 We are already late in starting this debate, so timings are really tight. Please pay attention to them. The next item of business is a debate on motion 12708 in the name of Willie Rennie on finance and the constitution. May I ask those who wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Willie Rennie to speak to and move the motion for up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I feel sorry for SNP members. Here was the big report, long awaited, published in a flurry of breathless press releases. Members were champing at the bit to debate it at their conference, but after the long bus journey to Aberdeen discovered, it wasn't even on the agenda. I am generous. I am here to help. We have carved out time today so SNP members can have their say to tell us what they really think to let off steam. It could be quite a cathartic experience. The Scottish Growth Commission is a substantial piece of work. The SNP members would love me to stop there, but they do not know what is going to come next. It admits how challenging an independent Scotland's finances would be. It is a confession. It is the best case. It is not of many great choices. It is the stark reality. This is not some flimsy report easily dismissed. It is in the words of the First Minister's own close advisers. The First Minister herself described it as a blueprint. It is a significant development and it deserves scrutiny in this Parliament. Liberal Democrats oppose independence. I believe that the Scottish Growth Commission strengthens our case against independence. On the volatility of the economies of small countries, on the deficit, on the years of financial pain, that financial weakness is a direct threat to our national health service. It is that serious. Let me go through some of the evidence, because I am sure that SNP members will want to hear that. In 2014, I warned that economies of small countries are prone to greater volatility. It was denied then, but it is now being confirmed by the commission. Here is section B8.33. It says that the greater volatility that small economies can experience also strengthens the case for fiscal conservatism. Then I warned that an independent Scotland could not demand control of the pound. It was furiously denied. Excuse me, Mr Rennie. I can understand why this is quite an emotive subject for everyone, but I would like to hear what Mr Rennie is saying. If we could have a bit of murmuring and less shouting, that would be useful. The louder the shout, the happier I am, I have to say. Scotland's government would cede effective sovereignty over monetary policy, says the report in C1.5. I warned that oil was volatile, falling and could not be relied upon. This is now admitted by the commission. The report says that oil should not be depended upon for recurring annual commitments. I warned that Scotland could lose the annual UK Barnett dividend of around £9 billion. Angrily refuted then, now agreed by the commission. Not only has this gone, but an independent Scotland would be paying money to the UK for years after we'd left. Who's heard that before? 3.139 in the report states that annual solidarity payment is modelled at around £5 billion. That's £5 billion being paid to the UK. Goodbye to the Barnett dividend. I warned that there would be spending cuts denied in 2014, now admitted by the commission. A 6 to 7 per cent fiscal deficit is not sustainable and action will be required to reduce it to more sustainable levels. States B 4.32, figure 12.2 in the report makes clear that spending in an independent Scotland will be 1 per cent less than GDP growth. So GDP growth of 1 per cent or less would result in real terms spending cuts. Over the last decade, Scottish onshore GDP showed average real growth of just 0.8 per cent per annum. The latest forecasts from the Government's own fiscal commission published last month is for GDP growth to 2023 to be running at 0.9 per cent. Looking back and looking forward, an independent Scotland would be facing cuts. In fact, it would last for 10 years according to the report. We then anticipate a period of between 5 and 10 years to put the public finances on a sustainable footing. States 3.201. That is not just my interpretation. David Phillips from the Institute of Fiscal Studies confirmed that it is a continuation of austerity, he said. If public spending growth is 1 per cent less than GDP growth, that is austerity. Even independent supporters themselves are saying that. Jonathan Shaffey admitted that it would open the door to various forms of austerity policies. In short, an independent country would face at least a decade of pain with cuts to public services without the back-up of significant oil revenues. It would have no control over its own currency with an economy that was prone to greater volatility. The Democrats are opposed to independence and always have been. The commission confirms why we were right to oppose independence in 2014 and why we are determined to stop it now. All the things that I want to achieve for Scotland, a country where we invest in people through education and mental health, where we champion science, innovation and research, where we take seriously our obligations to future generations and the environment, where we treasure individuals' freedoms and liberties. All of that can be better achieved by Scotland rejecting the nationalist case and the cuts and restrictions that it imposes on our country. I move the motion in my name. I now call Derek Mackay to speak to and move amendment 12708.4 for up to five minutes, please. I move amendment in my name, Presiding Officer, and let me say first of all that the timing of this debate is very appropriate coming just hours after the shameful contempt shown to the devolution settlement at Westminster last night. Let us get us for a moment. Excuse me, Mr Mackay. Enough, please, Mr Stevenson. That's not like you at all. I understand, as I said, that this is emotive, but it would be useful for all of us to be able to hear what contributors are saying. The Unionist might be able to shut us down in Westminster, but they will not shut us down in Scotland's Parliament. If we can spend a moment of reflection on Scotland's current economic performance, a record year for foreign direct investment, rising employment and record low unemployment, goods exports increasing by 12 per cent, the fastest growth of any part of the UK, and the RBS Purchasing Managers Index reporting private sector growth in Scotland last month was stronger than the UK as a whole. With high employment, a highly educated population and innovative companies that export around the world significant natural resources and huge renewable energy potential, just some key fundamentals of the Scottish economy. But if we look at what small successful advanced economies across the globe have got that we have not, there is only one answer, independence. Yes, we have the potential to become one of the most successful countries in the world. The Sustainable Growth Commission report is first and foremost a report to my party, and I warmly welcome the debate that is generated. It is, after all, about choices. It sets out how the London-centric UK economic model has failed and how we could grow our economy, tackle inequality and match the performance of the world's most successful advanced economies. It explicitly rejects the austerity policies of the UK Government because austerity is the price of the union, not independence. It is clear to those who have read the report that tackling the inherited financial position can be done with public spending rising. Remember the current national deficit is the product of the current constitutional position, not Scotland as it could be. Recognising that the UK is increasingly unequal in individual and geographic terms, we can, with all the tools of an independent nation, have improved productivity, participation and population. We can reduce poverty and gender inequality, the right thing to do in their own right and bring massive economic benefits to our nation. Having just launched a new national performance framework on Monday, we know just how important wellbeing is. The happiest nations in the world are those with the least inequality. It is clear that UK control does not suit our economic or social needs, with population a case in point. As finance secretary, I have set out how, even within devolution, how three key areas could make a positive difference now against austerity, Brexit and caps on immigration. The unionist parties keep telling us to hold on, holding Scotland back from what we could truly achieve. My ear drums are starting to get sore here with all this nonsense going on between benches. Can you please have a bit of respect for each other and let Mr Mackay finish? My migration policy, designed in Scotland and for Scotland, would welcome people with open arms not throw up barriers. The hostile environment of the UK Government is failing Scotland's economy and our public services. I repeat the calls to the UK Government, stop damaging our economy and give us the powers to fix your mess. Dygmatic unionism may not be able to see any upsides to Scotland controlling our own fiscal policies, but this is a serious debate. We are settling for more of the same UK control just isn't good enough. Every promise made to Scotland broken, devolution downgraded, Brexit imminent against the will of our people and our economic potential in a fiscal straight jacket, that's the consequence of that. We must have Westminster control with more to come, but there are paths open to Scotland rather than simply continuing and repeating the failing UK economic model and expecting different results. I say to unionists, too wee, too poor, too stupid won't cut it this time round, Scotland is ambitious, Scotland deserves better, Scotland can be better. We will have that debate and we are determined to win it. Can I say to everyone, we are seriously pushed for time here, we are going to end up losing speakers, we are cutting them right down, can I also take this opportunity to say to everyone in this chamber, I expect respect to the chair at all times, and I call on Murdo Fraser, please, to speak to and move amendment 12708.1. Can I umber to to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats very sincerely for giving us a Holyrood opportunity that was denied to SNP members at their conference at the weekend to debate SNP's growth commission. Isn't it remarkable, they've all turned up, the SNP benches are full for this debate! How quickly they were forgotten he was the First Minister's message at the weekend to stop obsessing about independence because it's the only thing they care about. The only thing that they want to talk about is that they come to the chamber to talk about this. Now, there is no time this afternoon to debate the entirety of the growth commission report. I am sorry that that is the case. We cannot do justice to the whole 350 pages of what Alex Salmond's former adviser, Alex Bell, described as a political suicide note. There has been a lot of praise for our former colleague Andrew Wilson for his authorship of the report. Mr Wilson is indeed a credible figure and put a lot of work into this publication. It is rather unfortunate, therefore it contains a number of schoolboy errors. One whole section has been lifted straight from a New Zealand treasury paper without any referencing. Despite the plaudits that this report has received in some quarters, it is nevertheless driven with errors, making it a less than credible prospectus for an independent Scotland. It is hard to know whether to be outraged or simply disappointed by the growth commission report, but we should welcome the fact that the paper now represents a total repudiation of the 2014 prospectus for independence. The white paper on which that referendum was fought is now exposed as a compendium of inventions, with its ludicrous overstatement of future oil revenues and the optimistic gloss put upon public finances. It would be good to hear this afternoon an apology from the SNP benches for their attempt to hoodwink the Scottish people just four years ago. I will give a few examples in the growth report and quote from some other better qualified people about what they have said about some of the proposals. In terms of currency, this is a report that proposes indefinite sterlingisation, with a move at some future undetermined point towards a separate Scottish currency. Yet the experts are clear that this is simply not workable. Jeremy Pete, former chief economist at RBS said in 2014 that using sterling outwith a currency union would be wholly implausible, dangerous and unlikely to be optimal. Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, called sterlingisation very dangerous. There has even been criticism from within the SNP's own ranks, with the former MP George Caravan, who fancies himself as a bit of an economics expert, stating that this would lead to an independence campaign, and I quote, covering the same sterile ground as last time and slamming Andrew Wilson as being dangerously naive. The SNP's favourite economist Richard Murphy said that the growth commission's currency plan was devastating and gave five reasons why it would fail. It is not just on currency that it falls short. The proposals for public finances propose accepting jures as a starting point for an independent Scotland, austerity max, austerity on a scale that this country has never seen, £27 billion worth of austerity over 10 years, meaning massive tax rises and spending cuts. Mr Fraser is in his last sentence. This is exactly why so many on the left, why so many who were part of the yes campaign in 2014, have rejected the growth commission's proposals and let us never again hear from a single member on the SNP benches bleeding about Westminster austerity what they are proposing is many times worse compared to anything that we have seen in the past. We have a very simple addendum to the Liberal Democrat motion today, making just one point. We do not want a second independence referendum. It is not wanted by the Scottish people not now and not in the near future. It would divide the country as it was divided in 2014. However, the publication of the growth commission report itself is a distraction from the important business of government to get on with a day job. We know what is the only thing that they care about, but the Government needs to get back to the business of government and not talking about independence. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. I now call James Kelly to speak to and move amendment 12708.2 up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I start by thanking Andrew Wilson and Derek Mackay, co-author of the report, for laying bare the fact that independence would be a disaster for Scotland. The reality is, Deputy Presiding Officer, that it is not a growth commission, it is a cuts commission. It would pile the pain on to Scotland's community and bring the country to its knees. Look at what the report says. It acknowledges the reality of the GERS statistics and the fact that we have a £10 billion deficit, the difference between what we spend and what we take in tax. That would mean—this is what the report says—10 years of cuts in order to reduce that deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP. The reality of that means that public services would be decimated. You cannot deny that on those benches. The other thing is that there is a supreme irony here that the Liberal Democrats have brought this debate today, because it is a debate that the SNP does not want. It had absolutely no mention. Okay, that's enough, please. Enough, Mr Ather. Enough. Please carry on, Mr Kelly. Behind Derek Mackay today, to be cheerleaders for independence, but up at the conference at Aberdeen, the work is quite as nice. No, thank you, Mr Mackay. Why don't you go back to Aberdeen and start the debate that you did not have at the conference? The reality is that the SNP did not want to expose the divisions that there are in their party over independence. There are those who would have an independence referendum every week, and there are those who want to shut their eyes and ignore the facts of the Cuts Commission report. As they do the naval gazing on independence, the reality is that they turn away from the reality of what is going on in the country. They ignore the core issues. Any MSP worth their salt knows that the main issue that is raised with MSPs is the NHS. Constituents are not able to get appointments on time. Some are not able to get GP appointments. While this Government makes assertions on housing, the reality is that there are 150,000 on council housing lists. There are people not far from this Parliament sleeping homeless on the street. What a scandal, yet the people on those benches would rather discuss independence. What is needed is a real debate and a real plan to transform the fundamental issues to grow the wages that are stagnating in Scotland. Of course, we did not hear any mention of the living wage on the Cuts Commission report. Maybe that is because we did not even discuss it with the trade unions. There is no social justice at the heart of that report. Scotland does not want another referendum. It is time to bend the Cuts Commission report and to bend the idea of a second referendum. It is time for a radical rethink. Stop the cuts and let us invest in our communities. I have some quiet pleas, and I may as well warn you all right now that speakers are probably going to have to have time taken from them because of all the interventions. Can I please call Patrick Harvie—unintended interventions, Patrick Harvie—to speak to you and move amendment 1270608.3? I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I did not realise we were playing today's debate for laughs. I came here to debate and to challenge the SNP's growth commission. We do so even in the context of a warning from the Liberal Democrats about an extended period of economic pain, this from the political party that put the Conservatives into power and helped to begin the austerity project itself. My reaction to the growth commission has to begin with the long-standing green critique of growth economics itself, the idea of everlasting economic growth in a finite world and a fragile ecosystem that is already under extreme pressure. However, even while it lasts, growth alone tells us nothing about how fairly the wealth is being shared in our economy or how unfairly the social and environmental burdens fall. I contrast that with some of the words in the national performance framework that was launched this week, as Derek Mackay mentioned, and the First Minister's comments in launching it quoting the famous words of Bobby Kennedy, that growth alone measures everything except what makes life worth living. While the performance framework places emphasis on wellbeing, equality, health, human rights, the quality of our environment, yet it still places economic growth at the core and the growth commission fails to go even as far as the NPF, there is a clear mismatch between those two ideas of the economy, a contradiction that lies at the heart of SNP economic policy. However, even aside from the absence of green economics in the growth commission report, there are other serious concerns that remain. During 2014, we set out our reasons why we thought a currency union was an unconvincing proposal for an independent Scotland. It would have left a complete lack of monetary and macroeconomic control. To say that sterlingisation gives rise to the same concerns would be an understatement. It is even possible that sterlingisation itself would prevent the kind of economic agenda that would allow Scotland to meet the commission's own tests for beginning the move toward an independent currency. For anyone supporting independence out of a fetish for flags, that kind of issue might be of little concern. I have never been one of them. For greens, if independence meant a version of conventional economic policy decided here instead of London, we would have very little interest. No, independence must, if it is to be a compelling proposition, be a project of economic transformation to a more equal, more ecological and more humane economy as we embrace the post-oil age. That is the agenda that the Greens have set out and it contrasts with that that the growth commission has published. I do not have time in four minutes. We will continue to set out that agenda even before independence. The demand, for example, for a specific net zero carbon target on the face of the climate change bill is one current example of the kind of transformation, the kind of determination that Scotland must show right now to our future direction of travel. I welcome the publication of the growth commission report, not as a proposition to fall in line behind, but as an invitation to contest the ideas that it contains, ideas that need to be contested. Finally, I have to say how surprised and disappointed I was to see a motion today from the Liberal Democrats headed finance and constitution, which says nothing, not one single word about the most immediate and urgent financial and constitutional threat to Scotland. The Liberal Democrats say that they want to oppose Brexit and all of the self-destructive chaos that it is bringing, but not one word about it. That is why my amendment ends with a recognition of the positive economic, social and environmental policies that Scotland could be putting into practice as a full independent member of the international community and the European Union. I move that amendment. I want to take a moment. Members' sedentary throughout this debate have made reference to some suggestion that it is only ever the Unionist parties that ever reference independence. I want to take that head on because, frankly, I am not having it. The thing is that the calculations of this governing party on the appropriate time to push the button on a second independence referendum caused the oxygen starvation of nearly every other issue of public policy. It is why we have to have debates such as the one that we just had on mental health, on the treatment and waiting time guarantee, on farm payments, on the attainment gap. The calculations around independence in the Indian Ref 2 are the centre of gravity, which sucks all oxygen from every other debate in this Parliament. We will keep raising it to insist that this Government take it off the table once and for all and get on with the business of service delivery. I do not have time. I also want to say a word about the tone of the Government benches tonight. The laughter and the derisory comments may give you in your benches some comfort, but there are people on the margins of this debate around the country who it absolutely repels and you will lose as a result of it and I am glad of that. I am glad of the growth commission. I am glad of the growth commission. I never thought that I would say that. I am not going to take an intervention. I do not have time. In all the years that it was talked about and mythologised in hush reverential terms, I am glad of it because when it was finally published within hours, it was revealed for the unforced tactical error that it has been shown to be and one that I believe has fundamentally hold any economic case for independence below the water line. So thank God for it. It was mythologised by the ES campaign. It was there to win over no-voters, pesky no-voters, still clinging to our facts. There we are, getting it right. We were worried about it. We thought, what have they got up their sleeve? When it was finally published, I thought, goodness, wow, it is not what have they got up their sleeve, it is that it. It took a little while for incisive analysis to come forward. There were some usually ardently pro-UK journalists talking about interesting comparisons with Hong Kong and New Zealand, and that must have lit the touch paper because guns were suddenly drawn within the ES camp and why the left within the indie camp did not like it. We have just heard some of the reason why from Patrick Harvie because it represented austerity on steroids. The highly respected think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed rightly to the fact that austerity is classified—I will not take an intervention—that when austerity is 1 per cent below GDP, that is austerity. By the growth commission's own assumptions, it would, by necessity, have to dip 3 per cent below GDP, such are the admissions of the economic case or lack thereof for an independent Scotland. There was no mention of it at the SNP conference. I think that it is astonishing, Presiding Officer, that the Government, even in its own amendment, seeks to delete the fact that the Parliament notes the growth commission. If the Government wins the day this afternoon, we are not even going to know what existed in the parliamentary record, such is their embarrassment at what it reveals. Last week, a social attitudes survey revealed that 59 per cent of our fellow countrymen feel strongly British. That warms my pro-UK heart. Finally, it might start to loosen that constitutional knot that has stifled debate around any public policy. Keith Brown may believe that he has a mandate on his election for India Raft 2. We will fight that every step of the way, and Liberal Democrats will oppose it at every stage of the constitutional process, because I am an internationalist. I believe in political unions when you are geographically close to people and when you share their values, and I believe that the best days of the United Kingdom do still lie ahead of it. I encourage members to keep it down a little bit. You are chatting incessantly over the member, and I can see that members who are still to contribute are asking how long they have got. I am afraid that the tail-end speakers will probably get less than their four minutes, just because of the length of time that is taken to get through those contributions. That is enough, Mr Findlay. Ivan McKee to be followed by Alexander Burnett. Before I came into this Parliament, I used to work in business and travelled the world, and I spent a lot of time living and working in small independent countries. I always used to ask myself why is it that those countries did so much better than us—higher standard of living, less inequality—and they had far less natural resources than us and far less qualified people than we have with five of the top 200 universities in the world in Scotland? Will the growth commission report now provide that answer? It explains empirically over the last 25 years that those small countries have got growth rates of 0.7 per cent on average per year, higher than larger equivalents. It explains the reasons for that. It explains the global trends that drive the advantage in trade terms towards those sizes of countries. No, I am too busy. It explains why those size countries are more efficient and more effective at managing themselves, growing their economy and providing efficient public services. The growth commission also shows the path forward to how Scotland can get from where we are now, suffering under the union towards the situation that those small countries enjoy. It lays out the 50 recommendations that we need to follow. It shows the path for growth through increasing population, increasing participation, inclusion in the workforce and increasing productivity. It shows the issues that we can do now. It shows what we can do with more powers under devolution, and it shows what we can do with the full powers of independence. It shows that path forward for where we need to go, from where we are now to where we need to be to realise the full potential of this country of ours. Let us be very clear. The growth commission report rejects austerity. It talks about growing the plans to grow the economy by 0.5 per cent in real terms—the growth of public spending by 0.5 per cent in real terms over 10 years—5 per cent growth in real terms in public sector spending. Comparing that with what we have seen in the last 10 years, of total austerity, a cut of 9 per cent. Minus 9 per cent is austerity, plus 5 per cent is the opposite of austerity. Let us get that clear right at the start. The report is also very clear, and it calls for a cross-partisan working, a cross-parties, a cross-society, a cross-industry, a cross-everybody that is involved to make sure that we realise the potential of this country. It is very important that the other parties here realise that and understand what that means. The reality is that we have seen no alternatives coming forward from anybody else as to how we deal with Scotland's situation and how we move it forward—nothing at all. On the one side, we have got more of the same Tory austerity and power grab, taking powers away from Scotland, limiting our ability to do what we need to do. We have got that wrapped in a union flag, no thank you. On the other side, there are very few of them that have actually bothered the state to talk about the future of Scotland and its economy. We have got waiting for carbon. I will tell you something. I have been waiting 40 years for a Labour Party that is going to do something to fix the economy and move us forward. I am not going to wait another 40 years, because in 40 years I will defeat and solve you, and we are not going to see anything. I realised a number of years ago that the only way forward was through independence of Scotland, and that is why I am standing here today. This is the future. Where we are going with this growth commission report, the debate is happening here, it is happening on the yes side, it is happening with people that are undecided, it is happening across civic society in Scotland, and that is going to continue. The reality is that we know where we are going. The growth commission report is the future. It is how we are going to take Scotland. We know it. The people of Scotland are increasingly coming to realise that, as we have now, in the word of the phraser's laugh, but I will tell them that the fact that it is scaring him, scaring him on witnesses as he sits there, is the fact that, for the first time ever, the majority of people in Scotland now, on polling, realise that they will be better off under independence than they are under the union. That is the fact, and that is where we are going. We know it is coming. The people of Scotland know it is coming. This is the future. Get yourself on the right side of the history for once. Thank you very much. Before I call Alexander Burnett, I suggest to Neil Bibby and Stuart McMillan three minutes rather than four minutes. Mr Burnett, four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Willie Rennie for bringing this important topic to the chamber today. As much as the SNP likes to think that the growth commission is an optimistic case for independence, the only thing that it is good for is giving us a blueprint as to why the SNP is out of touch with Scotland. Where to begin? I have only got four minutes in which to make a dent in the ridiculous of this report, so let's get into it. As an MSP from the north-east of Scotland, I was interested to see what the commission had to say on the oil and gas industry, and I was surprised that they had something to say, considering that they failed to support the industry over the past four years. Whilst the UK Government has provided over £1 billion of support, the SNP's token of a transitional training fund has provided little relief to those affected by the oil crash. Now, I note that it says that future projections are not based with a reliance on the oil and gas industry, so instead I worry about how the commission expects to support the sector if we are to leave the UK. There is much discussion on tax revenues and projections, but no specifics on how they would support the industry, and it is not the only thing that they provided little detail on. In fact, there is no mention of the minimum wage, the living wage, benefits cap, food banks, fuel poverty, earnings limit, inheritance, tax bans and absolutely no mention of any policy in relation to the national health service. It really will come as no surprise, particularly to constituents of mine in Aberdeenshire West, that the SNP have given no thought to the NHS. And again, they won't be surprised to hear that the SNP will offer tax incentives to those who choose to come and live in an independent Scotland. But if you're already living and working here, there's no mention of what you'll be paying. Now, a Government should be in a position where it is able to attract individuals to our country, and we also need to project an image that is favourable to investors, and separation is not the answer. I won't be taking any interventions. If you wanted to debate this, you could do so on your own time rather than before seeing the Liberal Democrats to bring it to the chamber. Now, I was disappointed, but instead of answering questions on how they would improve investment, productivity and boost our economy, they responded by setting up three new commissions, six new strategies, four new reviews, one new strategy review and one new standing council, 15 in total. And this only adds to the already cluttered landscape, as the Fraser of Allander says, leading to confusion, a lack of alignment, duplication and weakened accountability. And if the SNP focused more on the issues at hand, then perhaps they wouldn't be trying to use leaving the UK as the answer to all their problems. Because it isn't, and even the Government's own statistics show that, for we trade nearly four times as much with the rest of the UK as the EU, and with more people coming to Scotland from the rest of the UK than overseas, it would be irresponsible to separate from our own nation. So, Presiding, I ask this of the SNP Government. Focus on Scotland now. As others have said, it is interesting that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have chosen to use their debating time in the chamber to discuss this report. Not only is it interesting, but it is also deeply telling a report that was put on the back burner for months, and when it was finally put into the public domain, it was published over a bank holiday weekend. You have to ask why. It is not because the SNP has reacquainted themselves with the day job, it is because the SNP's growth commission has left the SNP's case for independence exposed. No wonder there are concerns about it. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made perfectly clear, the report marks a continuation of austerity. Not an escape, not an alternative, but a continuation. Let's look at why. Firstly, on the currency of the report states, the commission recommends that the currency of an independent Scotland should remain the pound sterling for a possibly extended transition period. That means that in independent Scotland, using what would have become the currency of a foreign country for an extended period. That would mean that there would be no control over money supply or interest rates and no power to issue debts to finance investment or to finance growth. That would come with severe costs. Pegany, a new currency to the pound, for instance, would, according to Professor MacDonald of the Adams Business School, require currency reserves of anything between £30 billion and £300 billion. On public spending, the commission proposes a decade of cuts. The commission proposes that an independent Scotland would pay an annual solidarity payment to the UK, a payment that is bigger than Scotland's education and justice budgets combined. As the Labour amendment states, the Scottish National Party has not engaged with Scotland's trade union on this report and on reading the document and the scale of the cuts, that is evident. Mr McHide did not take any interventions. The growth commission has much to say about the costs of Brexit. Brexit does come with costs for both Scotland and the UK. Of that, there is no doubt. However, there is precious little to say in this report about the costs to Scotland of leaving the UK. Leaving a 40-year-old union is a big challenge, but so too is leaving a 300-year-old union of which Scotland has been an integral part of for generations. It is time that the SNP were up front about that. The alternative to Tory austerity is not more austerity, it is an end to austerity altogether. A radical shift to a new kind of economy which mobilises the talents and resources of our whole country. An investment-led economy where we stop neglecting our infrastructure, our people and our industries and prioritise sustainable and inclusive growth, in which businesses play by the rules and the rights of workers and trade unions are respected. Where public services are run in the public interests, we reassert the importance of public ownership and co-operative ownership so that there is more democratic control or things like Royal Mail and our railways. An economy that works for the many, not the few. The change that this country needs is a UK Labour Government committed to ending austerity and the economic and social transformation of Scotland and the UK. That is why I will be voting for the Labour amendment today and our vision of a better, fairer future for our country. I want to thank the Lib Dems for bringing this important debate to the chamber today, and their timing is impeccable. I will never demure from my belief that the only way that we as a nation can even begin to reach our potential is by being an independent country. The Lib Dems and their various guises have campaigned for federalism for many years and it has been rejected repeatedly at the ballot box. They did not go away in change of policy and why should they, if it is something that they believe, be so strongly in? It might then look at the issue of devolution and it might then, whether any of us summing up, can explain why his party abstained or, in the hope houses case, voted both ways in the House of Commons last night when they had a chance to try to protect the powers of this Parliament against the face of a hard Brexit coming our way. Maybe he can explain why his federal colleagues, some of whom are Scottish MPs, decided to sidle up to the Brexit legislation limiting this Parliament's powers for up to seven years, even though Mr Rennie and three of his colleagues voted to protect this Parliament's powers only very recently. Then we have got James Kelly's amendment and the parallel universe in which he obviously lives. We have got the weakest Tory Prime Minister on record and Labourers are still behind him in the opinion polls. People attacked Michael Foot when he was the leader of the Labour Party, but I am sorry to break it to Mr Kelly that Jeremy Corbyn is not even a poor man's Michael Foot. Then we have got Labour's capitulation last night in the House of Commons where they have also effectively given the Tories free reign to do what they want to this Parliament and also to Scotland. If leaving Scotland, if leaving Scotland to the excesses of even more people going to food banks, even more people struggling because of universal credit and the discarded pips, even more people affected by the rape clause, even more skilled migrants blocked from coming here to work in our health service, our farming sector, our fish processing sector or our tourism sector and many many more examples than James Kelly and his colleagues have a lot of explaining to do now and also in the future. When our unemployment starts to go up, the cost of living starts to increase, the demands upon the Scottish Government start to increase whilst the cuts from Westminster are never present. How will his amendment then be delivered in the future, Mr Kelly? You can answer that in your summing up. I have got the Murdo Fraser's amendment from the party that certainly did not want devolution in the first place. If ever an example were needed, the events of our Tory administration in Westminster in 2010 have shown that the nasty party are well and truly back. They have got the so-called cuddly Scottish Tories to provide the human shield from the vindictive policies emanating from Downing Street. They have got the extreme right-wingers of Johnston, Gove and Mogg dangling a weak Prime Minister like a marionette dancing to the hard Brexit tune. That should be a wake-up call to the people of Scotland that Westminster does not respect Scotland, it never has and it never will. When a Tory MP shouts, suicide should be an option. When Ian Blackford MP asks the House of Commons what options are available, that should tell Scotland everything that we need to know about the nasty, vindictive Tory elite based in Westminster, but unfortunately available across all of the UK. That is what I will be back in the finance secretary's amendment tonight, because anything less is doing Scotland at the service and fails to recognise that, when Scotland does become independent, we, the people of this nation, will make it the country that we actually want it to be. Thank you and a particular thanks to Neil Bibby and Stuart McMillan for giving us back on time. I call on Ross Greer to wind up for the Green Party. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing the SNP's growth commission to the Parliament for debate. It is right that this place debates Scotland's constitutional and our economic future, but I have been absolutely bowled over by the brass neck of Willie Rennie to bring the motion that he did. It talks about an extended period of financial pain, which is something that the Lib Dems know a great deal about, as other speakers mentioned. They are the junior architects of the round of financial pain that we have endured in this country since 2010. Their ideologically driven austerity has seen child poverty in Scotland and across the UK rise. Their Westminster coalition Government implemented an agenda of cuts to public services of which around 80 per cent of the damage was felt by women, so I am in no mood to take seriously Mr Rennie's lectures on austerity. While much of his criticism of the growth commission is not incorrect, his conclusion is wrong, and the Greens will obviously not be supporting his motion, and as a result, of course, not the amendment from the Conservatives either. However, I have found that the Labour amendment is quite interesting. I would like to touch on that. Labour, of course, is right to criticise that the list of contributors to the Sustainable Growth Commission, allegedly sustainable, did not include a single trade union. In fact, you could say that the client list of Charlotte Street partners would be delighted with the result of this document. Labour criticism is just to make the point that the STUC was actually in the engagement strategy of the commission. I was a member of the commission, and much of the work that the trade unions, I am sure, would like to see are in the growth commission in terms of productivity and participation, so the thoughts of trade unionism you can see within the growth commission. Ross Greer. I thank the cabinet secretary for that remark, but no you can't, and the fact is that not a single trade union was invited to contribute to the document on the same terms that the CBI was, that the institute of directors was, and that shows a failing on the SNP's part. Labour's criticism of the reheated neoliberal economics at the heart of the growth commission mirrors much of what the Greens have had to say, but the amendment in James Kelly's name is wrong to say that economic and social transformation cannot be achieved as a result of a referendum on independence. It is certainly wrong to say that only Labour's plans will bring about that transformation. We heard the same in 2014 that we should vote no because a Labour government was just over the horizon and it would undo the damage that the Tories had inflicted on Scotland. Not only did that fail to materialise in 2015 and in 2017, and it doesn't look likely to materialise any time soon, it's got worse with Brexit. Economic analysis commissioned by committee this Parliament found that we are set to lose 80,000 jobs in Scotland, a £2,000 drop in average wages as a result of a hard Brexit, which makes Labour's absolute capitulation to the Tories' hard Brexit utterly, utterly shameful. The Labour amendment also fails to understand why independence is so necessary for Scotland. We do not want to put our future in our own hands simply because of the Tory government since 2010. We believe in independence because of the UK's structural long-term failure to act in Scotland's interests and because of the potential that independence has to bring about the social and economic transformation that the Greens—and I believe many in Labour—want to see. It's precisely because of that potential for transformation, though, through independence, that the Greens believe that the SNP's commission fails to offer either a compelling case for independence or an economic plan that meets Scotland's needs. Scotland needs independence to break with the failed GDP growth-obsessed crisis capitalism of the UK, to break with its dependence on and subservience to the financial sector in the city of London, to recognise the urgency of climate science and rapidly transition from an oil and gas industry, bringing the world to its knees while it sheds jobs here in Scotland and to build an economy that supports a renewed social contract that transforms our society to the one that our communities deserve. The Green amendment mentions our paper on jobs in the new economy, which presents a vision for a job search future for Scotland if we invest rapidly in the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable industry. While the Greens believe that we don't have all the answers, just as no party here has all the answers, the vision that we contribute to this debate is one where Scotland, with all the powers of an independent nation, is fully committed to an economy of quality jobs underpinned by strong workers' rights and vibrant trade unions. We believe that Scotland's interests are best served if we take a different path, if we are brave enough to do things differently beyond simply voting for independence. However, the very first step is to put our future and our hands, and the Greens will proudly vote for that today. Thank you. I call on Neil Findlay to wind up for the Labour Party. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Andrew Wilson, the author of the SNP's Cuts Commission, is a former RBS banker. Now, a corporate lobbyist with Charlotte Street Partners, one of the most powerful and well-connected lobbying companies in Scotland. It is important to understand that and know that because we can then begin to understand the philosophy behind his report. Wilson and his fellow commissioners, who unanimously signed off the growth commission report, have penned a blueprint for independence, which has ingrained in it a commitment to ultra-free market neoliberalism, fully endorsed by Derek Mackay and Shirley-Anne Somerville. The report is committed to current economic orthodoxy. There is no attempt to address external ownership of the Scottish economy, nothing on tax reform, nothing on challenging or controlling the hoarding of wealth that we see accumulated by the few at the expense of the many. The report was written exactly to lure in the people who are on Charlotte Street Partners' corporate client list. That is who this is aimed at. A pick-and-mix of policies from other countries, plagiarised reports are presented as a blueprint for a conservative economy, a Scotland of fiscal restraint of reduced and reducing public spending, a country whose interest rates and monetary policy are set by another state. It tells us a view of the world that says that countries with low expenditure are doing better than Scotland within the UK, a Scotland that would no longer benefit from the Barnett formula, a Scotland where public investment would reduce year on year on year. If it accepted back into the EU at the same time, it would be subjected to a 3 per cent deficit as well as a solidarity payment. All the while, having no control of our interest rates, monetary policy, with the currency controlled by the Chancellor of a foreign state in which we would have no political representation or influence in their Parliament. That is not what motivated many to pound the streets for the Yes campaign in 2014. They are rightly infuriated by the adherence to a failed economic model that inevitably and purposefully increases inequality. That is a betrayal of many of the people who supported the Yes movement in 2014. As Ian McWhorter said, Nicola Sturgeon, who has always been thought of as a dedicated left-winger, has found herself defending a document that reads in places like one of George Osborne's budget speeches. Robin McAlpine of the Commonwealth the commitment to deficit reduction programme, an incredibly low public debt ceiling and a commitment to peg public spending below the rate of GDP growth, already has a name. It is called austerity. Not my words, but those of commentators who believed that SNP were a party of the progressive left. Will this laze it bare they are not? The Cuts Commission seeks to emulate countries like Finland, New Zealand and Sweden, but completely fails to acknowledge the social, economic and political history and culture of those states. States that have fire trade union density, higher taxes on the wealthy and where unions are active partners in the economy. The SNP ignored all that and instead want to create a low tax, low spend model. They are not interested in advancing serious economic change. The only change that they want to see is the change in the colour of a passport or a line on a map. How on earth could we maintain a strong welfare state, afford pensions, the NHS and fund modern public services with public spending growing at 1 per cent less than growth and GDP? In recent years, the SNP sought to attract working-class voters by offering them a vision of independence that is very different from the current Tory UK Government. That suggests that they have completely abandoned them in favour of the Serangus cross-arch of the world. The choice in Scottish politics is now between more cuts in austerity with the SNP, or the Tories or a Labour Scotland delivering progressive policies, investing £20 billion in a Scottish investment bank worthy of the name, encouraging domestic ownership of industry, tracking down corporate tax avoidance, progressive taxation and a living wage of £10 an hour. Socialism and nationalism are very different political philosophies. That makes them even more clearer than they are. I'm going to call Adam Tomkins to wind up for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was going to thank the Liberal Democrats for making their time available for this enlightening debate, which I think has shown Hollywood in its best light, but I think perhaps they allow the record to do that for itself. Amid the noise, Presiding Officer, I think that I have been able to pick out perhaps three themes in this debate. The first is that the core recommendation of the growth commission is fatally flawed, and independent Scotland using the currency of what would be a foreign power would be ruinous for the economy. It would be dangerous for political stability. Sterlingisation, which is its core idea, is a terrible idea. It's implausible, it's unworkable and it is dangerously naive. It was rejected in 2013 by the SNP's own fiscal commission. More recently, it was condemned by former SNP MP George Caravan. Busted as a credible option by economists as diverse as Anton Muscatelli, Paul Krugman, Richard Murphy and Ronald MacDonald. It wouldn't be a recipe even for independence. It would make Scotland more dependent on the monetary policy set elsewhere, not elsewhere in the same state, but elsewhere in what would become the capital city of a foreign power. That is the core idea of the growth commission. No wonder Alex Bell described it as a political suicide note. That's the first theme, flawed, hold below the waterline. The second, which is a more valuable purpose that the growth commission has undertaken, for which I thank them, is that its principal purpose has been to expose and to reconfirm just how threadbare the 2013 independence white paper was, as Modo Fraser described it, a compendium of invention, not just on the currency on oil. The second oil boom, said Alex Salmond. The second energy bonanza, said Nicholas Sturgeon. The massive oil boom, said John Swinney. The boom years ahead, said Nicholas Sturgeon. And only now, four years on, the growth commission finally concedes how desperately misleading this all was. Windfalls should be treated as windfalls and not depended on for recurring annual commitments, it says. Yes, indeed. So too on pensions. So too on pensions. All of the uncosted fairy tale promises of the white paper, torn up, jettisoned, dumped. So too on welfare, the same. You turn after you turn after you turn after you turn. So too on transition costs. They don't want to listen to this, do they? So too on transition costs, where the white paper was silent, where Nicholas Sturgeon herself was hopeless on Channel 4 television just the other day and where the growth commission is reasonable. £450 million to set up a new state, the IT to deliver cap payments in Scotland and the creation of a new Scottish Social Security Agency, somehow more expensive than setting up a new state from scratch. What we needed was not a fresh blueprint for independence but an apology from Derek Mackay and the troops assembled behind him for hoodwinking the Scottish people with a risible white paper in 2013. The third and final theme, Presiding Officer, that has emerged from this high-quality debate that we've all so much enjoyed this afternoon, is perhaps the most important one. That is that independence would make everyone in Scotland poorer. Independence would mean austerity on steroids. Debt would take 96 years to pay off. We'd see £27 billion of cuts in the first decade alone. Business would flee. The economy would tank. Independence would mean even slower growth than we have under Derek Mackay's economy now, even higher taxes than we have under Nicola Sturgeon's SNP now. It would be a disaster for Scotland. Presiding Officer, we said no. We were right and we meant it. Can I, Colin? Keith Brown to wind up for the SNP. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I, first of all, respond to some of the points that have been made during the course of the debate and also make the case that the best future for Scotland is an independent future. It's always a pleasure to make the case for independence for Scotland, even though it's talked about much more often in the opposition parties than it is in this party. First of all, the question is to ask, why are we having this debate now? I think that the cat has been let out of the bag. In an article yesterday, Alex Cole-Hamilton in the Scotsman admitted the fact that the prospect of the growth commission sent shudders of anxiety and nervous glances amongst the unionist parties. Just to say that again, that the prospect of the growth commission sent shudders of anxiety and nervous glances amongst the unionist parties. In short, they are scared stiff of the idea of a debate about the positive and inclusive vision for Scotland, and so they should be, because look at things as they currently stand. 400 investment at record levels, 6,400 jobs, exports are increasing hugely faster than the rest of the UK. RBS is saying that growth in Scotland is projected to outpace growth in the UK employment in Scotland at record levels. Apprenticeship targets being met. As Ivan McKee said, record confidence in the prospect of the economy of an independent Scotland is what the unionist are so scared of. Let's see some of the discussion. It's very interesting that none of the major sports person wants to take any interventions at all. That's quite a telling thing. First of all, the Lib Dems that we have now from Alex Cole-Hamilton, like Joe Swinson, this kind of ultra-unionist position. Joe Swinson argued that she's pleaded with the Tory Prime Minister not to take any cognisance of the democratic mandate of this Parliament. That's a Lib Dem person saying that they should take no cognisance of this Parliament's decisions. Absolutely shocking, and not a word during the Liberal Democrat contribution about Brexit. Everybody knows, look at the daily record today, withdrawal is the number one risk to the economy, and not a word from the proposed supporting EU Lib Dems on the prospects of Brexit. Then we have Murdo Fraser, and this was back to the future really. First of all, because some people might remember the programme The New Statesman in the 1980s. A certain character called Alan Bistard was the star of that. Of course, he was an ultra-right-wing Conservative, and I just wonder if we've got a whole bunch of Bistards here today in this chamber. On the issue of engagement, it's also true to say that we had a discussion today in the local government committee of this Parliament when the UK government did not turn up to talk about city deals, and I've just heard that, once again, David Mundell has been in touch with this Parliament to say that he will now not appear before the Justice Committee of this Parliament tomorrow. So much for the engagement from the Conservatives. Now, I'm sorry to have to do it to him, but James Kelly, no interventions, no suggestions, nothing positive to say, but it's worth remembering, this is the party that ushered in austerity. We all know what the last words of the Labour Government were. There is no money left, the party that ushered in austerity for Scotland, the Labour Party. There was much to support in what was said, of course, by the Greens, both Patrick Harvie and Ross Korean, on the fact that it's a sustainable growth commission. We do have different ideas on this. We're perfectly willing to engage in a proper debate, and I have said that I'm more than happy to discuss with other parts of the yes movement, including the Green Party, their proposals for the continued growth in Scotland. So this does seek to elevate the debate from the depressing Brexit-dominated nightmare that we face under the Conservative Party, especially after the votes that we've had in the House of Commons in the last couple of days. It's quite clear that Union's parties are riven, as Alex Cole-Hamilton has said by shithers of anxiety and nervous glances, and well they might be, because this Government, this party and this country are united. It might interest you to know that, just this afternoon, the SNP has attracted 1,000 new members just this afternoon. That says to me that people in Scotland have seen the way that Westminster fails to take and can never properly take into account the views of the people of Scotland. Presiding Officer, the country and this party are united behind trying to get a better future for Scotland. It's increasingly evident that that support is widespread, and I'm perfectly happy to take on the debate. We are ready, and Scotland's increasingly ready for independence for Scotland. Presiding Officer, this has been a constructive debate, with many considered and thoughtful contributions, including from that great thinker of the SNP, Keith Brown. He must learn to read, though, all of Alex Cole-Hamilton's sentences, rather than just the first half of them. We've had many great contributions, including from Derek Mackay, who has rejected UK austerity. Partly for him, it's not enough. They want even more austerity under the SNP. Murdo Fraser quite rightly said that this growth commission was a repudiation of the 2014 white paper, a compendium of inventions. Tom Arthur, who I thought was rather unfair, he bellowed in the middle of the debate, where doomed. Even I didn't describe the growth commission like that, but can I seriously and genuinely heartfeltly say that I'm grateful that the SNP members have stayed for the whole of the debate? I'm really touched that they wanted to listen to my contribution at the end. The SNP amendment is fascinating, because if you look at the SNP amendment, it deletes all reference of many things in our amendment, and I can accept that they might not agree with everything, but they have even deleted reference to their own growth commission, such as the embarrassment about what the growth commission says. The Green amendment has highlighted many of the divisions in the nationalist movement, but if they really believe what they say—and I don't doubt that they believe what they say—they will vote against the SNP amendment today. If the SNP amendment passes, their Green amendment falls. If they have the courage of their convictions, they need to vote against the Government amendment today, otherwise their words mean absolutely nothing. Ivan McKee was not comparing like with like when he looked back in public spending. Under their rule, there would have been a 2 per cent cut in real terms on public spending over the past period. It would be an increase in the cuts under the SNP, so he needs to be more accurate about it. People at the heart of the yes campaign are furious. They are furious that the growth commission has confessed. They are upset that they won't be able to get away with what they told people last time. It's not about principle for them, it's about votes. Former senior MP George Caravan warned that the commission risked robbing the next independence campaign of working-class support. Jonathan Shaffey said that it would be a very hard sell to voters. Colin Fox was alarmed. He said that it risked driving hundreds of thousands of former yes voters into the hands of Jeremy Corbyn. They are right to be concerned that the yes campaign will hemorrhage votes, because we now have the truth about independence from the growth commission. Several members mentioned Brexit, and you cannot criticise the Liberal Democrats on Brexit. We are forthright in our opposition to Brexit, and if only SNP members would have the courage and back the people's vote so that we can reverse the damage to our economy. Perhaps there is some common ground with the nationalists on that, but what I cannot understand is why those very same nationalists believe that there will be no economic shock from withdrawing from the United Kingdom economic and political union, especially when our integration with the UK economy is even greater than that with the EU economy. To complain about economic shock from e-withdrawal, while denying economic shock from the UK withdrawal defies logic, the report would have been stronger if I had admitted that. We used to be told this repeatedly, that we would be better off under independence, but now we will be stumping up billions for the UK for years after independence. Just like Nigel Farage promised us, we will end up exactly the same with the SNP. The future of the NHS will be undermined by the weakness of the Scottish finances in an independent Scotland. To be clear, to save the NHS, we need to remain in the United Kingdom. That is the best future for our country. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on finance in the constitution. The next item of business is consideration of three business motions. Motion 12737 setting out a business programme and motions 12738 and 12739 on timetables for two bills at stage one. If anyone objects, please say so now, and I call on Jovis Patrick on behalf of the bureau to move the motions. Formally moved. Thank you very much, and no one wishes to speak against them. Therefore, the question is that motions 12737 to 12739 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. Could I ask Jovis Patrick on behalf of the bureau to move motions 12742 to 12745 on approval of SSIs? Moved on block. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions, and could I ask Jovis Patrick to move motion 12741 on community right to buy, abandoned neglected or detrimental land, eligible land regulations and restrictions on transfers and dealing with Scotland regulations 2018? Formally moved. Thank you. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their requested feedback now, and I call on Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In these regulations, regulations 3 to 5 set out matters which ministers must have regard to in relation to the physical condition, designation and classification and use or management of land, but it's regulation 6 that Scottish Labour has concerns about, which we raised in my Eclara committee, along with Alex Rowley. Regulation 6 sets out that matters to which ministers must have regard in relation to environmental wellbeing include whether the use of land has caused a statutory nuisance, whether the land is subject to a closure notice or a notice for antisocial behaviour. It also considers, and this is where the rub is for us, that whether harm is caused to environmental wellbeing and this regulation, as crafted, is key to our opposition tonight. Having listened with care to the cabinet secretary and committee when this came before us, I still have concerns having been involved in the taking of evidence on the land reform act in the previous session of this Parliament. Dr Aileen McLeod made the commitment at stage 3 in the act saying, and I quote, I reassure members that the definition of environmental wellbeing has a wide meaning and encompasses some social considerations. It would have been helpful if the cabinet secretary could have clarified in committee the definition in law of harm to environmental wellbeing, which I understand made the Scottish Government decide to back away from the wide meaning, which was in the draft regulations that are under discussion and have now been withdrawn. Those are the immunity and prospects of the relevant community, the preservation of the relevant community or its development and the social development of the relevant community. Those are important issues for the future of our communities here in Scotland. I absolutely take that effective regulation is important. So is regulation, which reflects commitments made by a minister at stage 3 of an act. That is why I have concerns that these three aspects will have a detrimental effect on our now only impossibilities. The cabinet secretary indicated to our committee that her officials are looking at the 2003 act and part 5 of the land reform act 2016 in relation to sustainable development. Those are complex issues. I am concerned that if the investigations do not come up with an answer that protects communities in these circumstances, the regulations will not be effective legislation that Dr McLeod and those of us who were involved in that process, including several stakeholders, were expecting. That would be to the detriment of community empowerment and risk atailing the opportunities for communities, both rural and urban, to own more land for their future sustainable development. We need to get the regulation right, and a broader definition of environmental harm is needed. Thus, it is with regret, although I understand that we risk delaying the SSI tonight, but Labour members will be voting against it. Thank you. Those regulations introduce important new right to buy powers that will provide far-reaching options for communities. Communities will have the right to buy land that is wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected or the management or use of which is causing harm to the environmental wellbeing of the relevant community. Those are powerful options, not currently available to communities. Before the draft regulations were laid, we had to remove some matters from ministerial consideration in determining whether the use or management of land results in or causes harm directly or indirectly to the environmental wellbeing of a relevant community. Those were elements that were not considered to be related closely enough to the concept of environmental wellbeing. Environmental wellbeing remains an important component of the regulations and includes some social considerations where they lead to harm to a community's environmental wellbeing. However, environmental wellbeing has a particular meaning, and we cannot stretch that meaning to breaking point. Some stakeholders, particularly community land Scotland, were keen that such issues could be taken into account in determining whether land is eligible. However, rather than trying to fit such concepts into the definition of environmental wellbeing, it is better to explore other options for how we might achieve that. I have asked my officials to look at ways in which that can be done effectively. That will be done during the course of the next year. Additionally, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the regulations that we are discussing today. A report on the effectiveness of those regulations will be submitted to the Environment and Climate Change Committee by June 2019. I met recently with Community Land Scotland to discuss those regulations. Although they consider the definition of harm to environmental wellbeing to be narrowly drawn, they have given their qualified support to the regulations being passed in their current form, given the commitments that I have made to explore other ways in which we can allow issues such as social immunity and social wellbeing to be taken into account. Those issues will also be relevant in the context of part 5 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016, which provides a right to buy for sustainable development and will be taken into account in developing those regulations. It is important to emphasise that, as drafted, those regulations will bring into force valuable new rights to buy. They will provide communities with a powerful new tool to take ownership of land that is wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected and where the management or use of land is causing harm to the community's environmental wellbeing. If the regulations are not approved today, communities will lose this opportunity, so I would ask Parliament to support those regulations. I thank Ms Carnegie for responding on behalf of the Government. We turn now to decision time. First of all, I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Maureen Watt is agreed in the amendment in the name of Annie Wells will fall. The first question is that amendment 12706.4, in the name of Maureen Watt, which seeks to amend motion 12706 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton on health, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members, we cast the votes now. The result of the vote and amendment number 12706.4, in the name of Maureen Watt, is yes, 62, no, 62. There were no abstentions. As members will know, as I have cast my vote before against any amendment, I will cast my vote against this amendment. In this case, therefore, the amendment falls. The second question is that amendment 12706.1, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. The next question is that motion 12706.2, in the name of Anna Sarwar, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are agreed. The fourth question is that motion 12706, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are not agreed. We will move to division. I will ask the question one more time. The fourth question is that motion 12706, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Schulds! Are we all agreed?! Or not agreed?! We'll move to the division, members may cast their votes now. I think that I'm going deaf. The result of that vote on motion 12706, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, as amended, is yes1256, no zero, there were 62 upifications, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. Can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Derric Mackay is agreed then the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser, James Kelly and Patrick Harvie will fall. The fifth question is the amendment 12708.4, in the name of comments derrick mackay which seeks to amend motion 12708, in the name of Ili Renay on finance and the constitution be agreed to. Are we agreed, we are not agreed to make a vote will move to vote Mae Candidate in the history of the province and I am peaceful may a vote o mwy n incredible 19- Baltimore in the name of Derek Maci is yes 68 no 56 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed. The amendments in the name of Murdo Fraser-Gemes Kelly and Patrick Harvie therefore fall, and the question is the motion 12708 in the name of Willie Rennie as amended on finance and constitution be agreed. Are we all agreed? Trouwyr. Or not agreed. We'll move to our vote, members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 12708 in the name of Willie Rennie, as amended, is yes 67, no 56, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. Now, I propose to ask a single question on four parliamentary bureau motions. If anyone objects please say so now. Good, no member has objected. The question is that motion 12742 to 12745 in the name of Joffice Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau be agreed, Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the final question is that motion 12741, in the name of Joseph Patrick, on behalf of the powermanship bureau, on approval of the community right to buy, abandoned, neglected or detrimental land, eligible land, regulators and restrictions on transfers and dealings, Scotland regulations 2018, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 12741, in the name of Joseph Patrick, is yes, 103, no 21, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move now to members' business, in the name of Graham Day, on banning the sales of energy drinks to under 16s, and we'll just take a few moments for the member and for the ministers to change seats.