering, we lose out economically. There was a debate that took place in this chamber a number of years ago when Jamie McGregor had taken forward his member's bill. The example that was given was about golf and the number of people internationally who don't recognise or realise that golf is actually a Scottish sport. That came down to the fact that we stopped telling people that golf is a Scottish sport. I accept that tartening pipes might not be to everyone's taste, I don't know why, but they are just too small cogs in our culture and tourism wheel. That helps to attract people to our country and promote our country globally. That is why leaving the single market in the EU provides a huge challenge to Scotland and the UK. I have piped at a few festivals and events across Europe. Leaving the EU in the single market will certainly increase the red tape for performers, leaving and coming here. What type of effect will that have on some of the many festivals that take place in Scotland on an annual basis? Every year, Glasgow hosts the world pipe band championships. Bringing a pipe band is not cheap, particularly for those who travel from elsewhere in the world to come here. If there are some bands at the added burden of a visa and the costs to that, it might actually stop them from travelling. If it stops them from travelling, it stops them from competing, performing and ultimately visiting our country. As Janet Archer, the chief executive of creative Scotland, said, arts and culture transcend borders and bring people together from across the globe. I couldn't agree more. Losing EU funding, restricting freedom of movement of artists, performers and companies, rising costs and an inward focus are major concerns of the cultural sector. One-fifth of the staff of the National Gallows of Scotland in the Scottish Bally come from Europe. Fears have been raised over the loss of international talent from Scotland as a result of leaving the EU and the single market. Today's debate is about culture and tourism. We've had a number of other debates about other sectors, and I'm sure that some of the same arguments and reasons both foreign and against could be raised about all other sectors, including sport and football. We could go through the SPFL teams and pick out all those players from EU nations. Over the years, many have made a huge positive impact to our game. Two weeks ago, I attended in my capacity as the chair of the cross-party group on records of boating in marine tourism, which meets tonight at 6pm in committee room 5, the cruise summit hosted by the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing MSP. We have made progress in bringing the marine tourism sector together, and last year we saw the publication of Scotland's first ever marine tourism strategy. The strategy emanated out of the work of the cross-party group. In the past two years, Greenock Ocean terminal has received more than 200,000 visitors from cruise tourism. Those arrivals generate wealth and business opportunities for the area. It is also the staff in the ships that doubles that figure. Inverclyde has a huge amount to offer to exploit an even greater share of the growing tourism market. Its location lends itself to even greater marine tourism opportunities. Inverclyde is a partner to the city deal, and one of the plans is to expand the cruise liner area. Cruise tourism is the fastest growing segment of the travel industry. There has been a 17 per cent growth in the economic impact of the European cruise industry in the last five years. The shipbuilding order book has 73 ships on order, with billions of pounds, and 17 of those new ships will have over 5,000 bears. What those figures highlight is a sector that is moving forward and will continue to move forward and help Scotland's economy and one area in constituency. Just one final point. That is regarding John Lamont's comments on tourism. Last week at the European Committee, we took evidence from Tim Reardon of the UK Chamber of Shipping. He said on the record that the writer-free movement underpins our business, whether it involves tourist travel by ferry or cruise. By ferry or cruise ships coming in from western Europe, because of where Scotland is geographically, it is part of our north-west European itinerary, so it is predominantly Europeans who are on board the vessels that come into ports in Scotland. The airability to do so without needing a visa in advance is critical to the success of that business. Brexit and leaving the single market poses a fresh challenge economically across Scotland and the UK, and it could adversely affect my constituency. That is why I will be backing the motion and name of the Cabinet Secretary today. Thank you, Mr McWilliam. You can see that we have time in hand, so I am being generous with members' speeches. Claire Baker will be followed by Marie Todd. I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate. The process of leaving the EU is complex and we are still in the early stages. Previous debates have stressed the great uncertainty surrounding our future in many significant areas and stressed a desire for us to retain as much as possible of the benefits of membership. The arts, creative industries and tourism are no different. In modern economies, there are huge opportunities for our creative industries. In recognition of that, the EU established the Creative Europe Fund. Creative Europe will support the cultural, creative and audiovisual sectors. The EU has pledged to invest between the years 2014 to 2020, nearly €1.5 billion into the creative industries. During the first two years, it has supported 230 UK cultural organisations and audiovisual companies, as well as the cinema distribution of 8 to 4 UK films in other European countries, with grants of up to €40 million. It is the early days of the fund, but it has already supported projects in Scotland and throughout the UK. As the financial situation in the UK remains challenging, arts funding and culture are under significant pressure. Although I recognise that the Scottish Government has sought to protect cultural spend, it has largely focused on the national offerings. Meanwhile, the pressure that we see on local authorities, which support much cultural activity and enable communities to participate in the arts, is huge. That is one reason why we argue for a different tax policy in the upcoming budget. Alongside the pressures that we see in Scotland, the approach that is taken by the Tory Government, and that is why I was astonished by the claims made by John Lamont about the arts flourishing under the UK Government, because what we are actually seeing across the UK is drastic cuts to local arts provision across the UK regions. As we leave the EU, the support offered and the exchanges available will be further reduced. That will all have an impact on the engagement that people have with the arts and the ability to create and participate in the arts within Scotland. This is a time when the UK Government is struggling to come up with any answers to the questions over our future. As the focus of the debate remains the single market trade security and we hear reports of concerns over our civil servant capacity in dealing with all these issues, it is legitimate to be concerned about the future of our creative industries and tourism, whether it will get the scrutiny that it needs and deserves. Alongside the work that has been done in this Parliament by our committees, I am pleased to see that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the UK Parliament is conducting an inquiry into the impact of Brexit on the creative industries, tourism and the digital single market and will start taking evidence in the new year. By just having a look at some of the evidence that they have already received, there are clearly complexities that need to be addressed, with broadcasting having unique pressures. For example, the British Screen Advisory Council highlighted the importance of UK content continuing to meet the requirements to qualify as European works post Brexit by remaining a signatory to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. The single digital market has transformed the way that we buy, sell and communicate across the UK. The UK digital market is worth €118 billion a year and 43 per cent of UK digital exports go to the EU. While that is dominated by the single trade market, it is also about innovation, about shared content, research, knowledge transfer and a consistent and fair copywriting system, which recognises new technologies. My colleague Catherine Stiler, MEP, has been doing a lot of work in this area, particularly campaigning for comprehensive digital access for public libraries. All that work and influence is being put at risk by leaving the EU. Already we see that tourism faces huge challenges in so many areas. The future workforce, the fluctuation of currency, the ending of European development funding, which is often very important for the viability of rural tourism, potential restrictions on visitors and visas for travel. I was speaking to the five chamber of commerce on Friday and, while it is recognised that Brexit is causing great uncertainty and that the immediate impact of rising costs is cancelling at any benefits that come in for exports, there was a suggestion that inward on tourism could benefit from the weakening of the currency and there was at this point in time a promotional opportunity that shouldn't be missed. We cannot forget about the outward tourism sector and the tour operators in the UK who will be facing significant challenges with their products. While there may be a short-term advantage for tourism, the long-term is much more uncertain. It would be interesting to hear the cabinet secretary's views on that. The culture community is one of the most vocal in supporting membership of the EU, and polling suggests that a huge majority of them voted to remain. The arts know no boundaries, they are internationalists and inclusive. As others have said, next year celebrates 70 years of the Edinburgh International Festival and started in the wake of the Second World War in 1947. The festival had a remit to provide a platform for the flowering of the human spirit. It is internationalist, celebratory, challenging and increasingly focused on inclusivity, staging more public performances. It brings together culture from all around the world, as yet unknown changes to the freedom of movement of people across the EU creates uncertainty and worry, and removing free movement of EU nationals will restrict cultural exchange and collaboration. It will also potentially impact on the audiences for the festivals. I recognise that many of the performers and visitors who currently come from further afield in the EU, and there is a system of visas and permits, but to have that for all non-UK performers will add to the complexity, bureaucracy and the cost of staging the international festival in Fringe, alongside many other festivals in Scotland. It stands to have a negative impact on the breadth, the depth and the quality of our festivals. It is also about the message that the result sends. For those of us who value a diverse society, who welcome people who choose to make their lives here in the UK, who believe that a good balance can be found to encourage immigration and support our values and our communities, the result of this vote has been worrying and some of the reasons for the result are troubling. Culture is about who we are, but it is not uniform. It is not homogeneous. It tells and interprets many stories. Expression will not end with Brexit. It will respond. We need to listen. It can offer all of us a way through these difficult times. Maurentang, many thanks. It is Gaelic week in the Scottish Parliament, so I want to take the opportunity to highlight the contribution that the Gaelic language makes to our culture, our creative industries and tourism. Our Gaelic language is central to our culture and the EU recognises the language formally and supports and protects it. As well as the cultural and community benefits of Gaelic, the economic benefit of Gaelic is now well known, using bilingual branding and signage adds value and authenticity to products and services and improves customers' perceptions of provenance, worth nearly £150 million a year to our economy. Gaelic can also be viewed and used as an asset in a range of fields, particularly the sectors of creative industries, food and drink, education and learning, heritage and tourism. I was struck when I was preparing this speech and thinking about what to say that there is a sense of egalitarianism very central to the European project. The EU does not disadvantage those on the periphery. It does not disadvantage minority languages. It does not disadvantage those living in rural areas. This is translated into massive support for infrastructure projects all around the highlands and islands and ensuring those in rural areas have the same opportunity to participate as those in cities. Leader funding, which, of course, comes from the EU, has made a real difference to those of us who live and work in rural areas. The bottom-up methodology has harnessed people's vision and energy and commitment and some of the rural communities have come alive again. The tourism industry is absolutely crucial to the economy of the highlands and islands, proportionally much more so than the rest of Scotland. When we consider tourism, a couple of phrases bring to mind. In a way, those words are very reflective of why our place in the EU is so important. We are a welcoming country known for our hospitality and we are keen to share our culture with our friends and our neighbours in the world. We have many world-class attractions that attract visitors from all across the globe. In my constituency, nearly 350,000 people a year come to visit a Hurtcastle. 140,000 people go to visit the Orkney Italian Chapel every year. Annually more than a million visitors come and supplement our local expenditure. A strong tourism centre in the highlands sector in the highlands and islands can help to create much more resilient communities. If we get it right, tourism helps to support a vibrant regional identity and attracts people to live, work, invest and visit our reason. Globally, tourism is one of the world's largest industries in terms of outputs and it creates some 8 per cent of the jobs worldwide, expanding annually at the rate of 4 to 5 per cent. The Highland region is home to some of the world's finest food and drink producers, famous for fine malt, whisky, outstanding seafood, world-class meat and game. The industry in the highlands is a huge employer and generates a turnover in excess of a billion each year. The last thing we need is to be putting up barriers, trade barriers or barriers to people to come and visit us, a market of nearly 500 million we need to remain open to. Many of my constituents are worried about the restrictions on the four fundamental freedoms of the EU, but in particular we are worried about the restriction on the freedom of movement because we think that it will be damaging to tourism, both in terms of the visitors who are able to come and the people working in tourism. If you come up to the Highlands and Islands and visit, you will meet plenty of new Scots working in the tourist industry. I have just been up in Shetland where I heard of several businesses where more than half of the workforce are EU citizens. If those people do not stay or are unable to stay, there are no Shetlanders to take over from them and the businesses have really serious concerns about future staffing. Last week I spoke about the positive changes that the Scottish Government has made in terms of travelling to the islands. RET has made the western isles much more accessible and there is a price freeze on the ferry routes to Orkney and Shetland. For my constituents in the islands, it is one step forward thanks to the Scottish Government and two steps back thanks to Brexit as the islands become more accessible and the UK less. Let's keep the door open and ensure that those visitors are welcome at our tables. EU membership supports culture, tourism and creative industries, all of which are absolutely vital to the Highlands and Islands. Why should the people of the Highlands and Islands suffer the consequences of a Brexit that they didn't vote for? Why should our economy be weakened because of a Brexit that we didn't vote for? Why did we not vote to become poorer? In fact, why should any part of Scotland lose out on the benefits of EU membership when every single part of Scotland has voted to remain a member? I don't think that it's fair to my constituents or to the rest of the people in Scotland to be taken out of the EU against our will. So I believe that all of us here, as representatives of the people of Scotland, must do everything in our power to ensure that our current relationship with the EU is not lost. Moran tan. Taby Love, Ms Todd. I hope that I got that correct. Taby Scott, we follow by Tom Arthur, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, another Tuesday afternoon, and it is indeed the 12th debate, but the Tory position gets harder every week. I mean, in many ways we're grateful to them because it certainly livens up these proceedings. Last week I had nothing but Rhys Morg and Ian Duncan-Smith, and today we had Jackson Carlaw giving it the same position. It's clear now, you know, if you dare to question the fact that, and there are facts, that leaving European Union in hard breaks at terms is going to be damaging to the UK and damaging to the economy, you get the kind of Rhys Morg Duncan-Smith treatment, which is how dare you even suggest such a thing, the only way is up. I mean, the breathtaking naivety of that, you just need to read any decent account of what's going on at the moment to question the Tory position at the moment. Actually, I thought that, in fairness to Douglas Ross, he was mentioned as going to do a wind-up today. I suppose Douglas will be the only one who will welcome staying in the European Union. He'll be the only Tory left in Europe after we've left because he'll still be champion, he'll still be refereeing on Wednesday nights across in Madrid, but good luck to him on that. But I must say for Jackson Carlaw to accuse others of blunderbusting when the foreign secretary of this country goes round the world in a way in which Boris Johnson does, takes a breath away, quite breathtaking from the Conservatives today. And Stuart McMillan was quite right about clarity. It's no good John Lamont lecturing any other government, in any other party in the United Kingdom on clarity. The clarity that this country needs is the clarity of the negotiating position on Brexit. And it now appears to be eat to your cake or have some cake or whatever that's going on with cake. It seems to be the only game in town at the moment. That is a true indictment of a government that haven't a clue as to what their position is, not least of which because the infighting is not between the Labour Party, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and others and the Tories. It's within the Conservative Party. It has been from day one. It's actually been going on for about 40 years now, as far as I can remember, and it continues and it continues and it continues. Until they get that sorted out, if John Lamont wants to explain to me 40 years of Conservative splits on Europe, he can take all afternoon. John Lamont... I'm just...thank you the member for giving away... When Mingus Campbell, leader of the Lib Dems, proposed a referendum on leaving the EU, what was his position going to be had the British people deliver that verdict that they've now delivered? Tavish Scott? That's got to do with 40 years of Tory splits on Europe. I'll give way again if John Lamont wants to tell us what the latest Conservative position is, because we're not dealing with Min Campbell's leadership, which was some years ago, Mr Lamont. We're dealing with the Conservative position of the Government of our country right now, and it would be really helpful if you would address that. We'll wait for Douglas to wind up to tell us all what the Conservative position is going to be today, tomorrow, goodness knows what day. I suppose that the other upside to this debate is that it's reawakened many of our interests in European politics, because the interest this week has to be on the Italian referendum on Sunday, and what happens to the Prime Minister of Italy in that which has profound implications for the European Union, just as the decision by the centre-right part of French politics, and I'm not sure that you even understand this in any sense, to select Monsieur Fillon as their candidate who will presumably take on the very clever nationalism that is Marine Le Pen next spring. Of course, just the other day, just last week, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor announced that she was running again. Thank goodness is all I can say to that, because she's about the most stable sensible politician in the whole of European politics, and not that an endorsement from me will make any blind bit of difference, thank goodness, but I darn well hope that she wins, because the European Union will be a stronger place where she to do so. I just wanted to make a couple of points on the economics that are underpin what I thought from the Cabinet Secretary, from Clare Baker, and indeed, from Ash Denham and others about the importance of the cultural tourism in other sectors. We're important, and I can't better those arguments. I think there are some other points around, for example, Erasmus, which seemed to me quite important about the numbers, but there are plenty of stats out there, and we can trade them around all day. The Conservatives will disagree with them, because clearly they support an arm which says that the European Union is important, and the rest of us may take and do take, thankfully, a different view, but what cannot be argued in terms of what happened last week was that the Conservatives' own Chancellor blew a hole in their Brexit strategy, because what he said to his party, as well as to the rest of the House of Commons, was the reality of the public finances, which, of course, underpins the spending on arts, as Clare Baker was rightly pointing out. It's not just being cut in terms of what's happening in Scotland, but, of course, it's being cut in every part of England as well, a point made to me by some cousins in the west country just the other day. However, what, of course, the Chancellor pointed out, based on his own analysis and more to the point the analysis provided by independent, and yes, they are experts, and therefore they should actually be listened to rather than dismissed, which, of course, is the standard position that we get now, is that there is a £59 billion hole in the public finances over the next five years. Now, it doesn't matter whether you think that the Government is right or wrong in Scotland or right or wrong on health or education, the fact is that there will be less public money to spend on the arts, to spend on tourism, to spend on culture and, indeed, to spend on other public services. Those are the figures that the Conservative Government has produced themselves. To come here today and give us all a lecture about spending on this and spending on that when their own Chancellor has illustrated dramatically the impact of Brexit on the UK economy over the next five years, couldn't be clearer. We get one thing from the Tories today in the wind-ups. Maybe it will be an acceptance that their own Chancellor laid low what the dire financial position is and how difficult that will be for every Government across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Not only that, but the Institute of Fiscal Studies backed up the Chancellor by pointing to the falling-pound driving up inflation and that Brexit was causing the biggest squeeze in pay and take-home pay for the people that we represent here in Edinburgh and the people that are represented by MPs down in the House of Commons for 70 years. To simply ignore that, to brush it under the table seems to me to not be prepared to accept the fact that the Conservatives' own Chancellor presented to the House of Commons just last week. Two final points, if I may. It seems to me that the intervention of Mark Carney last Sunday is the most important one that is knocking around on this Brexit debate at the moment, because what he said is that there needs to be transitional relief and it needs to be two years longer and we need to work really hard to make sure that happens. Thankfully, the Tories can't sack Mark Carney because there will be a run on the pound if they did. He is unmovable in that sense, and that is, for the rest of us, a great relief. The other I thought really telling remark in the last few days was that Brian Cair, who must be one of the most experienced UK EU negotiators, said that there was less than a 50 per cent chance of securing an orderly Brexit within those two years, and there was a possible decade of uncertainty. That is the Mark Carney point, that the longer time period that can be used in negotiating a transitional plan does give opportunities the wrong word, but some ability to ensure that single market access is retained and, therefore, the public finances, which are dire, can have some semblance of structure underneath them. It would complete the circle by allowing us to invest in the very art culture and other areas that have been introduced this afternoon. Lewis Macdonald quoted Donald Dure how we are and how we carry ourselves. I think that Donald would be pretty depressed by what we have heard today from the Tory benches. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. As I rise to speaking today's debate, I am conscious that it is now six months since I first spoken in this Parliament. In those six months, we have witnessed greater political turbulence across the globe than at any point in this Parliament's history, and certainly since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In my first speech, I argued that the European Union is more than simply the sum of various treaties and trade agreements. I stated my belief that our European citizenship gives exploration to our ancient sense of European identity. At the heart of that shared identity, I believe that there are a shared set of values and, crucially, a shared culture. I am therefore grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's debate, which, in its consideration of culture, permits the discussion of the great anchors of our European civilization and what I believe constitutes our European identity. However, before considering the cultural dimension of our relationship with Europe and the European Union, I wish to briefly comment on the nature of the debate over the past few months. When considering the implications of Brexit, it has become all too easy to be ensnared in a debate exclusively about trade. While retaining full membership of the single market must be the prime objective of this Government, the fundamental reasons for wishing to retain membership transcend the obvious benefits of the four fundamental freedoms. Simply put, the idea and realisation of the single market has been the scaffolding that has supported peace, stability and democracy in post-war Europe. However, the foundations of this shared peace and prosperity have been of shared culture, identity and values. It has been said in this chamber by some that leaving the EU does not mean leaving Europe. However, unfortunately, I think that that only applies in a strictly geographic sense. The manner in which the leave campaign was conducted and the attitude of many prominent Brexiteers imply a rejection not only of the EU but of the very idea of Europe. At least since Roman times, Britain has had an on-going relationship with other neighbours on the continent. That relationship has been defined and influenced by a range of institutions and treaties. The Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the Hanseatic League, the concerts of Europe and the political familial connections of royal households are perhaps a few of the most prominent. Although no one of those august bodies achieved permanence as a political force or enjoyed parity of influence across the continent, their existence and history demonstrates a long-standing willingness to employ not just force but discourse in fostering inter-European engagement. The many endeavours of European co-operation, which predate the European Union, grew in the fertile soil of a shared cultural identity and heritage, while facilitating the exchange of new ideas. Although there are many aspects and manifestations to the shared identity and culture such as the linguistic, literary and religious, I would like to turn to the one that I think is most relevant to this afternoon's debate and the current state of affairs, namely the values of the Enlightenment. It is the values of the Enlightenment that are embodied in the project of European unity. Democracy, liberty, secularism, rationality, freedom of expression, the belief that the human condition can be improved. We know that to truly realise such ambitions is our greatest challenge, but we know equally that they are what defines us as Europeans. They are our heritage and they have been our gift to the world. They have informed the constitutions and the cultures of countless republics and democracies across the globe. The campaign to leave Europe was a repudiation of those values, a rejection of the idea of Europe. It was a campaign that dismissed fact, denigrated experts and trafficked in the politics of division and xenophobia. The 1 million Scots who voted to leave did so for a variety of reasons. I spoke to many in my constituency of Renfisher South who felt neglected and alienated by the political process. In spite of the EU as an irrelevancy, we must listen to and we must engage with those people. However, while I feel regret and not persuading more of my fellow Scots of the case for the EU, I feel nothing but contempt for many of the principal architects of the deceitful and xenophobic leave campaign. We need only consider those who so loudly promoted and preached for the diplomatic disaster of a leave vote. A dismal ensemble of the unthinking beyond Pong song right and the isolationist left, and a ghastly embrace with those vultures of a new count of enlightenment, Farage and Johnson. When the result of the EU referendum became apparent, I felt that something fundamental had been stripped away from me, not just from me but also from future generations. I must add that, as a new and young member of this Parliament, it has been a sobering and disillusioning experience to witness how globly and superficial some other members in this place treat what is a tragedy. The consequences of this tragedy are incalculable. The liberal world order is a buckling. The centre is struggling to hold the far right now menaces our great democracies. I believe that we are approaching a period of great danger as the global order continues to destabilise. Our influence in this place is limited, but where we can bring it to bear, we must. Brexit bromides are no substitute for our coherent plan from the UK Government. Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. A hard Brexit will not only undermine our economy, but it could, and it's a disavow of European culture and values, act as a philip to fascism on the continent. The Westminster Government faces a choice. It can recognise our shared culture and values by reaffirming our commitment to European partnership, by committing the UK to full membership of the single market with freedom of movement, or it can heed deciding calls of British exceptionalism, undermine our European partners, reject our shared culture and values, and sleepwalk us into catastrophe. Should the latter seem likely to prevail, when Scotland must reaffirm its European values independently? Rachael Hamilton, followed by Joan McAlpine. I refer members to my register of interest in the fact that I own a hotel. Tom Arthur is suffering from brexitphobia, but this has gripped the Scottish Government almost to the point of forgetting what our day job is. The fear of Scotland exiting Europe has become the subtitle to every motion that we find ourselves debating. Scottish businesses, on the other hand, are preparing the ground ahead for change. Tourism is vitally important to Scotland, and I'd like to thank those who work day in, day out in the tourism industry to help to drive the Scottish economy. It's business, as usual, for us and them. After all, people's livelihoods depend on offering high-quality, creative and innovative attractions and ensuring that visitors receive a warm welcome. At this point, we must congratulate south of Scotland regional winners, born in the Borders and Galloway Activity Centre, for innovation in tourism at the latest thistle award ceremony. Go on, then. Oh, I think it nicer way of saying it. Stuart McMillan. I appreciate Rachael Hamilton taking the brief intervention. Just that, in terms of welcoming visitors to the country, does Rachael Hamilton agree with the UK Government's proposal to have the face-to-face passport control checks on the cruise liners when they enter into UK waters? I'm afraid that I don't have many cruise liners in the south of Scotland, but if I just refer it to my own business, the welcome that we've been receiving has increased in terms of what we offer to our European friends and our business has increased because we are welcoming and we offer a really good service in Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, our European Committee programme has seen us taking evidence from different sectors of Scottish businesses. Their key message is that the worst risk to business is uncertainty. As I've said, I'm a business owner in the hospitality industry and can back that statement up. Businesses want to hear that Governments are supportive and will be prepared to pull fiscal levers if necessary. Cutting interest rates, for example, made borrowing a little cheaper in the first week after the EU referendum. Last week's announcement that Scotland will receive an extra £800 million for infrastructure and innovation projects to boost productivity and long-term economic growth is the type of message that gives the tourism industry confidence. Let's examine the depreciation of sterling after the EU referendum. In the short term, the low value of the pound has been an incentive to overseas travellers. It's been viewed by the tourism industry as a boost. Tourism spending in Scotland recorded the highest second quarter figures with international tourist spending breaking through the £500 million barrier. That increase in expenditure benefits the whole economy, including retail and wider still. Furthermore, both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports have seen significant increases in passenger numbers with international visitors up 9.4 per cent at Glasgow airport in July this year. Secondly, Scotland is seen as a safe place following terrorist incidents in traditional European short break destinations. People are concerned about security and safety and are avoiding a number of European cities, choosing to travel to Scotland or the rest of the UK, for example. Equally, Brits are opting for safer destinations, many trying a staycation for the first time. Not forgetting tourism is performing well because Scotland is a world-class destination. Members may have found themselves caught, like Jackson Carlaw, in the mystical and spellbinding lander saga, enjoyed too by millions of viewers, indeed a worldwide success. Scotland has shown that it can offer the perfect backdrop drop for authors and TV producers to work their magic amongst the ancient and mysterious standing stones in Dumfries and Galloway to dramatic castles and magnificent stately homes such as Gosford house in East Lothian and breathtaking landscapes. So-called screen tourism is now worth millions to the Scottish economy and tourism bosses believe benefits from the long running success of Outlander, Good Outstrip and mainstream blockbuster movies. I recently visited Thelston Castle near Lorda, one of the oldest and most impressive castles in Scotland. I saw first-hand the great work done there. Historic buildings like those have helped to welcome nearly 15 million overnight tourism trips in Scotland in 2015, for which visitor expenditure totaled over £5 billion. 124 million day visits were taken in Scotland in 2015 with a total spend of £3.9 billion. However, we understand that preserving historic attractions to ensure that they remain prominent tourist attractions is a huge challenge, and preserving them must be on the Brexit wish list. Fiona Hyslop said that Brexit has not happened, which means that we need to concentrate on the here and now. The tourism industry makes up 7.7 per cent of Scotland's workforce. We talk a lot about skills gaps in this Parliament. Fiona Hyslop's motion talks of the severe negative impact that Brexit could have on staffing in skills. I visited Dumfries and Galloway College last week, and we spoke about the flexible and blended learning opportunities that they offer school leavers from Langham to Stranraer and from Cacarnol to Gretna. Brexit was not mentioned once. Skills Development Scotland has identified a skills gap in the tourism industry and the HOS. Does the member agree with the chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, Mark Crosill, who said today that one of the critical issues for industry is the potential changes to the free movement of people, which will directly affect our skills ability to attract, employ and retain overseas staff, both seasonal and parent? I recognise that there may be a regional difference of demand across the country, but does she agree with that very important criticism and the concern that has come from the Scottish Tourism Alliance? I thank the member for her intervention. I do not believe that it was a criticism by Mark Crosill. I think that he is merely pointing out that Scotland has a need to bring in more people to this country to make it a success. Yes, there is a number of people who work within that industry who we are not skilling up. Unfortunately, we have to make sure that we skill people up. Young school leavers, we need to get into schools and ensure that hospitality businesses and tourism businesses are communicating their needs, just like Skills Development Scotland is. There is a skills gap and we need to ensure that we narrow that gap with our own people. Can I just have less casual—I realise that you are under a wee bit of pressure, but it is okay for that and all that—just a little more. Can I ask what your suggestion would be for communities where there are not— Yes, Mr Carlaw, charm of which you have an abundance. Can I ask what your suggestion would be for those communities—for example, the island communities that I mentioned—that do not have people to upskill to work in their tourism sector, which are heavily dependent on EU citizens who come and work in the food and drink, which is absolutely vital to the economy that I live in? I can speak again from experience. We employ 52 people and they are all local. We discussed connectivity, road and rail transport, data download speeds and work Wi-Fi. That college has had to get special derogation from the funding council to allow them to use money from their pot to fund buses to ferry pupils to colleges. The rural location of the colleges poses challenges. Dumfries and Galloway College have upgraded to a broadband system called SWAN so that pupils have access to fast download speeds. Of course, that all falls apart when they head home and they cannot even get a mobile signal. In summary, it would be helpful for the Scottish Government to stop doommongering and give tourism businesses the reassurance that they need. In 2008, tourism businesses either sank or swam. Those that survived the economic crisis are strong and resilient business structures and are able to survive. We also survived the uncertainty of an independence referendum. The future success of Scotland's economy depends upon growth and competitiveness. The Scottish Government's tourism strategy should therefore deliver a business environment that supports growth. Perhaps the cabinet secretary would consider that we need to refresh the strategy in light of the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Scotland's tourism creative industries are growing sectors and should be supported by the Scottish Government to enable each and every one to survive. I call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Jamie Greene. The thrust of Jackson Carlaw's speech seemed entirely premised on the argument that Scotland should get back in its box and not make its voice heard on the world stage. While it might be amusing to compare a First Minister with the democratic mandate to the wife of the Argentinian strongman Juan Peron, many will consider it insulting. Having said that, Evita was wildly popular in Argentina in the 1940s and enjoyed the kind of support that the Scottish Conservatives can only dream about. Perhaps that is where Mr Carlaw got the comparison from. To return to the motion in hand, Scotland has a long history of cultural cross-fertilisation with Europe and we are all familiar. Others have spoken about the Scottish Enlightenment period in the 18th century, which saw great flourishing of inter-intellectual exchange with Europe. However, as far back as the 13th century, Scots in search of our university education have gone to the continent, especially to Paris. By the 17th century, they were looking to the Netherlands for ideas and education, with around 1,500 Scots, for example, enrolled in Leiden University in the 17th century. At that time, there were 30,000 Scots living in Poland, particularly Cracow. Even the Scots language has European roots with links to German, Norwegian and Dutch, as well as Old English. Although there are considerable financial and organisational arguments for Scotland to maintain the closest possible ties with Europe, that is also about the type of country that we wish to be. As has been said already, the cultural sector wishes to look outward to cross-fertilise with a myriad of different people and cultural traditions, including in the UK but far beyond that. What we are being offered is a narrowing and limiting of auctions to be marooned in the island of Britain with people who still have not got over the decline of the British empire and whose idea of art seems to be painting the Atlas red again. Creative Scotland, in the wake of the referendum vote, surveyed cultural organisations about their views on the result and what it meant for them, and 188 responded. 40 per cent had received European Union-linked funding in the past. A total of €1 million plus was reported, but even more important than the funding from those who responded was partnership working, and they gave details of collaborations with as many as 14 countries, including Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland and further afield. Others, including the cabinet secretary, have quoted Fergus Lyonham, the director of the Edinburgh international festival, and has expressed fear that the political trend of batting down the hatches was antithetical to the internationalism of the festival. That batting down of the hatches comment almost certainly also refers to the situation in America, where we are seeing the rise of unauthoritarian filistinism, which the Conservative Party today suggested that the American people should just bow down and put up with by putting on their big boy pants. I realise that the Trump age has resulted in what people are calling a post-truth era, where facts and expertise must be ignored in favour of crass assertions, but I must say that I am disappointed that Jackson Carlaw has adopted this post-truth approach, as I had always considered him to be one of the more thoughtful and less zealous members of the Conservative benches. However, how can we consider the dismissal by the Tories of so much expert opinion on the field of culture as anything other than post-truth? The submission to the European and External Relations Committee by the organisation Culture Counts reflects on the survey conducted by Creative Scotland and its members, and it will be dismissed by the post-truthers as whinging, no doubt. I, for one, respect the views of experts such as Culture Counts, who engage with this Parliament and who really value the parliamentary time that we have devoted to matters that concern their sectors. In their submission, they outline very clearly five areas in which they are very concerned about the future of the cultural sector. They are particularly concerned about the protection of the right to take part in cultural life as a human right, and that is protected by the current EU law. We do not know if it will continue post-Brexit, will it? Free movement of people, Culture Counts points out that the EU nationals still do not know their status. When will the UK Government tell them? Free trade? The EU is the largest export market for UK-creative industries. How will they feature in any deal? How will they be affected by tariffs or non-tariff barriers? The UK Government has provided no clarity. Funding, as has already been described in detail, Creative Europe's funds affect a myriad of projects from the Scottish Portrait Library to the Scottish Youth Dance Theatre. How will those funds be replaced? Will they be replaced? Again, it is a matter for the UK Government, but answers are there are none. Finally, international relations. Culture Counts talks of the need to put the nation on the map for visitors and investors across the EU. What does Brexit say to them? What does it say about our attitude to our international partners? I think that another Conservative, Chris Paton, put it best in his article in The Guardian on 7 June this year. He asked, what is Brexit's message to the world? He answered, two fingers. Or, as he went on to say, perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the terraced chant of the Millwall football crowd. No one's like us and we don't care. That, Presiding Officer, is the cultural cry of the Brexiteers, and it is a very ugly sound indeed. Thank you very much. Before I move on to the next speaker, I say to the closing speakers this time in hand so that you can add a couple of minutes on to your closing speeches. I know that you enjoy that. I call Jamie Greene to follow Ruth Maguire, and Ruth Maguire will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Greene, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I hope that my colleagues across the chamber will excuse my croakiness. It has nothing to do with the fact that this is the 12th debate that we have had on the EU. It is just general man flu, so apologies. I will struggle through. It is quite clear, however, that this debate has been called not because the Scottish Government has any real concerns over the impact of Brexit on the Scottish creative and tourism industries, but because instead of debating legislation and addressing the real issues that face our country today, the Scottish Parliament is being forced once again to play the big bad Brexit bad game. Given that my colleague Mr Arthur declined any intervention during his very elegant speech, I wonder, though, if he has a view that a Scottish Lee voter is any different from an English Lee voter, or do they deserve a similar or different outcome to the vote that we had this year. I would be very happy to give way if he wanted to clarify his position on that. Mr Arthur? I appreciate that you allowed me to get away. It comes down very simply to democracy. A majority of people in Scotland voted to remain, as they did in my constituency, in England we didn't. Perhaps we have different ideas about democracy, because I think that we voted as a United Kingdom and the result was overwhelming in the majority. No, I won't. I would like to make some progress, thank you very much. I appreciate that it is very clear in this debate, and the number of debates that we have had about Brexit recently, that there is a lot of heated debate and that the winds are still very fresh. I am genuinely inspired by the enthusiasm shown by Mr Arthur, in his speech. He is generally very angry as a remainder that the rest of the country voted to leave. I can see that that enthusiasm and anger is coming through in his speech. It was apparent. However, I think that we need to be a little bit more optimistic about the future in Scotland. It is about time that the language coming from this chamber was more optimistic about the future in Scotland. Much has been said by my colleagues on tourism. I really think that there is nothing to suggest that tourism is going to be eternally dented by the UK choosing to leave a political union such as the European Union. Just as we will always want to visit the continent, to climb the Eiffel Tower, to go on our holidays and lie on the beaches of southern Spain, our friends in Europe will still want to come here and see our beautiful highlands and islands. They will still want to come and play golf. They will still want to come and cycle around Millport and shop on the Royal Mile. In fact, the Scottish Tourism Alliance has pointed out that the current weaker pound is proving a huge incentive for Europeans to come to the UK and shop in numbers that we have not seen in decades. I would like to make some progress. Far from the doom and the gloom coming from the centre benches, the figures from the UK inbound show that tourism has been performing extremely well since June. It seems that, not surprisingly, people from around the globe are still keen to come and visit our country. I would like to make some progress, please. Let's look at the Government motion today, which states that, to protect our cultural tourist sectors, there must be free movement of people. However, freedom to live and work permanently in a country is not the same thing as freedom to visit and enjoy a country. I think that the SNP does not understand that distinction or that they are deliberately fudging the lines. Throughout my opening speech, I made it clear that our focus was particularly around freedom of movement to ensure that the tourism sector can be fully and properly staffed, with 17 per cent of the tourism sector being staffed by EU nationals. That is a genuine real issue. Can you engage on that point, please? Mr Greene? You know what? The minister makes a very important point. A chunk of that industry that we are recruiting from overseas. I do not think that anyone on this side of the chamber is in any doubt as to the importance of those people, or are we undermining the value of the work that they deliver? Do I have the answers to what will happen in the future post-Brexit? No. I do not think that any of us do. That is why we are having these debates. I cannot undermine the outcome of the negotiation until the negotiation has actually taken place. We should bear in mind that there are millions of Brits living in Europe itself, and they are equally as important in this discussion. I think that that is often forgotten when we have these debates. Jackson Carlaw said that I would talk about the digital issues. I think that there are lots that we could see on this. If I may continue on the digital single market, I think that it is an area that is very close to my heart in a previous life before coming to this Parliament, so I would like to discuss it if we have a few moments. I think that the idea that our creative industries are entirely dependent on the political membership of the EU is actually quite absurd. Scotland can influence the digital single market along with the UK because it is such a leading player in this industry. You only need to look at the EU's own scorecards that repeatedly put the UK at the top in terms of connectivity skills and our internet economy. In fact, in the G20, our internet economy is the highest. If the Scottish Government has very specific requirements around the digital single market, it should work with the UK Government so that those can be included in the negotiation. I absolutely welcome any comments from the Government that they will do that with the UK. Who is the negotiating partner in this situation? The digital single market is not all perfect, either. I think that that is another speech for another day, and we are very happy to debate that and discuss that with the Scottish Government. There are many concerns about areas of the DSM that I do not think work for the UK. There are huge discussions around data protection, IP ownership, GDPR, geo-blocking, free content that is paid for by UK licensed pairs and so on. I do not think that the grass is entirely always greener in the European side, and there are member states within that market who have concerns as well. I think that those points are particularly well made. It is exactly what this debate should be about to make sure that, in terms of shaping the digital single market, either before the UK leaves or certainly even during, it is absolutely vital that we help to shape that, because if we do not, it will be shaped for us and it might not be in the way that either the creative industries in Scotland or the UK as a whole would like. I welcome that feedback. If the Scottish Government is willing to accept all ideas and input into that conversation, I would be very happy to put those ideas forward. Those are ideas that we should be taking alongside our colleagues at DCMS in those discussions and presenting a strong case for what works post-Brexit in the digital single market for us. I was going to talk about some of the success stories that we see in the digital industry in Scotland. We have had that debate previously and I am sure that we will have lots of opportunities in the future. I will instead conclude by saying that I think that we should work together to protect our creative, tourist and digital industries in Scotland. The way to do that is not to undermine or forget the importance of our current largest single trading market. That is the UK, which is why I think that our amendment is actually very important, because the UK is the single biggest trading market to Scotland. Thank you very much, Mr Greene. Ruth Maguire, who was the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scotland that I hope everyone in this chamber aspires to is inclusive, tolerant and outward looking. I strongly believe that we are best served by protecting our existing relationship with Europe and the freedom of movement within the EU that enriches our lives. If we want that inclusive, tolerant and outward looking country to welcome people from across the world, it is vital that we send a message of welcome and openness. It is vital that Scotland makes it clear that we are not represented, whether in Europe or further afield, by a right-wing rabble of Tory's intent on a hard Brexit and obsessed by restricting immigration. Restrictions that we know could have a catastrophic consequence on our culture and tourism industries. We have heard this afternoon how Scottish cultural and creative organisations have benefited greatly from being able to access the EU's funding programmes, the importance of collaboration and how rising costs and bureaucracy could hamper the ability to co-produce and make connections. We have also heard how fear over loss of funding by EU sources hindrances to free movement of artists, performers and companies, and rising costs are key concerns of the sector. As important as the loss of funding that would come from a hard Brexit is the isolationist message that it sends to the world, a message that might deter people from coming here in the first place. Back in October, in the EU debate on higher and further education, we heard how agencies in China and the Far East are already telling students don't go to Scotland or the UK, it's closed, you should go somewhere else. Closed is not what we want the rest of the world to hear. Brexit hasn't even happened yet and the signals being sent from Westminster to the rest of the world are clear and they are not helpful to us here in Scotland. Perhaps now more than ever, I recognise the importance of Scotland speaking with our own voice on the international stage and I am proud of the work that our cabinet secretaries and our First Minister are doing. Previous speakers have outlined all the pragmatic and practical reasons why freedom of movement is of key importance to the cultural and creative sector, but, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in opening, we should take a second to consider the very personal enrichment and benefits that come from free movement and the cultural interchange provided through exchanges and collaborations. I would like to illustrate this with a wee story relating to my constituency Cunningham South. This weekend, members of the Irvine Burns club will welcome Paul McGrattie to Irvine. Paul comes from Paris and first came to Scotland three years ago as part of a study abroad exchange between his university in Paris and St Andrew's University here in Scotland. During his time in Scotland, as well as studying English literature at the university, Paul met and fell in love with a dundonian lass, made it deep and enduring friendships and developed a passion for the languages, literature and culture of Scotland. Just a few months ago, he returned to St Andrew's to begin a PhD studying the political uses of Robert Burns in the 20th century. I also know that he's recently written a piece for Bella Caledonia in Scots, describing how he came to know and love Scotland its language, culture and politics. Paul will travel to Irvine on Saturday to meet our world famous Irvine Burns club and share his passion for Burns and learn more about him and his work with like-minded people. I'm sure that we all know similar stories of people who came to Scotland for work or study, but then stayed as personal relationships and ties developed. Some of us will also know how fearful some of these people are about their future. Culture may well transcend boundaries and borders, but arguably more important than that, whether you have to get a visa or not, is whether you actually want to go somewhere in the first place, whether you feel welcome. I want people who have chosen to make Scotland their home to hear this loud and clear. You are welcome here, your contribution is valued for all the reasons outlined over this debate and more than that for the personal richness that a multicultural society brings to all our lives. Thank you very much. We move to closing speeches. I note that there are three members who were in the debate, not in the chamber. I tell the Presiding Officers that they are very tired of repeating this, and we will be discussing what will result from that from members who do just disobey the chair. Oh, well, here we come, the sprinters. I say to members rushing to the chamber that I give adequate warning. I give the penultimate speaker a warning and the last speaker a warning, and you are lucky. I am still naming you. There are people who are not in the chair, including Mary Todd, Tavish, Scott and Tom Arthur. I am glad to see you back in. You have heard what I have to say, but we are not going to continue saying this. It is a discartise to the chair, it is a discartise to other members in the debate, and it is going to stop. I now move to the closing speeches. I call Lewis MacDonald. Mr MacDonald, you have around about eight minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This afternoon's debate has highlighted some of the risks and costs of Britain leaving the European Union as far as culture, the creative industries and tourism are concerned. On the one hand, we know that any deal on Brexit, including any deal that provides for continuing access to or membership of the single market, on whatever terms will bring to an end our right to have a say in the future development of EU law and EU policy. There is no getting away from that simple fact. No matter how hard anyone may work to keep us as close to Europe as possible, no membership of the EU, no vote in the EU. On the other hand, there are clearly things that can be done to maintain our access to some of the advantages of being part of Europe for Scotland's creative industries, for tourism and for our cultural life. Tavish Scott rounded up some of the recent developments that show that this is still very much a live debate. Jamie Greene raised the digital single market, which is a new initiative and perhaps a good place to start. That initiative is seeking to put Europe at the front edge of the digital age to make cross-border e-commerce easier and to address some serious inequalities arising from the free market. Inequalities such as unfair charges for personal delivery to rural and island customers. Like most EU initiatives, it also has the potential to get things wrong by applying the same principles in different countries where circumstances are not the same. Take, for example, the BBC iPlayer, where users in the UK now require to pay a TV licence as the rules catch up with technological change. That requirement does not and cannot exist across borders, so the British Government should be working right now to reduce the impact on public service broadcasting of some of the new rules that the commission will propose or even to exclude altogether. The good news is that the rules and policies are still developing, so as long as we are a member state in the European Union, we are still in a good position to seek to have those rules shaped to reflect our needs and priorities, as indeed the cabinet secretary said in her intervention. The bad news is that our ability to have a say in future such policy developments will be lost, whether we are in or out of the single market and our credibility, even at this stage, will be sharply reduced the moment that we give formal notice to quit. Is he suggesting that, on Brexit, all those laws, rules and legislations would somehow disappear, or the idea that suddenly the UK Government would have to reinvent the wheel from scratch? I do not think that that would be the case, that any good ideas that we make progress on over the next few years that we will inherit and can keep those laws in the future. The point is that the digital single market will continue to develop as and when the United Kingdom gives notice to quit. The point is that, when we are no longer at the table with a say and a vote in the development of those policies, they are much less likely to reflect the needs and priorities of the sector in this country. Yes, the digital single market will continue to develop. I hope and suspect that it will develop successfully, but it will develop with us outside it. No matter how much we engage with it, we will not be in a position to contribute to that debate going forward. That is the critical point. Clare Baker rightly highlighted the cuts to arts funding under the current UK Government. That is the real context in which those ministers are tasked with representing our broadcasters, our creative industries and our cultural sector in the negotiations that lie ahead. That context is bound to give us cause to concern. I was intrigued to hear John Lamont quote the views of Alex Neil as evidence of the prospects for our tourism industry. We never learned whether Mr Lamont shared Mr Neil's view that Brexit is actually good news for the Scottish tourist sector. If he does, it would be good to know. Clearly, for the majority of people in this chamber, we are more concerned today with the threats and the risks that lie ahead, rather than opportunities that may come our way, incidentally. Marie Todd made a strong plea not to close any doors on Europe, which I would endorse, but I would say to her that it is even more important for Scottish tourism that no doors should be closed in Britain either. When the Scottish Tourism Alliance surveyed its members this summer, it found that talk of another referendum on independence was the single greatest cause of uncertainty for its members and the single greatest concern looking ahead. It is not a subject on which I intend to wax eloquent this afternoon. I am glad that others have not done so either, but I think that it is important when we are making the case for an open door policy towards Europe that we recognise fundamental and central to that is an open door policy within the islands. Rachel Hamilton cited quite fairly the short-term benefits to Scottish tourism that have come this summer from a weak point, but clearly a decline in Britain's buying power cannot be a long-term plan for the tourism sector or the economy as a whole. We need to hear more from the Conservative benches about what the long-term might in their view look like. Of course, Europe as a single market is tightly defined by rules and regulations, but Europe as a cultural construct and as a geographical space offer more scope for countries outwith the EU. The European cultural convention, for example, has 50 member states from Iceland to Azerbaijan. The Bologna Accord has a similar number and has worked over the years to evolve the European higher education area. Indeed, I represented the Scottish Government of the time at a Bologna process conference in Berlin in 2003, and I have seen at first hand just how much those bodies, separate from the EU, though they might be, engage in collective European diplomacy on the same model as the European Union in itself. There are many other such bodies, some of which have been mentioned today. Creative Europe is rightly highlighted as a grant funder of projects in Scotland, and its membership extends not just to Norway and Iceland, but also to other countries in the Balkans, for example, and from next year, including Israel. Looking at the tourism sector, the European Common Aviation Area is also very important and extends beyond the member states of the EU. The principles of that agreement are worth noting, because they so closely reflect some of the principles that we have debated at other times in the past few weeks—free movement of people and cargo, freedom of establishment, equal conditions of competition and common rules in the areas of safety, security, air traffic management and social and environmental protection. The point is that there is a whole raft of agreements of that kind to which other European countries have access without being members of the European Union. It is important for both the Scottish Government and the UK Government to reflect on that and to set out very clearly what their objectives are, not just in terms of the single market or otherwise, but in terms of those other cross-border agreements as well. We have seen today a scribbled note made public from conversations in Downstreet, and of course Conservative members and ministers will deny that having your cake and eating it is the sum total of the negotiating strategy to follow. However, it is clear that there is serious work to be done, and we need to know what the objectives of all the UK Government and the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations who are engaging with them are going to be. I know that Mr Russell has promised to publish the Scottish Government's plans before Christmas. Perhaps we can say more about that today, but we urgently need to hear from UK ministers as well, not platitudes nor wishful thinking, but concrete and specific objectives and some idea of how they intend to achieve them. Thank you very much, Mr MacDonald. I call on Douglas Ross to close the Conservative Party eight minutes of theirabouts. Mr Ross, thank you. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is the 12th debate, as we have heard a number of times today, and unfortunately it is not the glorious 12th. The Scottish Government has dedicated a dozen debates out of their own time to focus on Europe. Since it is a Scottish Government debate, it would fill its backbenches with speakers who were passionate, who were substantive about the points. What did we get? We got Joan McAlpine telling us about 17th century education in the Netherlands, and we got Stuart McMillan telling us about his international busking career. We heard about when in 1988—if I can finish this point, because Mr McMillan made it very well, so I want to repeat it—we heard in 1988—hold on, I will come to you both—but we heard in 1988—I will repeat again—we heard in 1988 Mr McMillan went to a bar to get changed into his kilt. Then, in 2011, we heard that his friend Tom and him met a local mayor. If that is the substantive points that the SNP is putting across in this debate, I think that this should be the 12th and final one, because he clearly does not have enough to say. Since she has remained—and I will go to the lady first—Mr McAlpine. It is for me to call Mr McAlpine, but nevertheless, Mr McAlpine. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I see that he makes a rhetorical point, but I should really admit that the substantive part of my speech was quoting from the organisation Culture Counts, who made a very extensive submission about its deep and factual concerns about the impact on the cultural sector of leaving the European Union. Does he agree with me that, in this chamber, we have a responsibility to respond to those very serious concerns from expert organisations across Scotland? I have a duty to respond to those things, but the fact that there is so much filler in the speeches on the SNP-backed benches shows how much they have to say on this issue. It is vascuous to say the least. I want to go on to a number of other points that have been, well, I did mention Mr McMillan, so with your permission, Presiding Officer. It is always with my permission, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and it is a shame, Mr McMillan. I was here today, after hearing the beginning of his speech, probably better off at being out and refereeing somewhere, but nonetheless, in terms of the points that are raised, I was given some context as to my belief and as to why I believe being in Europe is so, so important. It clearly wasn't listening, because I did indicate that in terms of the mayor, the mayor was actually a person who was doing their wedding, because that's what happens in France, so the mayor was a person who was marrying Tom and his wife. However, the point was made very clear, unfortunately, that Mr Ross clearly didn't want to listen. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise if I had switched off at the point that Mr McMillan was telling me about the mayors and how they conduct weddings, but he also went on to mention the world pipe band championships and the threat they were under, the world pipe band championships. The hint is in the name, the world pipe band championships, and I think that Mr McMillan has to consider that. Just quickly, now that I've used three minutes on the first two speakers to go through some others, we had Ash Denham who said, if could, if might, maybe everything was predicated with uncertainty because everything they are putting forward is to try and rustle up scare stories about the EU. Just know, please, Ms Denham, I have tried to say, if I take each one of the SNP members who I criticise for having nothing to say, you had your chance over six minutes, I don't have much more time. When we did get some substantive points, it was from my colleague John Lamont who mentioned the Borders Tourism Partnership, and I thought he had a very telling submission when he said that the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by an SNP member, not a single tourism body responded to the air inquiry about the EU. I think that that is very telling. We also had Claire Baker who mentioned tourism and the huge challenges it faces and indeed her discussions with the Fife Chamber of Commerce and about inward tourism and promotional opportunities. I want to mention a bit about that in my area of Murray as I progress. Marie Todd spoke about the Gaelic language and Morang Tang for that as well. She also spoke about how crucial the tourism is to the whole of the Highlands and Islands economy, and I fully agree with that. I think that, as I give some examples from Murray, I hope that she will agree that there are some positives to come out of that, as well as uncertainties. I see her nodding now and I appreciate that. Mr Scott wanted to know the Conservative position. What I will say to Mr Scott is that our position is that we listen to the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom. We do not, as a rump of eight Liberal Democrat MPs—sorry, Mr Scott, I am going to run out of time—we do not, as a rump of eight Liberal Democrat MPs, want to rerun the vote until we get the result that we want. I could not think where Mr Scott got that idea from. However, I welcome the comments of one of his former colleagues, Vince Cable, who said that such a move would be disrespectful to the voters. I also hope that Mr Scott—I am sorry, I have so much to get through in the past few minutes. Tom Arthur was, I have written down, passionate—that is a word that I could use—but he said that leaving the EU does not mean leaving Europe, and then he went on to criticise all Brexit years, all £17 million in the United Kingdom, all £1.6 million in Scotland. I began to wonder whether there have been any members of the SNP that had voted for Brexit, whether there have been any of Mr Arthur's own colleagues, and what we know is that yes, there was, so to be so disrespectful to the people who took a decision—I am sorry, I have taken enough interventions—to be so disrespectful to the people who took a democratic decision, I think, is unfitting for a politician in this chamber. Rachael Hamilton mentioned— Will you stand up if you want to make an intervention, Mr Arthur? Well, I have taken several already, and I have got two more minutes to go. Rachael Hamilton mentioned quite correctly the tourism associated with historical buildings and Gosford house in East Lothian. Jamie Greene mentioned, as he is well experienced to do with his experience out with Parliament before coming here, the digital single market. I thought it was extremely important to get on record that the UK is the top for the internet economy. The final open speaker, Ruth Maguire, who I can agree with when she says that we should all have an inclusive, tolerant and outward-looking way of our multicultural society, and I welcome those comments. I said, Presiding Officer, that I wanted to focus finally on a few remarks that were alluded to by Claire Baker and, indeed, Mary Todd, my colleague from the Highlands and Islands about tourism and how important it is for our region in the Highlands and Islands and particularly Murray, where I come from. In 2014, prior to the formation of the Murray space-side tourism group, tourism contributed £94 million to the Murray economy. Almost three years later, that figure has increased £106 million. Tourism directly sustains 2,500 jobs or accounts within Murray. 10 per cent of the Murray economic output comes from tourism. 700,000 visitors in 2005 visited Murray from across the world, and there are definitely immediate opportunities, as well as some risks with the falling pound. Visit Britain data earlier this year showed that the US and European visitors are generally getting more for their money and are spending more money in our local economies. US prices are now 10 to 15 per cent lower than they were prior to the Brexit vote. I spoke to the Murray tourism partnership prior to today's debate, and they gave me some anecdotal feedback from businesses across Murray. They are suggesting that 2016 has been their busiest year to date. Visitor numbers year on year, for example, in Aberlauwer distillery, up 18 per cent. In the Scottish Dolphin Centre in my own council ward, just outside Bay Bay, up 6 per cent. Elgin Cathedral up 4 per cent and Glenlivet distillery up 13 per cent. Those are the results that we should all be welcoming and I hope that we are across this chamber. The majority of tourists in Murray are not from Europe or the rest of the world. They are from our neighbours and our friends in the rest of the UK. Places like Murray comprehensively rejected separatism put forward by the SNP and came within a whisker of voting for Brexit. Those are the people we have to listen to and respect. I think that today's debate has shown a deficit of some of the arguments that we are seeing coming from the SNP benches who simply want to foster resentment towards this rather than looking to a positive future. Michael Russell to wind up the debate. Before I start, I wanted to start with something positive in Lewis Macdonald's speech. Before I start, I could offer a piece of advice to Mr Ross. It would be perhaps sensible if he spent a little less time running the line in Lisbon and a little bit more time learning the art of politics in Scotland. I think that that was amongst the most graceless closing speeches that I have ever heard and the insults to my colleagues. I am sure that they will reflect upon them themselves. Let me start with Lewis Macdonald and his speech. I thought that it was a very finely made point to say that culture defines us. He touched upon a great speech to this Parliament, one of the greatest speeches to this Parliament, made by Donald Dure on the first of July 1999. If I may quote that, because I think that it sets the context for what we should try and do. In a famous passage in that speech, and I regard myself as privileged as having heard it, he said, in our quiet moments today, we might hear some echoes from the past, the shouts of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyard, the speaker of the merns rooted in the land, the discourse of the enlightenment when Edinburgh and Glasgow were a light held to the intellectual light of Europe, the wild cry of the great pipe and back to the distant noise of the battles of the days of Bruce and Wallace. Then he went on to point out that that was a foundation for the voice of Scotland, and he said that it was a voice above all for the future. That is what this Parliament really has a duty to be, to be a voice for the future. That was the role's rice of speeches and what a contrast with the comedy unicycle that we have heard from some of the Tories. It is important that this is the debate about who we are, how we represent ourselves to the world, what we regard as valuable in cultural and economic terms. The link between the cultural and the economic was recognised by Lewis MacDonald, by Ash Denham, by Joan McAlpine, and Ash Denham went on to talk about the link between the cultural and the economic in terms of freedom of movement. That is the first point that I would make, that underpinning our success in a whole variety of elements in our national life is freedom of movement. It is the ability of people to come here and to work for a week or a month or a year or for the rest of their lives and to enrich our culture. Ruth Maguire talked about the passion of one individual from France for the poems of Robert Burns, and there are plenty of Scots who go out of Scotland into Europe and to show their passion for things in those countries as well. It is about that openness, it is about that exchange, it is not just about money that we should be talking today, and so few actually did and none on the Tory side alas. Stuart McMillan gave the opportunity to the Conservatives to say what they wanted, to define what was important to them. We heard yet again that Brexit means Brexit, not a mention of the priority given to the single market, not a mention of the four freedoms, not a mention of the customs union, not a mention of a Canada Plus model, not a mention of the EEA, not a mention of EFTA, but just the best deal. Brexit means Brexit. Claire Baker talked about the digital single market and did it well. Marie Todd talked about garlic and particularly our contribution to linguistic diversity, the fact that one thing that cements us into a Europe of languages. I speak as the First Minister ever to make a speech in garlic at the Council of Ministers, and I remember the contribution and the excitement that came from other ministers at that meeting. Indeed, at that meeting, having spoken in garlic, I was followed immediately by an Irish minister who spoke in Irish and a Welsh minister who spoke in Welsh. I think that that is still a unique triple, but it was representative of how we were folded into the concerns of Europe. Tavish Scott talked about this debate reawakening our interests in European politics. He is absolutely right. We are reawakening our interests in Tavish Scott as a thinking and contributing politician. That will not help him particularly with the man who is sitting next to him, but I make that point. He made a fine speech, and he talked about how that interest in European politics would sensitise us to the difficulties that exist in the European Union beyond Brexit and the fact that we need a vision of Europe, a renewed Europe. I was incredibly fortunate two weeks ago to hear Martin Schultz make one of the finest speeches about Europe that I have ever heard made at a dinner in Berlin. It is about those values that we should be talking and debating. Tom Arthur touched on the values of the Enlightenment, just as Donald Dure did in 1999. He called Brexit a campaign against Enlightenment, and that is something that we should think about. Brexit calls upon us to turn our backs on the notion of progress. It calls upon us to say that we will reject those influences and we will turn inwards, and that is not necessary nor sensible. In listening to Rachel Hamilton, I wanted her to remind her of reality. Rachel Hamilton accused the Scottish Government, as many of the Tories did, of being doom-mongering. Here are three things from November. There are actual facts. The first of them is the point that Tavish Scott made, that the costs of Brexit are now becoming apparent. The bonus of £350 million a week has gone. The cost of Brexit is £226 million a week increased borrowing. That is a fact. The second fact is a report from Hitachi capital in November that shows a fact, £6.5 million of investment withheld to date. That is a fact. The third fact comes from the IHA's market survey that surveys sentiment. The sentiment within the population has changed. Minus 3.5 in July, minus 18.4 now, taking a 10-year view. In Scotland, this place, apparently, according to the Tories, is where we should be jolly. We should be delighted about Brexit. It is such good news that we are not reflecting the people of Scotland in that good news. What does a sentiment tell us? In July it was minus 27 and today it is minus 42. So the Tories do not have the courage of their constituents' convictions. Their constituents are not fooled by what has taken place. There is a problem and those are facts. That is reality. I want to finish what I am saying by reflecting on the initial speech that came from Jackson Carlaw. I am going to recommend people to look at that speech on video. I am going to use it when I come to train speakers of any sort because it was an object lesson for students of politics of what happens when you know that you are in desperate trouble. You gobble faster. You throw out more insults. You threaten and bluster. What is the effect of that? There is no effect because what you see is exactly what you know is going on. The emperor has no clothes. If you doubted that, you should just read Mr Carlaw's amendment, because Mr Carlaw is a man of subtlety. He is a clever man. He does not put forward amendments like this unless he is desperate. I just have to look at one or two of the lines in it. Leave EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK. Why would we do that? Differentiation underpins devolution. It underpins the whole of the UK. The act of union is an act of differentiation. It would be unique in constitutional terms in these islands if we did that. It would be disastrous in constitutional terms if we did that, but, according to Mr Carlaw, that is what we should do. Then there is a reference to the negative impact of independence, making this a choice between the UK and the EU. That is utterly inconsistent with the argument of the Tories already. The Tories claim that, in actual fact, you can have all the benefits of European membership but not be in it. Why would it be different in Scotland? There is an absolutely incoherent amendment. It talks about the benefits that Brexit may bring but, when the chancellor is given, none could say what those benefits were. It talks about free trade agreements but could not mention what they were to be. The motion confirms what is in those scribbled notes carried out of Downing street. The Tories intend the hardest of hard Brexit. They intend isolationism and they are determined to ignore Scottish democracy. Let me finish on that point, Presiding Officer. This morning, the leader of the Irish Senate told Nicola Sturgeon before she spoke as the first leader of a Government to speak to the Senate that he understands and respects Scotland's vote to remain in the European Union. That is the leader of the Irish Senate. Unfortunately, Jackson Carlaw, a Scottish MSP, does not understand or respect the Scottish vote to remain in the European Union. The choice for Scotland certainly is. The choice is to either remain in the EU or be dragged out of it against our will. However, there is an equally existential choice for the Scottish Tories. Speak for the people of Scotland and in your constituencies or speak only for your party in London. You cannot do both.