 unsiwll yn cael ei ddeniol, ac yn gwbod eu gallu ei chyfnodol, yn cymdeithasgau cyllidau? Mae annynteg. Gweithasig y berthynas yn ddybyn nhw yn ei ddysgu yn cysylltu i ddod yn unrhyw anghydd yn ddeirgyn iedd o gyd-gau tremendous a register cyllidau. Rwy'n credu yn ni yw gweld i'r ddod yn unrhyw anghyd diogel i ddod yn ddygu i'r ddod, os ymdill mor scoopu i ddod. Cyfnodd. Fy deadlif rights on land is a positive integral part of the European Union for more than 40 years. Engagement with the European Union and its institutions has been and will remain a core priority for the Scottish Government. On the out to the world, we now stand near a crossroads. The outcome of the General Election has resulted in the publication of the UK referendum bill, which lays the ground for an in-out referendum in the UK before the end of 2017. Ond y Gwladysgrif Weinidog yn fawr i'r gael i'r gaelio i'r gaelio gwaith yma, ond mae'n gweithio i'r reffordd, rwy'n gweithio i'r reffordd a'r reffordd yn gweld, ac mae'n ddigwydd. Ysgolwgrif Weinidog yn dweud y dyfodol yng nghymru o'r Ffraenffrwyr Rhaid Ddraff. Mae'n gweithio i'r gaelio i'r gaelio i'r gaelio i'r gaelio i'r reffordd gan y ffranchis i'r reffordd. Ysgolwgrif Weinidog yn ddigwydd yn y Llwg ddechrau y Ffraenffrwyr Rhaid Ddraff, byddai'n gweld i'r 20 oes 2014, ac mae hynny'n gweithio i'r gaelio i'r gaelio i'r reithordd. Felly, mae'n gweithio i'r gaelio i'r gaelio i'r reffordd a'r reffordd a'r gaelio i'r reffordd yn gweld i'r gaelio i'r reffordd a'r reffordd yn gweld i'r reffordd sut ond ar gyfer� Whether this Parliament has the question of what's going on in a number of times. As the one-inout referendum is now an inevitability, we must continue to spell out the case for Scotland's EU membership. By making the positive case we will ensure that the facts are set out to tackle head on, the unfounded fear of Aber quihonewys a yaptreithwlad after the inevitable fears and smears of those who want to see an EU exit as they present them from a narrow isolationist position. The First Minister was in Brussels last week and set out Scotland's commitment to the EU in a speech to the European policy centre. The First minister's argument of that was that Membership was this, as a country of 5 million people we understand that we We cannot act in isolation. Partnership between independent states is essential for progress, and so the fundamental vision of the EU of independent nations working together for a common good appeals to us. Co-operation is critical to success in the EU. In many areas, delivering the greater good can only be successful when 28 member states act together. It seems hopelessly optimistic to conclude that member states acting alone could deliver significant emissions reductions in the fight against climate change or take forward plans to develop a North Seas grid that will one day allow countries borduring the North Seas to trade renewable energy. The EU must look outward and act globally, or Europe will become the old continent of the past when the rest of the world moves on without it. Of course, the immediate economic argument supporting membership remains critical and cannot be overstated. Membership places our businesses within the world's largest economy, whose 500 million citizens enjoy some of the highest standards of living on the globe. Around 20 million businesses operate in the EU single market, supplying goods and services to consumers and businesses both in the EU and on the global market. The EU is a vital export market for Scottish firms, accounting for almost half of Scotland's international exports in 2013, worth a massive £12.9 billion each year. It has been estimated that those exports support more than 300,000 jobs. Ernst and Young published a survey last month, which confirmed that Scotland has become the most successful part of the UK outside of London for attracting inward investment projects. Much of that is due to the skills of our workforce and the quality of life that we can offer. For many investors, our EU membership is a vital selling point. Around 40 per cent of the 2,100 foreign-owned companies in Scotland in 2013 were owned by firms based in the EU. How many of those investors would realistically come to Scotland if we were to find ourselves outside of the EU? Let's not forget the benefits that the EU funding delivers to Scotland, including the 985 million euros of structural funds over the period 2014 to 2020, or the 572 million euros worth of competitive funding won by Scottish universities in the period 2007 to 2013. However, membership of the EU goes beyond the purely economic rationale. The experience of the EU and our vision for the EU is one in which we can create a more equal and more inclusive society. The Scottish Government believes strongly in a Europe that tackles the question of social justice, and the EU has been at the forefront of protecting the welfare of its citizens, promoting gender equality, improving conditions for workers and strengthening consumer rights. That is the type of EU that we must continue to develop. A European Union of members who embrace and promote human rights through the convention rather than dismiss them or seek to refute them. A vision of a Europe that deals collectively with humanitarian issues, like mediterranean refugees, with compassion, not hostility. I welcome the social and cultural and economic benefits that migration from the EU delivers to Scotland's communities. The right to freedom of movement is also of huge benefit to Scots who move to live, study and work elsewhere in the EU. We estimate that 171,000 people born elsewhere in the EU currently live in Scotland. Contrary to the claims that we hear elsewhere about immigration acting as a drain on our society, it is estimated by the University of College London that EU migrants to the UK made a net contribution to the UK of around £20 billion between 2001 and 2011. That loss of income would cost all of us. By being a productive EU member, we can ensure that our voices are clearly heard in the world and that we are able to shape EU laws and policies to ensure that they are of maximum benefit to our citizens. Alternatives to EU membership, such as joining after, offer no such opportunity for the UK transforming its status from a lawmaker into a mere law taker. As the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs highlighted in a recent interview a matter of days ago, in the EEA we have to implement all EU directives were not around the table when they are discussed in Brussels. None of us here today will be able to vote to amend the actual referendum bill, but that shouldn't stop us expressing our views on it, particularly where it falls short of expectations. The Scottish Government believes it falls short in a number of areas. The 16 and 17-year-olds who voted in our referendum proved themselves to be the engaged, thoughtful, concerned citizens. We always knew they would be. The case for letting them vote in the EU referendum is overwhelming. Cabinet Secretary, are you aware that Dr Sarah Wollaston, who is the MP for Totnes in south Devon in this morning's debate, advocated precisely that point? She is, of course, a senior Conservative chair of committee. I am very grateful for the member, and I am pleased to hear about that intervention, because I think that this is a case that can and should be won. I think that a united voice from this Parliament advocating votes in 16 and 17-year-olds complementing those in Westminster from a number of parties will be very important as this bill progresses. 171,000 EU citizens live in Scotland. EU citizens can vote in Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, and they were able to vote in the independence referendum, something on which all parties in this Parliament agreed. They have chosen to make Scotland their home, and the case for extending the vote to them in the EU referendum is strong. They should have a voice in the issues that affect our country. I don't understand why the UK Government is proposing to grant the right to the citizens of three other EU countries living in the UK, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, but not the remaining 24. The polls have consistently shown that people in Scotland have a more favourable attitude to the EU relative to their English counterparts. That is why the Scottish Government will argue for a double majority, a double lock provision in the bill, where the UK can only leave the EU if each constituent part of it votes to leave. That sort of territorial requirement is not unique. It is used in some federal states, such as Canada or Australia, and it should apply in this instance to this EU referendum bill. If Scotland votes no, but the rest of the UK votes yes, how will a double majority work in that instance? I don't think that Scotland will vote no indeed. If you look at the opinion polls, it is well in advance. As long as there are no health and safety issues, and the Conservatives are perfectly all right, I plan to continue on timing. To the cabinet secretary for giving away, just on the issue of a double majority, by the same logic, why were the people of Orkney and Shetland not given a veto during the independence referendum last year? I think that the people of Orkney and Shetland have their own issues currently with the current MP in relation to concerns in Orkney and Shetland. However, the point is that this is about a national referendum in relation to the independence referendum. It is a point about our future within the European Union. I think that the provisions, as we have perfectly agreed to—indeed, I think that Murdo Fraser argued this point—I did not see him putting forward a double majority in that instance when the legislation for our referendum was going through. On timing, no date has yet been set, but it is imperative that a referendum avoids the Scottish parliamentary and local elections in May 2016 and May 2017, and I hope that that is something that should be set that we disagree with. We can get consensus in this place. I want to pursue some points on the reform agenda. The Scottish Government has never argued that the EU is perfect and we set out suggestions in Scotland's agenda for EU reform. The institutions of the EU have grown distant from the citizens. I need for those institutions to reconnect. We have identified two main ways in which it can contribute to that. First, by influencing the renewed EU institutions to pursue further regulatory reform, the EU regulation is more proportionate, consistent, accountable, transparent and targeted. For example, by implementing the agreed CFP reforms to decentralise fisheries management. Secondly, by influencing the renewed EU institutions to prioritise economic and social policies that reflect the fundamental aspirations and concerns of its citizens, the EU must address international problems that member states acting alone could not, to promote energy security through the energy union package and to complete the digital single market, to tackle climate change collectively, growth and competitiveness, which is sustainable and experienced by all citizens of the EU and collective action on youth employment. EU law to enable procurement practices, which would require the living wage to be paid, and EU law policy to facilitate and encourage member states to take action to combat the causes of ill health. Those sort of reforms are about doing things better and in a smarter way. They are also about pursuing a continuous improvement agenda, changing the way that EU works as it expands and circumstances change. I believe that existing treaty structures can accommodate that. However, the Prime Minister said that he wants to renegotiate the UK's relationship with Europe. It is far from clear what he actually wants or indeed whether his proposals will require treaty change. David Cameron seems to be neither clear nor from yesterday in control. A word of warning. We should not cast the forthcoming negotiations between the UK and other member states in terms of there being winners and losers. The whole point about a more effective European Union is that everyone should gain from it. Compromise does not, in my view, mean concession. A second word is that we remain concerned about UK Government's rhetoric in some quarters, which creates the impression that EU membership is not beneficial at present and will only become beneficial if we achieve big enough reforms. That approach makes it harder to articulate the benefits that we already gain from membership. There is a real danger that the UK will focus the EU debate on a narrow agenda on the success or otherwise of the Prime Minister's negotiations, rather than on the bigger picture of the value and importance of the EU. Remember that it is the overall position that will be the decision on the ballot. We must conduct the debate of EU membership with a bigger picture in mind. In closing, I believe that the best way to tell the positive story of EU membership is to tell the individual stories of its people, the businesses and the sectors that benefit right now. I call on the members of this Parliament to help to make the positive case for EU membership to the Scottish people and to those throughout the islands. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Clare Baker to speak to and move amendment 13404.4. Clare Baker, nine minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be part of the debate this afternoon. It is not that long since we had a debate on Europe, but this one takes part in very different circumstances. We now have a majority Conservative Government and we will have an in-out EU referendum by the end of 2017. The UK Parliament is having the second reading of the bill today as we have this debate and I do accept this legislation to be passed and there needs to be debate to be had over the terms of that referendum, but we have a majority Conservative Government in the early days of its Government and they are in a position to decide the terms of this referendum. We support changing the UK franchise to provide votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. The school debates during the referendum that I took part in were some of the most informed and well-conducted debates and young people showed a real level of interest and knowledge that endorsed the decision to extend the franchise. We support the franchise reflecting the franchise for the Scottish Parliament, which would include EU citizens resident in the UK. Labour's amendment also raises concerns about the date of any referendum. The EU referendum should take place within its own space, but we cannot allow the debate of a process to dominate the public debate. The outcome of the referendum here in Scotland or anywhere else across the UK is not guaranteed. Those are the early days of the debate and those of us who support continued membership must convincingly win that argument. We cannot ignore that there are a range of views in Scotland. We do have a UKIP MEP elected to represent Scotland and there will be many who come to this debate with a fairly open mind looking to understand the arguments and be persuaded one way or the other. There is a long way to go with the electorate and it would be naive in Scotland to assume that we know the outcome. We cannot ignore that, although there are many positive reasons to remain in the EU, some of those are outlined by the Cabinet Secretary and by the First Minister in Brussels last week, and I will talk a bit more about those advantages this afternoon. There will be arguments across the political and social spectrum that the EU is not working for Scotland from concerns around business regulations to the campaign opposing TTIP and the political direction of the EU, and those concerns need to be addressed in the debate. The EU, as well as being a social, economic, cultural and educational union, is also a political animal. All parties who support continued membership are also talking about reform. I would argue that the EU needs to remain a member to achieve that reform. We are seeing huge economic challenges across Europe. We are seeing young people who are finding it difficult to find employment. We can see the social divide widening. Many economies are facing levels of poverty that they have not experienced for generations. From social problems, community tensions, pressure on public services and workers' rights through to rising concerns over tax avoidance and the implications of future trade deals. For too many people, Europe, the Parliament, the commission and the council of ministers do not look like it is adequately responding. Often it is bureaucratic, slow to respond, inflexible and driven from the centre, so greater effort must be made to reform the commission and its bureaucracy, the Parliament and its accountability, and the economic model of the eurozone, which for too many economies is imbalanced. However, that challenge can only be met from within, not by threats to leave. I would argue that the economic benefits of membership are hugely important to the Scottish economy. Across the UK, 200,000 companies direct the benefit from EU membership, while £200 billion of annual exports and £450 billion of inward investment are all tied to trade with our partners. Some 336,000 jobs are dependent on those relationships. In Scotland, we benefit from a single market of over 500 million consumers with Scottish exports to the UK, accounting for almost 50 per cent of total international exports. Our economy also benefits from freedom of movement and the EU members who choose to come and live and work in Scotland. Migration brings huge benefits to our country. Migrants contribute more to the economy than they use and many businesses I speak to in the food sector, the agricultural sector and the textile sector, as well as our health sector and services could not operate without employees from the EU member states. That is a fact of our economy and of who we are. However, the debate cannot be about the economy, it cannot just be about economics or politics. It also has to be about our role in the world. We are faced with a choice between working with other nations across Europe to tackle the big challenges of our age or cutting ourselves off from that world. It must be about hearts and minds. This is a social, cultural and educational union, too. Many of our environmental targets come from the EU, our biodiversity targets, air quality, water quality and we must do more to meet those targets. It is right to making efforts at a strategic EU level to make shared progress. The freedom of movement in Europe, which is one of the Eurosceptics drivers, works both ways. Thousands of British citizens live and work freely across the EU. We travel with no barriers across the EU. We are part of a European family and we are more connected than ever. The challenges of the modern world do not recognise borders, human trafficking, internet fraud, copyright crime. A few weeks ago, we held a debate on the Mediterranean crisis, a complex set of challenges that needs EU and international action. That situation is not isolated. That situation encapsulates the demands of our modern world. However, as part of the EU, we can influence decision making and help to find solutions to those challenges. We need to be part of the debate of moving a far-to-inward-looking, self-obsessed Europe into an outward-looking, globally orientated Europe. Crucially, so much of our progressive social policy originated in the EU, driving common standards for workers across the EU. We must argue for social solidarity and put this at the heart of the EU again. The EU can be an effective vehicle in advancing social conditions at work. Following campaigns by trade unions across Europe and MEPs, the EU brought in measures to give part-time and temporary workers the same rights as full-town workers as regards training, pensions, maternity rights and leave. It introduced EU-wide laws on working time and required for the first time a guaranteed right to paid holiday. Those were significant rights introduced by the EU at a time when it was perhaps easier to demonstrate to people how it benefits them. We are living in much more complex times and the EU must demonstrate that it can respond to the modern economy. I do not think that the result of this referendum is predetermined here in Scotland or anywhere else. The initial polling suggests a yes result, but there is a long way to go. We cannot be complacent about the result. It is important that we get a clear result with support from across the UK. Those of us who take a progressive approach towards UK continuing membership should emphasise the positive way forward. I am concerned that we have fallen to the trap of focusing too much on process and talking up voting divisions in which the polling suggests that they do not exist and that that runs the risk of siring the debate and creating false division and grievance. Let us not give the Eurosceptics or UKIP any sucker. We should be tackling this debate head on and building a consensus across the UK for a future in Europe. Instead of talking up the political consequences of a UK exit from the EU, those of us who support staying in the EU should concentrate all our efforts on making the case for it. If I am being generous, I understand the anxiety around a Conservative Government taking this referendum forward. I thought that the cabinet secretary's comments on what the Conservative agenda is compared to what other supporters of the EU is were a fair comment. I have plenty of disagreement with the Conservatives on their politics, and, on that issue, they have disagreements within their own Government, it appears. On 9 June 1975, after the result of the previous referendum, Mrs Thatcher said, one cannot let the occasion pass without paying tribute to Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, who were the original architects of what is now before us. I paraphrase slightly. I can always depend on Stuart Seaton's interesting intervention. I am not convinced by the introduction of a double majority as the way to resolve some of those issues. I will not deny that different results across the UK would be difficult, but let's be clear that the current public reaction does not suggest that this will happen, but a double majority is not a logical or credible solution. We recognise that this is a UK vote. We cannot wait votes depending on where you live in the UK. That would be undemocratic. Gordon Wilson pointed out last week that it would set presidents for any future referendums, and given the ambition of many in the SNP, you would think that that would be something that they would want to avoid. There are also legal concerns. The vote is of a member state, not individual parts of that state. This debate would be more productive if we emphasised where we have agreement, which is for the UK, to stay in the EU, working in the interests of Scotland and the UK. Let's not engineer a disagreement between Scotland, England and Wales, a situation that gave the Tories the keys to Dining Street and then missed the bigger prize. Presiding officers, a member of the EU, we have a voice on the world stage, which otherwise would be lost. Whether it is discussions about climate change or a relationship with bigger economies in the world, we have influence far greater than our size would suggest. In the 21st century, we live in a time that demands co-operation and partnerships, and the European Union is a positive force that we should remain part of. I move the amendment in my name. Deputy Presiding Officer, with your permission, can I briefly say a word about the tragic death of my fellow Highlander Charles Kennedy? His presence will be missed particularly in the forthcoming debates in Europe, because I am sure that Mr Kennedy would have relished the opportunity of speaking up for the UK's continued membership of the European Union in debates of this kind. There is a certain mischievous approach adopted by the Scottish Government's debate this afternoon. We all know that Westminster will ultimately decide the EU referendum bill, but the SNP is going to take every possible opportunity to use the European referendum debates to further their own agenda. That is an early warning of that. David Cameron made it quite clear in our 2015 manifesto that a future Conservative Government would bring forward a bill that would enable a referendum on Britain's future membership of the EU, and we now comfortably have that mandate from the British people. Our commitment to allowing citizens of the UK a say in a night referendum on Europe has never been stronger. Change is required, and I remind the Liberal Democrats that, not long ago, they actually pushed the case with more vigor than we did for a referendum on EU membership. Now we have the acting Labour leader Harriet Harman supporting the Conservative Government on having a referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017. Let's not forget that it was the SNP who wanted Britain out of the then European community in the 1970s, with many members campaigning against the EU membership right through the 80s and 90s. That was at the same time that the Conservative Government helped to create the single market under Mrs Thatcher, and later the major Government—that's John Major—successfully achieved the principle of subsidiarity, opting out of the excesses of the Maastricht Treaty. The Cabinet Secretary may remember that the EU concessions that had not joined the disastrous single currency or the social chapter were achieved by John Major's Conservative Government. I'm a committed supporter of the European Union, but I don't always see it through rose-tinted spectacles. There is much wastage and also erosion of national cultures and authority, which is counterproductive and unnecessary. Britain has always been an outward-looking nation. If other countries such as France, Germany and Belgium want a federal model in the shape of the Holy Roman Empire, I'll take an intervention. I couldn't help thinking, yes, Britain is an outward-looking country, or it was. If you look at the bill, the European Union referendum bill, it doesn't say that I'm allowed to vote. Mind, maybe the competent to the Prime Minister will have to be called in question, because in 21A it says that a person who, on the date of the referendum, will be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency. Does that mean that I'm allowed to vote because we are allowed to vote in parliamentary election in some constituency in Scotland? I'll give you some extra time, Mr MacGregor. Well, I don't know, actually. I have to say that I don't know if you'll be allowed to vote or not, and that's my honest answer. If other countries such as France, Germany and Belgium want a federal model in the shape of the Holy Roman Empire, so be it. What we want to do is ensure that the EU serves all member nations equally in achieving the objectives which can be agreed upon. We need a lighter and more flexible Europe, not one that smacks of authoritarianism. This is what the Prime Minister is fighting for, practical improvements for all EU member states, not just the UK. These are good intentions which should surely deserve support. The argument presented by the Scottish Government in their motion talks about the double-lock majority, suggesting that if one constituent part of the UK votes against leaving the EU, then this should not force either England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland to leave the European Union. But I failed to understand the logic in this, in that the other three constituent parts of the UK were given no say at all in the separatism agenda of the SNP in the other referendum. Is this not a palatable sign of this Government's inconsistency? And I think Neil Finlay's point in his intervention deserves scrutiny rather than just a brush off. I see all the benefits of the UK remaining a member of the EU, and as a member of the European external relations committee, I've consistently argued that reform of the European Union is required. And as the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, said at the weekend, what we are simply calling for is a fairer deal for Britain. And I'm sure that definitely includes Scotland and, for my own part, the Highlands and Islands desperately needing EU investment as other nations enjoy. David Cameron has yet to set out the specific details of what changes we want to see, but clearly these would include opting out of an ever closer EU, some form of adjusting the benefits for EU migrants and giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation, which could have a negative effect on Britain. This should not be a divisive debate. Questioning our relationship with Europe is not unnatural, as all relationships need questioning from time to time, but to do it in this manner is simply unhelpful. Our Prime Minister will set out programmes of negotiations with our European partners to create not just a better deal for Scotland and other parts of the UK, but also for the EU in general. We intend to make Europe work better, so why doesn't the Scottish Government get behind us, provide support and help us to deliver a better deal for Scotland? I move the amendment in the name of Alex Johnston. I now call on Willie Rennie to speak to you and move amendment 13404.1, Mr Rennie, six minutes please. I move the amendment in my name. Our country makes, I think, the biggest impression on the globe when we are open, positive, diplomatic and generous. Of course, there have been periods in our history that we would prefer to consign to that past and forget about, but we should be proud of what Britain does and what Britain does best when we seek partnership rather than difference. As a Liberal, I am an internationalist with a hunger to share with others the opportunities and the challenges that this world presents to us. That is why I am pro-European. We should not forget that, out of the ruins of war, came one of the most powerful global institutions to spread peace, the European Union. It may seem a rather grandiose claim to talk about peace and the European Union, but we should remember that you do not secure peace just by securing and procuring more missiles, more tanks or more fighter jets, but you secure the more fundamental aspects of life. With the wellbeing and sharing of the environment, economy and resources come the wellbeing, I think, of everyone—free markets, common social and employment standards, protection of our environment and shared diplomatic endeavours and functions, are functions that I value of the European Union and I think help to deeply underpin the security and progress of all our wellbeing. Neil Findlay. Can I ask him to reflect on his comments there and how those values have affected the people of Greece at the moment? When we are trying to create that single market, when we are trying to force economies together with one single currency that has flaws, we need to work together. By keeping Greece in the European Union, it will benefit all of us. We need to get through this difficult period, but by simply claiming that Greece should exit the European Union, I do not think that it resolves any of those problems. I think that Neil Findlay would hopefully agree with that as well. Of course, sharing such functions is not possible to demand it all be conducted in a fashion that we would deliver if we had full and sole control, but the sacrifices and compromises that we make through pooled sovereignty brings greater advances. We have all got our own numbers. One in 10 jobs in the UK is linked to the EU's single market, and nearly half of British trade is worth around £500 billion, is with EU member states. We are talking about 300,000 Scottish jobs linked to EU exports, £1.9 billion to £3.8 billion, better off as Scotland as a result of being part of Europe. We can all get swamped in those numbers and competing statistics. I prefer simply to rely on the concept of internationalism, co-operation and solidarity. I think that it is a state of mind and something that we should adhere to in this chamber. I thank Jamie McGregor for his remarks about Charles Kennedy. I think that the campaign that I would argue that we should be conducting about the European Union is something that I know Charles Kennedy would also adopt as well, and I am sure that he would have been a leading member of that EU referendum campaign. I think that he would be a proud member of that, and I would be proud that he would be taking part in that campaign. Charles Kennedy also had the ability to see the big picture, and that is where my plea comes into the SNP. I have just got a slight request for the SNP to try and see that bigger picture and that bigger cause that I think we are all striving towards. On Sunday morning, when the sun was shining through the curtains of my bedroom, I got up at five o'clock. I had a choice. I could either go back to sleep or I could go out for a morning run. I decided to put my fell shoes on. I drove up to Glendaven, and with the early morning sun shining on my back, I had a splendid few hours run up the local hills looking down over the fourth valley. I find no greater pleasure in doing such a thing on a Sunday morning, but I have to tell you that when I regale the tales of my times on the hills to my friends and family, I can see their eyes glazing over after a certain amount of time. I have to accept that the world does not revolve around my appreciation of the hills. There are parallels for the SNP as well. Appreciation of Europe perhaps? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for that wit. There are parallels for the SNP, because I think that the issue of independence was resolved last year. The world does not revolve around the SNP's ambition for independence. I would suggest that the double lock proposal from the SNP is simply another means to advance that ambition. That debate was last year. We need to move on. We all need to put our shoulder to the wheel to win the campaign. Pro-Europeans will never forgive the SNP if they demote too much effort to highlight the divisions within the United Kingdom and insufficient effort to the greater goal of membership of the European Union. Instead of fretting about a double lock or double majority in the EU referendum, the SNP members should embrace the positive campaign to keep the whole of the UK inside the European Union. At the heart of the SNP's double lock proposal, there is defeatism and pessimism that I reject. There is an acceptance from them that the UK will choose to leave the European Union and that therefore there must be some kind of protection for Scotland from that fate. It is that pessimism that is potentially damaging to the wider movement and one that they should desist from making. We now move to open debate. Five-minute speeches call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The debate about the UK's membership of Europe is in the main. I quote, A tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. There is a lot of noise and not a lot of factual analysis. Macbeth, obviously, being a Scot, wasn't referring to Europe, of course, but he might well have been. The salient lesson for us in this debate is that this debate is about so much more than ambiguous facts or unfacts about welfare and migration. It is our job to make sure that the real debate takes place against this nasty right-wing rhetoric. Our right is one of the family of nations so often referred to by David Cameron means, according to him, that Scotland is an equal partner. It does not seem much like it. Alongside Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland's voters have and must have the right to stop the UK's withdrawal if the electorate here rejects it. That is not pessimistic, that is equal partnership. Our membership of the EU brings enormous benefits and around 300,000 jobs, as well as important investment, as well as that fundamental freedom to travel, to study, to live and work anywhere in Europe. We want to work from within the EU. We do not want to be forced out by a right-wing UK-UKIP-friendly Westminster Government. We know that Europe is where we need to be, not just for trade but for free movement of people, for our own human protections and for the great cultural melting pot that this block of 28 nations each with its own unique background history brings us. Around 171,000 people from elsewhere in the European Union live and work in Scotland. Although they are, by definition, EU citizens, they are to be denied a vote in this referendum. Even though they are paying their UK taxes, contributing to the economy and utilising their right to live here, they are to be excluded from voting, as they also were in the Westminster elections. Some people argue that it is up to Westminster to decide to franchise, but that is only if the franchise does not discriminate and does not fly in the face of everything that I see as democracy, because that is exactly what it does. I find it incomprehensible that citizens of the Commonwealth countries in Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Cyprus and Maldon, who all live in the UK, should be allowed to vote whilst their EU neighbours are denied that democracy. The whole picture for me is illogical, it is insulting and looks rather like gerrymandering the result. Those who live and work here, whether in the EU, wherever in the EU they happen to come from, might be considered to be a little more likely to vote to stay than some Tory Eurosceptics, creating an electorate that tallys with their desired outcome is not part of modern-day democracy, which brings me to another crucial point about our electorate, our young people, between the ages of 16 having known no existence other than being in the EU. Some of the comments that I have heard today from Westminster at the best ill-informed and at the worst just down right offensive. Can I at this juncture commend all members in this place and Westminster to commend them and the Scottish Youth Parliament, who are here in this building this week with their stall? You should go and speak to them and youth parliaments across these islands for their campaign at votes at 16. Dr Winnie Ewing in 1967, and we are made in speech, spoke up for votes at 16. This is not a new argument, but some of the arguments being used in Westminster today are old arguments. The youngest of those young people born in 1999, 25 years after the UK signed the Treaty of Rome, they are not familiar with living in the British Empire or Commonwealth. They have generally an assumption of their rights of protection, as was rightly stated by the EU, so they take them for granted and rightly so. Why would anyone feel that they need to question their right to an education, a safe place to live, not to be abused or trafficked, not to be raped or beaten up to have access to a fair working week and a reasonable standard of living? Scotland's young people voted in our recent referendum, some voted against independence and many voted in favour. They voted because we in this Scottish Parliament believed in their fundamental right to do so. Those are the people who will be responsible for our future and indeed for paying our pensions through their taxes to deny them the opportunity of contributing a view of Scotland's place in Europe, to remove a fundamental human right that will impact on all of their futures. Can I remind all of us that those young people, those groups of young people, are the future MPs and MSPs that we will have to answer to? Thank you. Thank you so much. I now call on Malcolm Tism to be followed by Stuart Maxx, who will very tight the time. I tend to agree with the Guardian editorial this morning when it suggested that the referendum was another chapter in the destructive conservative psychodrama over Europe. However, other parties cannot afford to be too high and mighty on this issue. The Labour Party famously held a referendum 40 years ago because of divisions in the Labour Party, and I was pleased to vote yes in that referendum, as I shall again this time. Even more bizarrely, and most people forget this, the SNP supported a referendum in 2007. Bizarrely, I would say, because of one line in the Lisbon treaty about the conservation of marine biological resources, which had always, in fact, been part of the original European treaty. However, let's forget about those issues from the past today as a day when I'm substantially in agreement with the SNP. Apart from the issue of a double majority, not least because it's just simply not going to happen. Instead, I'd recommend a paper to the SNP from Sinead Douglas Scott of Oxford University, who has argued that if there is a no vote it will be necessary to amend relevant parts of devolution legislation via a legislative consent motion. We all know that that is going to be enshrined in the new Scotland act as something that is mandatory. The part of the Scotland act, of course, which is relevant, is clause 292d, which says that laws in this Parliament must not be incompatible with any of convention rights or community law. I think that it might be more worthwhile for the SNP to pursue that route rather than a double majority. I agree with the SNP in my party about voting for 16 and 17-year-olds, which was well rehearsed in a debate a couple of weeks ago. I agree with much of what the First Minister said in her speech about Europe last week, including, for example, in more freedom in relation to public health measures. I agree with what Kezia Dugdale said a few days ago that EU citizens should have the right to vote in this referendum. We need to say over and over again how much we value the contribution of EU citizens to this country during the course of this century and before, but, of course, it is this century that they have come in larger numbers. 170,000 people, some of the best people I know, are from the European Union. I won't name them personally to spare them embarrassment. We should remember what Fiona Hyslop said about the paper from University College London. I would like to read extracts, but, because of the shortened speeches, I cannot. The title is, Positive Economic Impact of UKI Immigration from the European Union, New Evidence 5 November 2014. Everybody should read that when we hear the myth. The only thing that I would say is that, of course, if there is undercutting of the minimum wage or other employment conditions, that has—if European citizens are used to do that. Obviously, we must make sure that the law is enforced. There must be no undercutting, but that, of course, is the fault of employers not of European citizens themselves. As Fiona Hyslop, as the cabinet secretary, said, we need to focus in this in the next few weeks, in the next few months, on the big picture and the current benefits of being a member of the European Union and not become obsessed with the changes that possibly are not going to be all that major which will cause problems in the Conservative party. The economic arguments are clear. Half of UK exports to are to the European Union and the largest single market in the world. If we leave the implications for jobs and foreign direct investment, we do not always agree with the direction of economic policy in Europe. Labour, in the recent election, said, that we will work to focus the EU on jobs and growth. I am sure that we all agree with that. Labour is also, of course, contrary to the line that was taken by Jamie MacGregor. We were proud to sign the social chapter in 1997. We could list many things that have sprung from that. The 48-hour maximum week, minimum annual leave, extended maternity leave, new rights to request, flexible working, holiday pay, same rights for part-time and full-time workers, et cetera. Environmental progress has resulted from Europe massive reductions in SO2 emissions, basic rules on cleanliness of beaches and now concerted action on climate change. We could go on. Consumer rights, the EU laws provide for the refund and other remedies for consumers in cases involving detective products. Structural funds, mentioned by the cabinet secretary, are €985 million and one by Scottish University funding €570 million. Other figures could be given. In fact, talking about research, we have that whole issue of research collaboration, which featured in a recent debate that I talked about research collaboration on renewable energy. I could have been many subjects. The EU arrests weren't making it easy to return fugitives for a trial. Of course, our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights. Many, many positive arguments for Europe, but at the end of the day, let's also put some emotion into this. This is an emotional case for Europe. Remember the origins of the European community after the war to stop any future wars in Europe. Many Conservatives, of course, were fully signed up for that at the time. Let's put forward a positive and emotional case for Europe and enjoy doing so over the next few months. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in today's important debate on the forthcoming EU referendum. It is now, of course, 40 years since the UK voted in favour of continuing its membership of the European community when more than 17 million voters across the UK said yes to Europe. Like many in the chamber, I was too young back then to participate in what was the first of a referendum to be held across all four nations of the UK, but I am grateful that the voters made a positive choice to remain part of the common market. I believe that Scotland in the UK has benefited greatly from its membership of the EU over the intervening 40 years. More recently, I am proud to have been part of the yes campaign, arguing in favour of Scotland's independence. Although I am disappointed, of course, by the outcome, I felt privileged to have been part of a campaign that energised Scottish voters like never before. With the eyes of the world on Scotland, we held a democratic debate that resulted in an unprecedented level of voter engagement. I hope that we can build on that in the coming months as the EU referendum campaign gathers momentum. I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that it is an emotional debate that should inspire passion in all of us. I certainly look forward to that debate. The UK Government has now published its bill on the European Union referendum and I am extremely disappointed, I am sure, like many others, to note that the proposed franchise does not include a vote for 16 and 17 year olds. As a member of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, much of our work has focused on the success of 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote in the independence referendum. Whether campaigning for yes or for no, young people in colleges and schools at work led the way in debating the big issues on independence in an intelligent and civilised manner. It was inspiring to see the energy and the passion with which many of Scotland's young people articulated their views throughout the campaign. We are using the powers of this Parliament to bring forward proposals to lower the voting age for all future elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authority elections. Sorry, I do not have time in the five minutes, which I know has cross-party support. The case for entrusting 16 and 17 year olds with a vote in the EU referendum is overwhelming. To deny our young people a say that it is undemocratic and I urge Opposition MSPs to lobby their colleagues at Westminster to support the SNP amendments to ensure that 16 and 17 year olds are able to take part in the EU referendum vote. I watched with interest last week when the First Minister spoke so passionately in support of the European Union at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. The First Minister rightly highlighted the EU's considerable achievements over the past 60 years, in particular the role that it has had to play in promoting peace, reconciliation and democracy across Europe. Economic arguments are often the focus of the EU question, but the award in 2012 of the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU perhaps demonstrates its most important achievement. On presenting the award, the Norwegian Nobel Committee highlighted the stabilising role that the EU has played in transforming most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace. Helping to facilitate peace and reconciliation in post-war Europe is something of true worth. As others have said, it is estimated that more than 170,000 people born elsewhere in the EU now call Scotland home. Like others, I have grown concerned about the apparent demonisation of EU migrants from certain sections of the media. Indeed, evidence shows that EU migrants bring significant economic and social benefits to our communities. With a study by the University of College London finding that skilled EU migrants have provided an extra £20 billion to the UK economy over the past decade by paying more in taxes than they take in benefits. Some people forget that we are all able to benefit from the right to free movement within the EU, which has enabled thousands of Scots to travel and make new lives for themselves in countries all across Europe. You would think that, listening to Eurosceptics, that it is all one-way traffic, but you only have to travel in France, Spain or Italy, not to mention other European countries, to find many people from the UK who have settled there quite happily. There are considerable advantages to membership of the EU, but that is not to say that the European Union is not without its flaws. Reform is needed, though I believe that significant improvements can be made within the existing treaty framework. It is only by being a constructive member of the EU that we can successfully influence its legislation and its policies. My experience as one of the Parliament's representatives on the EU Committee of the Regions has led me to conclude that more needs to be done to give the Scottish Parliament and regional parliaments in Europe a greater voice in the EU decision making process. Scotland is active at the EU level, of course, but it cannot exercise full influence in the council. To conclude, the EU certainly has its challenges to face. Reform is needed, but I believe strongly that Scotland's interests are best said by working constructively with our partners and allies within the EU, rather than being on the periphery. Others have spoken of the importance of the double-majority safeguard to ensure that Scotland or any other nation of the UK cannot be enforced out of the EU against its will. As a multinational state, such a scenario is not unforeseeable and would undoubtedly have major constitutional implications. If those advocating withdrawal from the EU are so confident in their arguments, then they should have nothing to fear from putting in place this democratic safeguard. Indeed, they should embrace it wholeheartedly. Thank you very much. And just over four decades ago had my first ever vote in a referendum when I voted yes to staying in the European Economic Community. Britain's relationship with Europe has provided some rough sailing for political parties and leaders, even for renowned yachtsman Ted Heath, who navigated the UK into the common market in 1973. French President de Gaulle had rebuffed Britain on several previous occasions and informed a powerful alliance with Germany, and Stuart Stevenson is quite right to point out the contribution that Churchill made post-war as leader of the opposition to make sure that there was a wider voice for Europeans and Britain within Europe. The referendum in 1975 was a clear victory for a continued membership, with 67 per cent of the vote saying yes. But, Presiding Officer, this was not a cosy campaign to run for the Prime Minister at the time, Harold Wilson, who had agreed that his cabinet members were free from ministerial collective responsibility, and left-wing Firebrand Tony Ben was a leading light in the no campaign. Perhaps the Wilson Darius should be required reading for the current Prime Minister, David Cameron. Of course, John Major's election victory surprised many commentators, but the period of his time as leader was characterised by well-organised guerrilla tactics for the significant group of Eurosceptics who opposed the Maastricht agreement, and that, along with Black Wednesday, was undoubtedly a factor in Labour's landslide victory in 1997. However, this afternoon, Presiding Officer, I welcome this debate, and I support the thrust of the cabinet secretary's motion, and I welcome and endorse 16 and 17-year-olds and, of course, all EU citizens having a vote. I want to touch very briefly and in a stricty time I have about a case study of how the EU works in practice to benefit Scotland generally, and my region, Highlands and Islands specifically, that is the economic and social benefits of EU structural funds. I could have focused on other benefits of membership, energy security, international trade or social protection for workers. Additionally, I could have focused on the benefits for business as the EU provides the market for almost half of our international exports, which supports more than three 100,000 jobs in Scotland. Structural funds have been vital for the hands and islands in my region. The current programme, we have got around 192 million euros out of the 985 million for the whole of Scotland. This is not a paternalistic stop from bureaucrats, but a crucial economic lever to make sure that our region and my region are up to the EU average. It provides planning and economic opportunities to exploit emerging sectors such as life sciences, renewable energy and the creative industries. The transition region status helps my region, as Jimmy McGregor pointed out, to overcome natural handicaps and allow Highlands and Islands to work with the rest of Scotland in contributing to the EU 2020 goals of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth within the UK economy. Just for the record, I am not claiming, as other members have mentioned, that the EU is perfect. We of course need to look at reform, but I believe that it is possible to do it within the treaty framework rather than treaty change. Very briefly, there are two areas that we need to look at. I believe that the EU should focus on economic and social policies that make a real difference to ordinary hard-working families. Secondly, regulatory reform is crucial. For example, in the common fisheries policy, we need more decisions at regional level. The key principles need to be proportionality and subsidiarity. I would like to focus on the issue of EU migrants and access to the welfare system. As Daniel Keneally of Henry Rivesy said in evidence to the European Industrial Relations Committee this month, this is a crucial issue for the UK Government. The quote from him was, everything else is garnish. He makes a sound argument with the following points. Most migrants in the UK come from outside the EU, and it is a two-way street. Of course, many UK citizens live and work across the EU, and EU migrants contribute more to the UK economy in taxes than they take out. Perhaps in the winding up, the cabinet secretary could look at the Labour and Lib Dem initiative about fresh talent working in the Scotland scheme. Does the cabinet secretary have any plans to reintroduce this, or could perhaps give us the status that it is currently at? I am very conscious of time, but I believe that the referendum on the future of EU membership in 2017, or whenever it is going to be, is yet another crucial milestone on the rocky road that has characterised this debate over the last 10 years and beyond. No-one arguing that the EU is perfect or beyond reform, but I believe that it is a force for good for jobs, services and workers' rights, and let us avoid all costs and retreat to the margins and wastelands that is withdrawal. 40 years ago Scotland and indeed the UK had just experienced the first EU referendum at a time when the governing party was divided over the issue, and after the nature of the negotiations being carried out by the Government to the day were not entirely clear, so no change there. Of course, much has changed. A Europe of nine member states has become one of 28. Scotland more Eurosceptic about Europe then than the rest of the UK, and it is now the reverse. Of course, my own party has now fully embraced the European Union, recognising its importance to Scotland. Finally, of course, in contrast to the 1975 Government, Government ministers were not to be free to campaign on either side, or at least that seemed to be the position until last night. Whatever the merits of another referendum, we are now likely to have one. It seems appropriate, therefore, to try and make this referendum something that the public can engage in as fully as the Scottish referendum. That surely ought to mean not only votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, but for those EU citizens not just from Cyprus, Malta and Ireland, but also for those from other European states whose citizens live amongst us. One of the ironies of this debate is that at the same time as the Westminster Government is saying no to votes for colleagues such as Christian Allard, it is proposing legislation known as the Votes for Life Bill to extend the franchise to UK citizens who have not lived in the UK for 15 years or more. Whatever their historic ties to the UK, it cannot be said to be like they are likely to be directly affected in the same way that Mr Allard will be affected if a decision were taken by the UK to pull out of the EU. Yes, I know that this legislation will not impact on the referendum if passed, but it does, I believe, suggest a direction of travel for this Government. The Scottish Government, of course, has proposed the double lock so that Scotland cannot be pulled out of Europe against her will. The United Kingdom, of course, has no written constitution, but states that do have a written constitution—Canada, for example—in Canada, all federal states must agree to a proposal in relation to the monarchy, so such protection for constituent parts is not unknown. I am heartened that the SNP amendment at Westminster today has support from both Wales and Northern Ireland. For Scotland, the EU is important. In 2013, it was the destination for 46 per cent of Scotland's total exports, and on 300,000 jobs depend on it. Yes, there are frustrations with the EU. Yes, it needs reform. Subsidiarity and proportionality need to be given much greater respect. The importance given to subsidiarity in the Lisbon treaty needs to be adhered to. Yes, red tape should be reduced. Yes, we need clarification on how the relationship between countries within the Eurozone and those outside should work to ensure that the interests of those outside are fully protected. However, wanting to reform from within is surely a more credible position than to be perceived as negotiating from within with one hand on the exit door. Last week, we heard evidence from the European and External Affairs Committee that negotiations may not be straightforward. Professor Keating of the University of Aberdeen and Economic and Social Research Council Centre on Constitutional Change said in relation to welfare benefits, quote, if Britain starts trying to restrict things, there will certainly be reciprocal action against British citizens elsewhere. Dr Daniel Keneally of the University of Edinburgh Academy of Governments said, if there is a dialogue between the UK and Europe about reforming the European Union for the benefit of everybody, the public may have more of an appetite for a longer debate as opposed to what would happen if the debate is presented as a battle with Europe. A battle with Europe might suit some on the Tory right, but I would question whether that will ultimately benefit the United Kingdom. Of course, we do need to ensure that this debate extends beyond the issue of whether removing in-work benefits will require treaty change, to a wider debate of what Europe is for and what kind of Europe we want. Do we want to see a UK that turns its back on fellow Europeans to refuse to provide financial assistance to Greece, Spain and Portugal as John Redwood and the Tory right believe? Do we want a UK that turns its back on the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean or one that recognises that this is not just a problem for Italy or Malta or Greece but for Europe as a whole? Do we want a UK that wants to roll back its employment and social protection, that seeks to protect the city and its financial services industry but is reluctant to curb its bankers bonuses? This is a Government that talks tough on Europe but whose actions indicate that it does not understand Europe fully. A balance of competence review was started in 2012 by the Tory and Liberal coalition, a review of what the EU does and how it affects us in the UK, it was stated, seeking to inform debate but not to draw conclusions. It was concluded in December 2014 and in March this year the House of Lords EU committee said it had made no impact on the public debate on the UK-EU relationship. As Professor Keating said in evidence last week, the review has not found any complexes that could be appropriately repatriated to the UK. In conclusion, last week in Brussels, the First Minister said that Scotland had much to offer Europe but much to learn. I hope that the UK Government will heed those words. The alternative, fortress Britannia, is not a prospect that I for one would welcome. Thank you very much, and you won't be surprised that I would be all of course going on the side of the Scottish Government tonight and particularly that I do feel being isolated with that legislation coming forward. But I'm not alone, I have a lot of EU citizens living in Scotland and living in the UK, so I do feel that we have not seen the hand of it yet. I think the franchise which was designed by the Conservative Party will be challenged and it will be challenged not only at Westminster, not only in this Parliament, but it will be challenged outside and so it should be. Because at the end of the day we need to send a strong message from this chamber today, a message of solidarity to Amman's UK Government's referendum bill. A lot of my colleagues use quotations. I might use one of them. A lot of my constituents, a lot of people in the North East, are quite surprised when they know that I won't have a vote as a stand in the referendum to take us out of the EU. But one particularly made a certain comment, one from Ablunish Aist. He said today, I believe, he said this morning, I go to Christian Allard wherever I have difficulties in my constituency and is not easy to be denied a vote. Of course it's our former First Minister, Alex Salman, and it's not the first time that he's been talking about it in the House of Commons and he's not the only one doing it. It's very, very important to understand that it's not only about EU nationals resident in the UK, but it's also about 16 and 17 years old. We should all be included in the franchiser. Imagine, imagine when the referendum will take place. Imagine on polling day, people like myself, young people, 16 and 17 years old, we will go to the polling station, if you don't heard about the franchiser, they will stand in front of the table where we will see a list and on that list the name will be there because of course they are allowed to vote in other elections, but they will be denied a vote. That shouldn't be so, that shouldn't be right. I voted, my first vote in the referendum was in 1997 for this parliament. Then thereafter, I voted in every Scottish election. I voted particularly in every European election and I voted of course last year. So it's not a question of being denied a vote that we never had before. It's a question of being denied a vote that we have enjoyed. As much as I've spent all my entire life here and I've been living and I've been working, but more importantly I've been voting in Scotland and this is important to realise. Same thing for 16 and 17 years old. They voted for the first time last year. Now in this parliament, when we decided they'd re-vote in every Scottish parliamentary election. It's very, very important, Presiding Officer, that we keep them engaged and we keep them locked in and making sure that they get engaged in the democratic process. But there's no point asking somebody to go to a polling station one day and another day not to go. They all went, we all went voting last year. We couldn't vote in general election. We're going to vote in 2016 in the Scottish election. When a haves referendum happens in 2017, we won't be allowed to vote. This doesn't make sense at all in the 21st century modern Scotland. And it's a question of respect and of course I absolutely agree with the Scottish government about the double majority closed. We need this to assure that no nation of the UK will be pulled out of the European Union against this democratic will. We heard about family of nations, Christina McElvie reminded us of this and it's about EU citizenship as well. And it's about respect not only to this nation Scotland but respect to our EU partners as well. We don't know what we're going to vote on. We don't know if I'm going to vote to vote but we don't know what we're going to vote on. Negotiation has not happened. We don't know what is going to be the agenda. I feel for the people who are going to be allowed to vote, who are going to think about it the year is coming because we have no idea what we're going to vote on and it's about democracy, it's about inclusion and it's about respect. So I'm kind of a voice and I can understand that a lot of EU nationals, 90,000 in Scotland and even the 1.5 million across the UK, I've seen myself as a voice for them, for the disenfranchised. And a lot of petition online I will encourage members to go enjoy them. But the last thing I would say it's about what I said earlier on about the bill. It's not sure yet on 21A if we are allowed to vote or not. I think there is a misunderstanding there. It's no minister's understanding on 21B. It appears that I'm not allowed to vote but the members of the House of Lords are allowed to vote. I will leave you on this archaic and absolutely undemocratic way of saying how we should conduct ourselves in the 21st century. 1 November 2013, I was pleased to have the opportunity to lodge a motion before Parliament noting the 20th anniversary of the formal establishment of the European Union and its current guys. In the nearly 22 years that I've followed the establishment, the EU has not got everything right, but I believe few in this chamber would argue that we are anything but better off for it. I know that I can go anywhere within the Central Scotland region and it won't take me long to find projects in the communities that EU funding has helped. That's why I would like to thank the cabinet secretary and the Government for bringing forward this debate to allow us to discuss the merits of our continued membership of the European Union. Free movement of trade has enhanced our society and enriched our culture as well as our exports. Free movement of labour is often chastised by politicians and political commentators alike, but, as a MacMannan, it would be sheer hypocrisy to come before you today with anything but praise for it and the contribution that European magnets have made to Scotland. It was a great Scotland European Robin Cook MP who was the first Labour foreign secretary for 18 years and opted into the European Union's social chapter. It was one of the first decisions taken by the last Labour Government. It was also one of the most important. Older or more experienced colleagues may recall that the social chapter was described by none other than the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1990 as a throwback to a Marxist period, a class struggle period. Those of us who value the contributions of trade unions ought to be concerned about the plans that her ideological successors have for the chapter on workers' rights. The Ardechensian proposals for strike ballots suggest that they will not miss an opportunity to target the Labour movement. It is very important that they remain vigilant to the danger of carbon and coal negotiating away any hard-born rights that they can. We cannot allow the rollback of health and safety at work laws to be painted as a victory for Britain. If they tried to take Britain out of the EU-wide laws on working time, it is our responsibility to inform the public that the European laws limit the amount of time that they can be obligated to work by their employer to 48 hours a week and guarantee the right to a paid holiday. Employees whose companies change hands automatically retain the same conditions that they had with their previous employers, whereas those in large companies are granted a voice in the workplace through the European Works Council. The gains of the trade union movement throughout Europe enacted in law in the much of the EU's social agenda allows our workers to be more secure in their jobs. The values that they espouse in the rights that they create are incompatible to the agenda of the Conservative Government, a Government that, even when constrained by the Liberal Democrats, enacted charges against employees who are trying to take their employers to work tribunals and encourage workers to sell their Labour rights for shares. I welcome the pro-European tone of the cabinet secretary and many of those who have spoken today, but I must suggest that they ought to tread carefully with some of their statements not to inflame anti-EU rhetoric. When I say this, I'm thinking particularly of their justification for voting against Labour amendments to force private companies working on public sector contracts to pay their staff the living wage. It was only a few weeks ago that the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland that it was European law that meant that her party could not support Scottish Labour proposals in the procurement reform act last year. At the time, multislisters Thomson submitted a report to Parliament stating how enshrining the living wage and procurement reform was possible. Drudunious Dave Mockson and Dave Watson, whom I'm sure are respected across the chamber, have written about how our Parliament could enact such legislation if the will was there. If that wasn't enough, the First Minister's claim was already dismissed by the EU themselves when the previous First Minister made it. The EU referendum is an opportunity to have a debate about our rights, about jobs and Scotland's place in the world. It's not an opportunity for political parties to try and justify their past mistakes. The EU didn't force the Government to vote down the living wage. In the run-up to the referendum, there will be enough people willing to throw stones at the EU and do down the very real contributions that the EU makes to our daily lives. It's so important that those of us who consider ourselves pro-European lie around organisations and do not pass the blame on to the EU to make our own political lives that bit easier. It's important that we recognise that Europe does not curtail the legislative ambitions of individual member states, but rather sets a minimum standard for others to follow. That is particularly true when considering the impact of European legislation on the rights of female workers. The EU ensures that its members must give both parents the right to time off when a child is born or indeed adopted. EU laws reverse the burden of proof and discrimination cases and give part-time and temporary workers the same legal rights as full-time workers with respect to leave, maternity rights, pensions and training. I'm very pleased by the broad consensus in favour of our continued membership of the European Union and look forward to campaigning with colleagues to not only retain our membership of the organisation but the benefit workers in Scotland get from it. Many thanks and I now call Willie Coffey to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. Scotland has a long, historic and independent connection with Europe that predates the union with England and it's still going strong. Indeed, the alliance with France up to 1560 lasted nearly 200 years. Our universities have always had close ties with Europe and our people have settled there long before there was a European Union. Currently, over 300,000 Scottish jobs depend on our membership of the single market, the biggest in the world with its 500 million citizens. Our task as Scottish parliamentarians is to protect and nurture that legacy and not to allow our country's aspirations to be limited by or to be dictated to by the negative anti-European agenda that has brought this referendum to the table. That's why it's crucial that the UK negotiating position must be representative of the whole of the UK and not just the fears of the Tory party in England. We're told we are a family of nations, so the UK must respect that and seek to deliver positive changes that address particular circumstances important to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as for England. Our contributor to the European Committee, Dr Eve Hepburn, from Edinburgh University, warned us that it appears that the interests of the devolved administrations have been overlooked in the case of the UK's current efforts to renegotiate the UK's terms of agreement, despite the impact that this will undoubtedly have on their interests and competencies. We can't allow that to happen and the joint ministerial committee in Europe surely can't continue to meet simply to listen to the devolved administrations issues and then ignore them. It has to form a genuine UK position that reflects all of our interests. Perhaps a way of bringing this about might be in the Scottish Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations meeting to find some common ground in which to negotiate. I'm sure that our Scottish Government will be keen to take that forward. On the question of the double majority, why is it that Scotland and Wales's position in this is supported by the Welsh Labour First Minister, but Scottish Labour can't even bring themselves to support their own country's interests? If England votes to leave the EU—I hold it, I've got to get five minutes, thank you—if England votes to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay in, Scottish Labour is happy to see Scotland dragged out of Europe and the consequent disastrous impact that this would have on Scottish jobs. In any case, the double majority idea provides the UK with the opportunity to really demonstrate that it meant what it said by its family of nations sermon. When you think of it, it actually provides the Prime Minister with a valuable insurance policy if he can't persuade the voters in England to stay in. This can't be a vote to be determined by the larger nations voter numbers. All of the nations must have an equal voice, otherwise there is no union. Our regular and welcome contributor to the European Committee, Dr Dan Canilley, described the issue of EU migrants to the UK as being the set piece of the negotiating drama. I think that it was mentioned by Mr Stewart, who has left the chamber for the moment, and that everything else in the debate was just a little garnish. Voters, particularly in England, need to know that migration is a two-way relationship, that most migrants to the UK come from outside the European Union and that EU migrants contribute more to the UK economy and taxes than they take out. Dr Canilley went on to remind us that the European Court of Justice has made it clear that anyone moving to another country simply to claim benefits is not entitled to do so, so it would be ridiculous if people, particularly in England, voted to leave the EU because they objected to EU migrants coming to live in England to work or look for work or to study. All of the parties must be clear on that and make sure that people have the facts. The UK Government's aims in this area, he said, would require the UK to amend or secure anoptout from EU directives concerning free movement and social security systems, but all of those carry risks that any changes could fall foul of the Court of Justice. That takes us more towards treaty reform as a means of securing any changes from interference from the court, but we know that there is no appetite for that, particularly when Mr Yunca has expressly ruled that out as far as free movement issues are concerned. There is no time to affect treaty changes anyway, not to mention the referendums that would be required in other member states. Where do we go from here? As our other guest at the European Committee, David Frost, a former diplomat with considerable experience said, we might be heading for a classic Eurofudge. The EU, appearing to concede or willing to offer major reforms down the line and Mr Cameron trumpeting those as sufficient gains to enable them to recommend a yes vote. Meanwhile, Scotland Wales in Northern Ireland's interests being sidelined because of a Eurofudge to save the skin of the Tories doesn't sound like me to be a recipe to keep the union ticking over. Scotland's interests must be protected and Scottish MSPs must stand up for Scotland if England votes no. Thank you, now called Patrick Harvie to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like others, I have to admit that I wasn't a wild enthusiast for the idea of a referendum on European Union membership, but I acknowledge it as a reality. Malcolm Chisholm described it as perhaps reminiscent of the destructive psychodrama within the Conservative Party. I suppose that we can only hope, but let's not be complacent that that will be the consequence. Greens during the campaign and then the run-up to it will make a case for membership of the European Union. Greens throughout these islands will make that case, but it will be a distinctive case. It will be one very different, I think, from the case that Mr Cameron makes if he does manage to come back from the European Union with a package of pro-free market, pro-big business reforms. He will be setting out a very different kind of Europe than the one that I wish to live in. There is a great deal to be proud of about the social and environmental protections that have been achieved across the European Union, but those are precisely the kind of regulations that many on the Conservative right wish to ditch. They want a Europe of free markets. I want a Europe of social and environmental protection. While we will make a case for membership, we have a much deeper case to continue to win on progressive economics within the European Union, on protection of human rights and a humane society, on opposing the idea that free markets should be a policy priority for the European Union, but people should not be free. People should be subjected to humiliating welfare policies designed to remove people's ability to decide where they want to move. The idea that capital is freer than people in a European Union is a recipe for even deeper exploitation. I think that if I understood correctly the exchange that Mr Finlay and Mr Rennie had earlier, I think that if I understood Mr Finlay's point, he was arguing that countries such as Greece are threatened not by the European Union, per se, but by its obsession with austerity and free market economics. If he wishes to intervene. Neil Findlay is going to make that point that the whole issue about the free movement of capital and labour is not being done in the interests of people, it is being done in the interests of capital and that is the whole problem that we have. Patrick Harvie. I agree with Mr Finlay. Is there a case for reform of the European Union? Of course there is. Of course there is a case for reform, but I would like to see a reform agenda that is led by a focus on citizens' democracy within the European Union on taking some power away from the unelected commission in asserting that the European Union is a union of European citizens, not a union of European governments by putting power in the hands of voters and their directly elected representatives rather than governments and their appointees. Reform also in the area of corporate lobbying, which is far too powerful and influence at European level, and reform in relation to areas such as competition law, which restricts the ability of governments to protect the common good of their citizens all too often. Moving on to some of the issues about the rules by which this referendum will be conducted, I agree with the comments that have been made about EU citizens having the right to vote and of course about 16 and 17 year olds after the experience of the independence vote. The only argument against 16 year olds being elder vote is based on a fear of their democratic empowerment. That is the only basis on which I think those in the Conservative Party are opposing that. On the date that has been opposition to the suggestion—it may be receding now—but we should kill it off for good, the suggestion that the referendum might clash with the Holyrood election. Although my amendment was not selected for debate and I suspect the Labour amendment may not find its way into the final resolution at the end of the day, I suggest to the cabinet secretary that the political parties in this Parliament write jointly to the Prime Minister, making clear the absolute unacceptable of any clash with the Scottish Parliament election. As for the proposal of a double majority, I am open to hearing the argument for it, but I am a little skeptical. First of all, I am not convinced that it is realistic. The rules of a referendum have to be agreed by all sides. I just do not see it likely that the other side of the border or the other side of the debate will agree to the double majority proposal. I am not convinced that it is necessarily fair. I can see why it might seem so from a Scottish perspective, but if Scotland did vote to stay in and England voted to leave, the question is still whether the UK as a whole stays or leaves. I am not sure that there is a consistent answer to that question. Thirdly, it strikes me as a potential distraction from the priority that we should all be united on of making the case for the whole of the islands—Scotland and the rest of the UK—to remain a part of the European Union. For that reason, I think that we should focus on making that argument. Many thanks. Can I ask her to final speakers to stick to the five minutes, please? Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Hans Alemallic. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps it might be just as well to declare at the outset a personal and family interest in the matter, since my niece, who is a scientist, lives and works in Sweden. Jo enjoys her time there. Jamie, my nephew, lives and works in Denmark, where he is a teacher. I have a great nephew and a great niece who, in Danish, are half Den. In other words, half Danish and half Scots. If it had not been for the existence of the free travel to go and work without any great difficulty, I suspect that the history of my family in the modern time might be a little bit different than it actually is. We have heard a bit about who can vote. Of course, the answer for Christian Allard is extremely straightforward. The Liberal Party has eight members of the House of Commons and 101 members of the House of Lords. Pro-Rata means that probably the SNP can appoint 707 members to the House of Lords. I propose that Christian Allard be the first of them, because then he meets the necessary requirements to allow him to vote. However, let's go a little bit deeper into the act that the Tories have brought before us. We just have some very interesting things. While he might not be allowed to vote, he is allowed to be a permitted participant in the referendum, to register a campaign, to contribute all his worldly wealth, to go into hawk if he wishes to and campaign for a particular result. That includes 16 and 17-year-olds who could establish campaigns and be permitted participants. He is allowed to influence the outcome but not be part of the outcome—a quite bizarre way of bringing forward a piece of legislation. Of course, Christian Allard would consider the matter very carefully and cast his vote in an appropriate way, and that would be true of many of our citizens. Even more bizarre is that he comes to the situation of the citizens of Gibraltar. All those who are allowed in the extended constituency in the south-west of England to be for the European elections are part of that vote and are allowed to vote in that. That is fascinating. Oh, by the way, the Peers, of course. Peers who are not even UK citizens, Peers who are not EC citizens but who are electors in the city of London, they would be entitled to vote. So that you have got this bill, this tawdry piece of paper from the Tory Government, riddled with inconsistencies to deny citizens of Europe who have the greatest stake in that referendum, who contribute mightily to the economy of the UK and of Scotland, denied the vote, while many of the parasites, simply by a right of owning property in the city of London, are able to participate and to set up campaigns on whichever side of the argument. It is a totally banal, bizarre piece of legislation that is before us. I do not stand before you as someone who is an uncritical supporter of the EU, representing fishermen in Scotland. I of course share with them the discomfort that when a fishing boat that is registered in Scotland goes out, it is covered by our regulations, but it can be alongside in the same place off our shores. For example, a Spanish boat working to a different set of legislation, and that's got to be something that we've got to fix. But we can do that. We're making some sort of progress. I'm going to really live dangerously. Last week I lived dangerously when I quoted Alasda Campbell, who described Charles Kennedy as somebody who spoke human, and I thought he spoke excellent sense on that. I'm going to go even further, Presiding Officer, and quote Margaret Thatcher. That's really living dangerously. In June 75, in the debate after the result of the last referendum, she said, we join him in rejoicing a favourite word of Margaret Thatcher over this excellent result. We're particularly pleased with the strong yes from each of the constituent nations of the UK. She recognised the importance of achieving that support from each of the constituent nations, and perhaps the Tories should consider what their dear leader said in 1975 in considering the position that they now wish to take. I hope, Presiding Officer, that both the amendments from Labour and Liberal do resonate around the chamber, although, because they delete important things from the Government motion, I suspect that we will not support them. For my part, I'd be happy to support their contents if not their deletions. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is attempting to renegotiate the terms of the United Kingdom membership to the European Union ahead of the referendum 2017. As we all know at the top of Cameron's list of demands for renegotiation in the EU is the issue of freedom of movement and migration rights, migrant rights. The debate has been dominated by the issue of immigration. However, the relationship with the European Union is very complex. Alongside the freedom of movement that citizens of member states have within the European Union, there is free trade. European Union membership also provides a wide range of rights, responsibilities and funding streams that Scottish institutions can access. In recent years, other European Member States have elected Eurospectic parties and there is definitely a climate for reform. But wanting proper democratic accountability and decisions and the difficulties of implementing the so-called yellow card mechanism to block European Commission's proposals is a matter that requires informed discussion. Unfortunately, in recent years, the tone of the public debate has been quite the opposite. Stocked by the UKIP and the anti-immigration media, the European Union migrants have become the boogeyman to blame for everything from housing shortage to littering their streets. As I have said before, I believe a lot of anti-immigration rhetoric is basically racism and it shows its true colours. There are various statistics that show that the European migrants want to be more to our economy and that's something I don't need to repeat as it's already been mentioned by several MSPs already. The Scottish Government frequently states that Scotland has a different approach to immigration. This is not really backed up by any evidence. Research by the Oxford Migrant Observatory revealed that the majority of Scots support reduction in immigration as 85 per cent of the population feel that way, although it is lower than England and Wales, which is at 75 per cent. That speaks volumes in itself. What I think is worth repeating is that there is no point in the Scottish Government saying that we want more immigrants to come to Scotland if we are not actually combating the racism in our own society here today. Turning to the proposal about there should be a double majority, I think that Dr Daniel Kennedy from the Academy of Government made the point very well in his written statement to the European External Relations Committee which he stated, it would be useful if the Scottish Government could be clearer about what, if any, distinct or specific interest Scotland has in the process as opposing and repeatedly calling for a multi-vito bloc. Interesting comments from Dr Kennedy, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can address this and perhaps give us some clarity on how she feels about that. Every time I have asked searching questions from the Cabinet Secretary, I have generally had silence rather than an answer. I am hoping that today I will get some answers. We have to be quite clear about our direction, where we want to travel, how do we want to go. At the moment we are in the process of trying to renegotiate, I think it is important that we back a Government at this stage in terms of the renegotiation. If and when there is a need for a referendum, then we address that at that stage. In terms of immigration, I would be really interested to hear the cabinet secretary's comments about how she tends to address that in terms of what the findings are. Thank you very much. I think that there have been very fine pro-European speeches from right across the chamber. I think that even from the Conservative benches we have heard some words of praise about the benefits of the European Union. I suspect that not something that colleagues south of the border may repeat too often, but nevertheless I think that there is some degree of unity across the chamber. I would like to draw attention particularly to Stuart Maxwell's comments when he talked about the Nobel Peace Prize and the fact that the European Union has helped to turn a continent of war to a continent of peace. He talked about peace, reconciliation and democracy. I think that at the core of the European Union is that fundamental value and benefit that we have secured. I thank Stuart Maxwell for making that contribution. Because often those who have lived through the European Union without war, I think that we often take it for granted that it will always be there and we should not forget that the European Union has contributed significantly towards that. I concluded my opening remarks with a plea to the SNP benches to focus on what unites us rather than divides us. I am afraid too often from the benches apart from Stuart Maxwell that there were far too many people sought to almost adopt a position where the rest of the United Kingdom was going to vote to leave the European Union. I think that pessimism should be rejected and we should work together to make sure that we do stay in the European Union. If you only look at the latest polling—in fact, if you look at the polling of the last few decades, more often than not, Britain has been a pro-European nation. It is wanted to stay in rather than get out. Of course, there are the Nigel Farage of the world, but we should not make the mistake of assuming that everybody in England shares their views with Nigel Farage, far from that. That is why he suffered so badly, I believe, in the recent general election. His support for that kind of anti-European skepticism I think was roundly rejected. I think that we should give comfort on that and we should give more credit to people across the United Kingdom for being pro-European. Even the bookies are reckoning that Britain will stay in the European Union. The bookies have said that they predict that we will all vote to stay in the European Union. Rather than assuming that the rest of England and the rest of the United Kingdom will vote to leave and therefore will have to have a get-out clause to make sure that we are able to stay, let us just work together to build on that pro-European consensus that I think is developing across the United Kingdom. There have been a few references to Charles Kennedy today, and he said this one thing back in 2009—particularly prescient, I think, for the moment. Now more than ever, membership of a strong, confident effect of the outward-looking European Union should be the absolute priority. Playing games with something so important is dangerous and short-sighted. I would just leave those words hanging with the SNP. Let's work together to keep us in the European Union. It is of great benefit to us here in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. I may come to regret that, but I reluctantly agree that Christian Allard should have a vote in the European referendum. I may regret it. I do not want this to be a precedent for all other occasions. There may be occasions in which I want to stop Christian Allard having a vote, particularly in the chamber, but otherwise, on this particular occasion, not just because we agree on this issue, but I agree that he should have a vote in this referendum. It may have consequences for those who vote in future general elections. We need to consider the consequences of that. We need to make sure that, on this particular occasion, because of the effect that it has on EU citizens on the rest of the European Union, I think that they should be having a vote. As a long-term advocate for votes at 16, we should make that change too. I hope that it is a precursor for changes to the franchise across the United Kingdom on other elections so far. There has been some resistance, particularly from the Conservative Party, but I hope that it is used as a battering ram to get the changes that we all strive for in our democracy. We have been in favour, Liberal Democrats, of a referendum if powers were to be ceded to the European Union. However, we now accept that this referendum is on the way, and we need to seize the opportunities to put the case right—the right case for the European Union and Britain's place at the heart of it, because too often we are timid about the benefits of the European Union, fearing the scepticism that some people hold. We should be talking about the benefits of our influence in the world as a block of 500 million people, the influence that we can have for good progressive politics across the world, the free movement of people within the continent of Europe, the economic single market, the common social and employment standards, the efforts that the European Union makes towards tackling climate change. Those are the big goals that we can achieve through the European Union referendum debate. We all need to work together to seize that opportunity. Let's put that opportunity before people in Scotland, so they understand what the benefit is of being able to go to university in other parts of the continent without your education being disrupted. The fact that you can go to Spain to work for a period of time and people from Spain can come and work here too, that is shared benefits. Making sure that, if you have a business here in Scotland, you can trade with people right across the European Union with as limited number of barriers as possible. Those are big benefits that we can bring, that sharing of our common goal, that peace that we all sought for so many decades ago and we take for granted now. That is something that we should work for and work for together. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I begin by also thanking all the people in this chamber this afternoon who have taken the opportunity to tell me what I think. The truth is that while I still have the freedom to do so under this fairly centralising authoritarian Government, I will decide what I think. What I think is that the Conservative Party actually has an excellent record in terms of its engagement with the European Union. We were not in at the ground floor, we weren't part of the European Steel and Steel Confederation, we weren't part of the original seven, but we very quickly took the opportunity, once we had seen the passing of Charles De Gaulle, to get ourselves into that European Union. Of course, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who was responsible for taking this country in. In fact, there have been many times when certain political parties within this country decided that either a substantial part of their membership or their entire active membership should campaign against their presence in Europe. The Conservative Party is no different, and as we go forward towards this referendum, there will no doubt be Conservatives who campaign against our continued membership of the European Union. No doubt, there will be others in other political parties who will do the same. Let me address for a moment some of the things that have been discussed during the course of this debate. I think that there has been the typical move by many to getting right in there and to express themselves and their own terms and their own particular area of interest, but I hope that I can explain my views in a very simple way that is easy to understand. First of all, what we are talking about is a promise by David Cameron that he will renegotiate the terms of our membership and put it to the British people in a referendum. A referendum in which he will decide—excuse me, not for the moment—a referendum in which he will be decided by a simple yes or no. We accept those terms or we reject them. The fact that we are discussing the European Union is something we must not confuse and suggestions during the course of this debate that this should cover European human rights legislation, ECHR, as it is known, is simply conflating two current issues that are not really related in those terms. We have heard a lot said about EU funding and how many projects in the United Kingdom and here in Scotland have benefited from EU funding, but that is something of a red herring given that as one of the few net contributors to Europe we actually pay for that funding and then some to other countries. When we talk about the importance of our economic connections, our trade with Europe, figures have been skewed in order to prove arguments that cannot be proved. Yes, of that material, that GDP that Scotland produces that is sold outside the United Kingdom, a very high proportion of it goes to Europe. To achieve that high percentage, we must ignore the fact that the vast majority of our trade in Scotland goes to the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, our trade with Europe in the year 2012-13, which is the latest figures that I have before me, we had £12.9 billion of trade with Europe. We had £46.2 billion of trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an argument to remain part of the United Kingdom. It is also an argument to remain part of the European Union, I might suggest, but there is not one case for EU membership, which is not at least a stronger case for continued UK membership, which puts the Scottish National Party in a position that I believe it cannot defend. Let me go on to address a couple of the other issues that have been central to this debate. The issue of the franchise, I think, again is something of a red herring in this argument, because we in Scotland have argued that we should control the franchise for this Parliament, that we should decide who can vote in our election, and that we have decided that that will include 16 and 17-year-olds. The Westminster Parliament has told us that we can have that power. Is it not therefore a little ironic that we should then decide how they will control their franchise? I say that it is their choice, and if we wish to influence it, we should do so through the means available to us. Let me also address the issue of the double majority, as it has been described by many in the debate. I can remember that, in 1979, we had a referendum in Scotland where there was a 40 per cent rule applied. 40 per cent of the electorate had to vote in a particular direction before we could get a result. That was considered by many at the time to be inappropriate, and that is why, during the Scottish referendum, we had a simple majority as the only test. If we are to have a double majority rule, one that requires all the nations within the United Kingdom to vote in a particular way in order to achieve an outcome, it introduces a hurdle that the SNP itself will find that it has to address once again when it inevitably brings back its referendum on Scottish independence. Finally, on the issue of immigration, I believe that eastern European immigrants are absolutely vital to the economy of the United Kingdom, and particularly to Scotland. However, I believe that it is only fair that, if they come here, they should come to a job. For that reason, it is only appropriate that we should take action to prevent so-called benefits tourism. Willie Coffey tells us in his speech that that does not happen, so no worries there then. As we have seen for the majority of today's debate, it is in the interests of Scotland and the broader UK to remain in the EU for many reasons. Although many have indicated the realisation that many changes need to be made, it would be easier to tackle from within the EU membership. We are right to argue that Britain's exit from the European Union poses huge risks for British jobs, trade and investment. As mentioned by many speakers, the EU is still by far our biggest export market. Tariff-free access to 500 million customers is hugely important for our businesses. Half of our inward investment comes from the EU, and a significant proportion of the investment from outside the EU is helped by our status as a gateway to the single market. It is not only about the economics, it is about security and values too. With a proxy war taking place in Ukraine, it makes little sense for Britain to be calling for maximum European unity in sanctions towards Russia and, in the next breath, threatening to leave the EU. The hard end of our security will continue to be provided by NATO, but we should not underestimate the importance of the shared values of peace, democracy and the peaceful resolution of disputes that are embodied by the EU membership. We in the Labour Party support Britain's membership in the European Union. Our hard-working members of the European Parliament are always at the heart of the decision-making processes in Brussels. The First Minister has argued that the four constituent parts of the UK should each have a veto, also known as the double lock system in this referendum. However, the majority of the people in all four constituent parts of the UK see it as a decision that should be taken by the population as a whole, and not by the separate parts. That was flagged up earlier, Presiding Officer, within a few of the speeches that this may come back to haunt us. A survey conducted by researchers at the University of Edinburgh suggests that the majority of people in Scotland, which is 55 per cent, are in favour of the UK deciding on the future of its EU membership as a single political entity. We should recognise clearly the proposal for what it is—headline grabbing and issue deflecting. We cannot spend the next two years saying that Scotland's voice isn't being heard, that we aren't being treated with respect by the UK Government. The First Minister has suggested that the EU referendum result in which Scotland votes yes and England votes no could trigger demands for a second independence referendum. We truly hope that that doesn't happen. We hope that Scotland is not forced to choose between two unions—Our Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland—and our union with the European partners. That is why Scottish Labour will spend all our time and energy making the positive case for EU membership for Scotland and for the UK. The argument to stay in the EU will be about far more than what politicians do in here. It will involve businesses, universities, people at work and people from all walks of life. Hopefully, it will include young people. There will be, of course, much debate about the details of the referendum over the coming weeks. We believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to take part in the EU referendum vote. The picture from Scotland's referendum was clear that 16 and 17-year-olds are a sophisticated neon group of voters. They are engaged. They care just as much as those who are older, and as Siobhan MacMahon kindly put it, are more experienced. They most certainly deserve to be a full participant. We in the Labour Party are also committed to letting EU citizens vote in this referendum. EU citizens who have decided to make the UK their home, who live here, work here, raise families here and pay taxes here should be given the opportunity to vote on a matter of huge significance for the future. To conclude, we will make a positive progressive case for continued membership during the referendum, while advocating constructive reform of the EU from within the existing treaty framework, as strong and as active members. The notion of a double lock for the four parts of the UK might serve as a good headline, but it generally is not supported by people across the UK, and it is a poor substitute for a genuine statement of aims. Labour is committed to doing all that we can to ensure that young people and EU citizens are allowed to vote in this referendum. I therefore fully support the amendment lodged by my colleague Clare Baker today. I want to start by adding the Scottish Government's voice to that of Willie Rennie when he spoke about his late colleague Charles Kennedy. I shared a platform with Willie Rennie over the weekend at the Pakistan Welfare Trust, and he described that Charles Kennedy is having the gentle voice of reason. I think that all of us would have liked to have heard that gentle voice perhaps once more during this campaign that is going to be coming in the next few weeks and months. I think that generally, Presiding Officer, the debate has been very good, excellent contributions—I did not mean to sound so surprised when I said that, but it has been excellent around this chamber on the benefits of the European Union and what that brings to Scotland. Many people have spoken about the business benefits, the economic benefits, the academic benefits, the social benefits, the democratic benefits, but I thought that Malcolm Chisholm was exceptionally good at saying that the facts and figures will only get you so far. However, the debate requires passion and emotion. It is quite interesting because, during the independence referendum, we were often told that we should be looking at the debate from a rational prism, a logical prism and that emotion should be discarded. Nonetheless, I agree with what Malcolm Chisholm had to say. For those who believe in the European Union, the campaign that we are agreed has to be positive, although there would be risks to leaving the European Union in terms of the jobs that have been highlighted and the facts and the figures that have been mentioned, we would not do the campaign justice if we did not talk about the positives that a reformed European Union could achieve and already does achieve for the citizens of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Just as a side point, the campaign should not necessarily be led from the front by politicians or indeed by big businesses, because that could often put people off too. Jamie McGregor was absolutely correct in his opening statement to say that it is healthy for us to question, criticise and analyse our relationship with the European Union. I have not heard a single member here say that the European Union is perfect, far from it. Everybody believes that the European Union requires reform. The Scottish Government has produced a 20-page document that he is well versed on, I know from sitting in committee being questioned by him, on our reform agenda. On top of that, further detail was added by the First Minister during her recent visit to Brussels, where she spoke about giving member states more autonomy when it comes to social and public health issues, quoting the example of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. She talked about better regulation, as opposed to more regulation. She spoke about how reform can work for those who live in Scotland. Dave Stewart, quite rightly mentioned the reforms to the common fisheries policy. She also spoke about tackling issues that matter socially to the people and the citizens of Europe. Unemployment, the scourge of youth unemployment is far too high across the continent and other such issues. What I have not heard from the Conservatives during their speeches, but I will listen in the weeks and months that go on, is what reform they believe requires treaty change and what parts of the treaty need change. That information is not forthcoming yet, but we have senior Conservative ministers, in fact the Prime Minister himself, saying that he believes that treaty change is required. That is without going into the various difficulties that treaty change would impose from referendums in many countries, including Ireland, to, indeed, even the pragmatic politics of trying to ratify any treaty change in perhaps a Parliament like Greece's Parliament at this present moment. Of course, I will take an intervention. Would the minister agree that travelling down to Strasbourg every three weeks would require or not travelling down would require treaty change? If that is his fundamental point, why he wants a treaty change and why he believes that we need reform with a relationship with the European Union, perhaps I have missed the point. Not at the moment. I am going to make some progress, but I will address his point that he made earlier on in his intervention to the cabinet secretary. Willie Rennie, Malcolm Chisholm, Claire Baker and others talked about internationalisation and why they feel that Europe is so important from their perspective. We, too, in those seats in this part of the chamber are internationalists. That is why we believe that if we work in co-operation across the European Union, we can achieve great results. Peace time was mentioned by Stuart Maxwell, reflected on by Willie Rennie, I thought very well. Climate change was spoken about, too, but it is also important for some of the big challenges that we face as a continent. The cabinet secretary has played a leading role in regard to the refugee crisis that we see in the Mediterranean from North Africa into the European Union. There has been a suggestion of how to tackle that problem. Resettlement being part of that, the Scottish Government very much believes that resettlement has to be part of the solution, as well as tackling it from the source. Talking of reform, let me just spend a minute also discussing that issue, which I think has dominated contributions from the chamber, which is reformed to the actual franchise of the vote. Members from across the Parliament have spoken very well on why 16 and 17-year-olds must be given the vote in the EU referendum. Clare Baker spoke of it very well, I thought, to Malcolm Chisholm, to Christina McKelvie, Stuart Maxwell. In fact, many of them spoke of their own experiences during the referendum campaign, the independence referendum campaign, going into high schools and being asked very tough, very difficult questions. I would say that 16 and 17-year-olds were the primary success of the Scottish referendum. EU citizens as well. On that point of 16 and 17-year-olds, I must say that, when Alex Johnstone was making his point, he said that we should try to influence the Westminster and the UK Government through the means that are available to us. Well, we did. We just did. We had a general election in 56 or 59 MPs. Of course, we were elected on the mandate that we believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be given the vote here in Scotland. Of course, 16 and 17-year-olds will not be given the vote even though we have that mandate in Scotland. In terms of EU citizens, I do not really need to add too much more, because Christian Allard, as well as others, but Christian Allard in particular, made that point so well, so passionately, so strongly, I believe. For a party, the Conservative party that prides itself on being a party, they often say of logic and of reason. I have never heard of such nonsensical, unfair, ludicrous rules of electoral engagement in all my days. The UK Government proposals for EU referendum will disenfranchise people who have chosen to make Scotland their home and the United Kingdom their home not for years but for decades and decades. Anybody listening to Christian Allard's statement will see that he is somebody who has made Scotland his home. His family have made their home here in Scotland. People come to Christian Allard for help, for assistance, as in his role as a member of the Scottish Parliament. They require his help, and he does his duty towards them, and yet he is being completely and utterly disenfranchised. If the Conservatives said that no foreign national would be allowed to vote, I would still be against it, of course, but I would understand the consistency in the logic, but it is not the case. Of course, it gives the vote to some foreign nationals, but not to others. Those from the commonwealth, which include European countries and two European countries, lump Ireland on to that as well as giving expats and others the votes, too, who have not contributed to this country perhaps for up to 15 years, but disenfranchising those who have simply because of the colour of their passport. Is the minister trying to give the impression that there is some devious thought process afoot here, or will he simply acknowledge that the franchise will be granted to exactly the same people who were entitled to vote on 7 May? First of all, it is not the exact same people that were allowed to vote on 7 May. Lord has been an example. Stuart Stevenson made it very well. I do not think that there is any devious thought process. I just think that there is an devious thought process when it comes to the franchise that has been made. How can it be any thought when somebody from Fiji can vote but somebody from France can't, somebody from the Solomon Islands can't but somebody from Spain can't? David Stewart and others also talked about the benefits that migrants and EU migrants have bought. In particular, many people quoted the UCL study, that £20 billion figure over the last decade in terms of the contribution that EU citizens have made. He also asked me specifically about the post-study work visa, which would not affect EU migrants but those outwith. I am pleased to say that, if we solve the weekend, we have a cross-party steering group, which Clare Baker will be sitting on, to take this issue forward. Other parties have spoken extensively about the double lock, and I reassure Mr Rennie that we are not pessimistic on those benches. In fact, if anything, we are told far too often that we are increasingly optimistic. I would say that we are, and it is true that we are very optimistic. I believe that, as he does at the people of the United Kingdom, I hope that he will vote, and that he will vote to stay within the European Union. I would say that we wouldn't be doing our job as a Government if we went prudent and protecting Scots and Scottish citizens. If I have time, I will take him to mention it. Mr Rennie, briefly. If he is so optimistic, why doesn't he just drop the double lock proposals, because they are no longer needed? Exactly what I have just said, we wouldn't be doing our job as a Government if we didn't take every single measure to protect the people of Scotland. It's not just us. Carwyn Jones, Labour First Minister of Wales, on his recent visit to Scotland said, any decision to leave the EU taking against the wishes of the people of Wales or Scotland would be unacceptable, and steps must be taken to ensure that that does not happen. You need to close, minister. I have to close. I accept that we can have a debate about what those steps may well be, but I would say that the double lock is a very sensible proposition. I think that the debate has been very, very good, Presiding Officer. I think that it has been positive, but we should ensure that the weeks and the months to come, as Malcolm Chisholm said, that there is a motion, that there is passion, but undoubtedly the united voice of this Parliament should be that Scotland and the United Kingdom is stronger for being in the European Union and the European Union is stronger for having the United Kingdom in Scotland as part of it. Thank you. That ends the debate on the EU referendum. The next item of business is a statement by Eileen McLeod on the publication of the 2013