 The next item of business is a debate on motion 12372, in the name of Angus Robertson, on Scotland's place in the world. I invite members wishing to participate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Angus Robertson to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, around 13 minutes please. This debate follows yesterday's publication of the latest paper in the Scottish Government's building a new Scotland series. That paper, an independent Scotland's place in the world, sets out the values, the principles, the practical action that this Government believes should guide our international relations as an independent country. Tomorrow, in a different debating chamber, that of the House of Commons will hear why independence of Scotland is both essential and urgent. The Chancellor will set out tax and spending plans within the context of a failing UK economy. It's a UK economy characterised by low growth, by low productivity, low investment, poor living standards and high inequality. Crucially, the Chancellor is likely to ignore the economic calamity of Brexit. It's a Brexit that's already wiped billions of pounds from the Scottish economy compared with EU membership. It's worsened the cost of living crisis. It's left the UK looking increasingly isolated on the world stage. Tragically and disastrously, the Labour Party is now fully signed up to Brexit. That means it's fully signed up to the economic damage of leaving the EU no matter the cost to Scotland. While the Labour Party likes to talk about economic growth, indeed, it says that it's top priority, Prime Minister, that is simply incompatible with its embracing of a hard Brexit, one that sees a future for Scotland not just excluded from the EU, but from the huge European single market as well. That's the context of the paper that was published yesterday and the motion today. When the Conservatives and now Labour turned their backs on our fellow Europeans, they put forward instead a vision of what they call global Britain. Apparently a buccaneering free-trading nation released from what they saw as the shackles of Brexit. This vision, Presiding Officer, has been a total failure. It has been an economic failure and it has been a diplomatic failure. One foreign affairs commentator described the so-called global Britain strategy as, and I quote, so sad. This politically illiterate, unilateralist international posturing is unreal. It's unrealist. It's humiliating for Britain and it's bound to fail. The Scottish Government, by contrast, is internationalist to its core. It's committed to multilateral organisations and to the principle of co-operation as we seek to tackle the great global challenges that affect us all, of course. Cri Coy, such an important series of reports. If this is such a serious debate, why have only ten of these parliamentary colleagues turned up for it? I look forward to hearing the member's speech, hopefully as something to contribute, which is positive. I'll make progress, Presiding Officer. People in the rest of the UK will, of course, always be Scotland's closest friends. As an independent country, there will be many issues on which we will agree. There is no difference, for example, on the position of the UK Government and the Scottish Government on Russia's barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. But we take different positions on the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. On perhaps the most fundamental foreign policy issues, our relationship with our fellow Europeans, people in Scotland want to go in a very different direction from that proposed by all of the Westminster parties. Within the constraints of the powers of the Scottish Parliament, Scotland is a strong record of international engagement from our bilateral review with Ireland to our work on Arctic connections, as well as our international development programme. There are those, again, across the Westminster parties who would want to see those powers constrained even further in that work to be stopped. But Scotland, of course, is not defined as a devolved administration. We are an ancient nation, and my party, the SNP, and our partners in the Scottish Greens have an internationalist outward-looking vision for our country. Independence offers Scotland the chance to play a full role internationally and to determine the kind of state that we want to be—one that promotes and protects human rights, one that acts on our values and principles and builds partnerships with others to address global challenges. Independence would allow Scotland to pursue Scottish interests internationally, focusing on the issues that matter most to people, communities and businesses here, while demonstrating our commitment to shared rules and international standards. As a new state with new powers, in independent Scotland would have the opportunity to make a fresh start, structuring its diplomacy, its working relationships and its priorities accordingly while not overlooking the legacy of its past. Our ambition is to be represented at every level of European Union decision-making, able to influence decisions and to promote Scotland's interests. With membership of the EU, people here would once again benefit from EU citizenship and the right to study, work and live right across Europe. As part of the world's largest single market, independent Scotland's businesses would gain access to almost 450 million consumers without the barriers to trade they face because of Brexit. They would also benefit from the opportunities that come from the EU's ability to secure advantageous trade arrangements. Today, though, we also look beyond Europe to the wider world. An independent Scotland's place in the world sets out how an independent Scotland would take its place in the international community alongside 193 other United Nations member states, building relationships in pursuit of our international priorities. The protection of the nation and its people is a first duty of every Government, and this would be no different in an independent Scotland. The Scottish Government proposes that an independent Scotland would apply to join NATO, seeking discussions with NATO leaders at the earliest opportunity following a vote for independence. As with the EU and UN, there is much that we can offer as a NATO member. Scotland occupies a position of strategic importance close to the high northern Arctic and facing out to the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. An independent Scotland would therefore be a key strategic partner in the collective defence of northern Europe. We would commit to defence spending of 2 per cent of GDP and make democratic accountability a cornerstone of defence policy so that an independent Scotland would only participate in overseas military operations that are lawful, are approved by Scottish ministers and are authorised by this Parliament. The Scottish Government is also clear that nuclear weapons would be removed from Scotland in the quickest and safest way possible after independence. That is entirely consistent with the NATO membership where 23 of the 31 current members neither possess nor host nuclear weapons. I am grateful for the intervention. Obviously, my party has had different positions on NATO, and I will outline that in my speech. However, we absolutely agree on the moral obscenity of nuclear weapons. I can ask the cabinet secretary to confirm that the Scottish Government's position is still one that supports the objectives on the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Yes, absolutely. The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As the paper makes clear, the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland is a key priority with a commitment to constitutional prohibition, meaning that Scotland would be a non-nuclear hosting NATO member state just like our neighbours Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. As well as defence cooperation through NATO, this Scottish Government would participate fully in the EU's common security and defence policy. In doing so, an independent Scotland would join the family of nations who are committed to the international rules-based system, playing an important role in peacekeeping, operations, conflict prevention and the strengthening of international security. The third pillar of an independent Scotland's defence and security policy would be our relationships with our nearest neighbours in the UK and Ireland. An independent Scotland would build on our strong relationships with the other nations and Governments across the Isles to assure mutual safety. All of that would be considered in a comprehensive, expert-led defence and security review that this Government would commission following a vote for independence. That is to ensure that, by independence day, Scotland has the appropriate capabilities to protect and defend its borders, citizens, democracy and economic interests. Working with like-minded partners to advance an ambitious and progressive agenda, guided by our interests and values, including those we share with the European Union of Human Dignity, of Freedom, of Democracy, Equality and the Rule of Law. In line with those values, this Government would commit to meet the United Nations target of 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance, helping to contribute to a more stable world. Multilateral connections would also be an important way for an independent Scotland to achieve impact through the United Nations, the World Bank and, of course, the European Union. Even with the limited powers that we currently have, Scotland has managed to develop a reputation for our commitment to addressing the climate emergency. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss would continue to be a top priority, as well as focusing on fair and just climate action towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions and a more sustainable future. This would include building on our already deep and long-standing connection with Commonwealth countries from Canada to Malawi and our growing connections with many others, including Rwanda and Pakistan. Following independence, Scotland would actively participate in the Commonwealth as a consensus-based multilateral forum that gives equal weight to countries' voices no matter their size. To achieve this level and breadth of international engagement, an independent Scotland would have a dedicated international network deploying the full range of diplomatic functions to promote and to protect Scottish interests. A further benefit of EU membership is that citizens of an independent Scotland, in need of emergency assistance, would be able to access the consular services of more than 2,100 European Union member state missions around the world, significantly more than the UK FCDO currently has. Independence would mean a new and a better relationship with our friends and the rest of the United Kingdom, one that we work together as equals to co-operate on shared challenges with a renewed Scottish democracy that is a force for good across these islands. The debate today is about issues that are central to Scotland's future. Indeed, it speaks to two very different futures, inside the EU or outside—a part of the huge European single market or a hard Brexit—a voice for Scotland as a member of the international community of nations or subject to attempts to silence of that voice, a nuclear-free Scotland or spending billions of pounds on Trident, and a partnership of equals with our friends in the rest of the United Kingdom or a Westminster system uninterested in Scotland's concerns. It was some decades ago that the past Presiding Officer and President of the Scottish National Party said, stop the world that Scotland wants to get on. That is more relevant now than it has ever been. Scotland has the opportunity to take its place in the international, foreign communities of the nations, in the United Nations, in the European Union, in NATO and working with our neighbours and allies on these islands. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Alexander Stewart to speak to and move amendment 1, 2, 3, 7, 2.1, around nine minutes. I move amendment 1 in my name. I am pleased to open this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, although it is disappointing that this Government has chosen to waste Parliament time by debating today's farcical motion. However, this is not the first time that this has happened this year. It was only two weeks ago that the Parliament was debating hypothetical social security powers in a hypothetical independent Scotland. Anyone viewing today's proceedings could be forgiven for thinking that the Scottish Parliament TV has started showing repeats. In light of the motion that has been presented to Parliament today, I will take some time before I come to Mr Greene at this stage. Maybe later. My amendment calls for this Government to put it up and in continuous grandstanding, and it continues to do that. The continuous grandstanding based on constitutional grievances is where we have been and we are again today. It calls for it to stop engineering the farcical politics based on non-existent powers for a non-existent future. Instead, my amendment calls for the Scottish Government to focus on the powers that this Government has already, Presiding Officer. Powers to fix Scotland's NHS and to restore our once world-leading education system. Those are the priorities that many people in Scotland wish to see. They do not wish to see debates of this nature continuing. However, all of us are often appear that we are the interests of the individuals within the power. You need to only take a look at today's motion for evidence of that. The Government's motion attempts to speak about the interests of the Scottish people. It is a shame that this Government appears to have no idea what the interests really are, Presiding Officer. I would hazard a guess that there are many few people outside who are concerned about Scottish independence at this moment in time, but they are concerned, for example, about our schools and how they are performing. When it comes to Scotland's schools, it is hardly surprising that the SNP would rather talk about their constitutional than wishlist than, indeed, dealing with the direct issues that affect them. For example, this year it is opportunist for them to do this today, because they do not want to talk about the record low-pesa scores. They do not want to talk about the continued violence against teachers in our classrooms or the continued failure to close the attainment gap between Scottish richest and poorest pupils. Those are all situations and circumstances that should be being discussed in this Parliament, and we should all be focusing on them, not on the ideas and the possibilities of things happening in the future and when the reality is that people across this country do not wish to see that. Even with the subject today, Scotland is placed in the world. The SNP is not interested in having an honest debate. International relations are a matter that is very much reserved to the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government know that. Scotland's place in the world is best served by working constructively within the framework rather than continually wishing that framework did not exist. The UK is the fifth-largest contributor for foreign aid in the world and was a founding member of the United Nations. It can truly be proud of its reputation on the world stage, because many countries have and still do receive international development projects. Across the globe, the United Kingdom has done massive work to support, to secure and to be involved in many of those organisations. It recognises the strength of the United Kingdom. It is just a problem and it is a possibility and it is a shame that the Scottish Government does not. As part of the UK, Scotland is a key player in one of the most influential countries in the world, both economically and culturally. Similarly, all of this is something that the Scottish National Party would rather leave behind. It wishes to leave that behind. We have heard today from the cabinet secretary who has tried to convince us that an independent Scotland would have more influence on the world stage, not less. The truth is that maximising Scotland's place in the world depends on the Scottish National Party working constructively with our counterparts in the United Kingdom. A majority of MSPs in this chamber wish to see an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and a majority of members of Parliament from Scotland at Westminster wish to see an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. What is the UK Government doing to deliver on the views of this Parliament or the majority of our parliamentarians? Alexander Stewart. I thank the cabinet secretary for his intervention. There are many views, and the situation is dire. We have to admit that. I want to see a resolution to things progressing, and I want to see a two-state situation in that part of the world. That is trying to be achieved. Even today, there are discussions taking place in other parts of the Middle East to create a ceasefire. I look forward to that day happening in the future. Given the approach that Scotland's Government is to debate today, and as I have said, we are attempting to cloud the situation and overcast to show that Scotland would be better on its own when we know the financial broad shoulders of the United Kingdom, and ensure that we have a stable, responsible and properly managed situation with the United Kingdom. The Government's idea is yet again another tax-funded independence brochure. Scotland's place in the world is the 11th time in the past two years alone that the SNP has chosen to scandalously waste the time of civil servants and money on the Scottish taxpayer who are paying for this. In reality, it is unbelievable that we are putting all that time, effort and money into something that is hypothetical. As I say, the people in Scotland do not wish to see. The paper talks about the importance of security, wellbeing and prosperity, despite the fact that none of those things have even the slightest thing to do with Scottish independence. The SNP Government is clearly willing to continue the same old narrative week after week. Mr Stewart, I have tried to make clear to you that I do not want to hear separate conversations going on across the chamber, however much they might be incited. Dignity and respect to the person who has the floor, which is your own colleague Alexander Stewart, you can get the time back. The SNP Government is clearly willing to continue the same old narrative week after week. Such an approach is indeed within its gift, and we know that it can do that, and it chooses to do that. However, those benches will continue to call out the Government's abandonment of its duties and the abandonment of the communities that it represents. In conclusion, it is time for this Government to end the grandstanding, to end the manufactured grievance, to start using its powers to work towards delivering Scotland the public really want and the priorities of the public and what they require. That is what our communities want and that is what our constituents want. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 12372.2 around seven minutes. Mr Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a crucial time for global democracy 2024. We'll see nearly 2 billion people across the world go to the polls this year and give their verdicts on their political leaders from India to South Africa and from the European Union to the United States. I look forward to the people of Scotland and the UK being asked their verdict in a general election tour this year in whatever month it may happen. This year we'll undoubtedly present huge opportunities but also significant challenges for democracy in the world. Last week I joined as Mr Stewart did with the Cabinet Secretary when he led tributes to the late Alexi Navalny and demanded consequences for the Putin and his regime. History tells us that our parties don't always agree on matters relating to foreign affairs but it is important in this moment when we do to not only stand with the people of Ukraine but also with those fighting oppression and for democracy in Russia too. There are many places, not just Russia of course, where we do not enjoy the free and fair democratic process that we do. I would say to members that it does rather put the occasional claims of democracy denying from some in this place into rather important perspective. Presiding Officer, this is a crucial time for global security too. As we debate this topic, there is a land war on mainland Europe, conflict in the Middle East and uncertainty in Southeast Asia. In short, this is a serious issue and a serious situation but regrettably I cannot say this paper or this debate is serious. The first role of any government is to protect its people. Of course we agree on that and we also agree on the need for greater co-operation and security and defence with the European Union and for better support for our armed forces personnel and our veterans. In order to make that a reality, a country needs to have a comprehensive strategy for defence. Right now we should be strengthening our defence within the United Kingdom, not walking away from it or putting it at risk. I say with no hesitation that the defence of our people is significantly better served by being part of the UK than what is being proposed today. I thank Neil Bibby for taking intervention and just ask how that can possible be the case given the recruitment and retention crisis, the possible sell-off of one of the aircraft carriers, the AJAX tanks fiasco, surely we could do better in independent Scotland. I am just going to come on to why it would be the case because in your paper you are not proposing any aircraft carriers, Mr Brown. Let me pay tribute to our excellent armed forces. They are amongst the best trained anywhere in the world. They are dedicated, brave and accredited to our country. The paper talks about investing and prioritising core capabilities. That is basic stuff, but it is particularly important to highlight in the context of this debate the UK's special forces that are exemplary. Their oil marines and others have niche capabilities that cannot be replicated from scratch. So too are our intelligence services. The paper gives an agency name and a list of core functions fantastic, but the lack of details are, frankly, insulting the people of Scotland's intelligence. The paper points to the example of Estonia as a country smaller than Scotland, which has nonetheless developed considerable cybersecurity capacity. However, it fails to mention that it did that over the space of 30 years under pressure from a growing Russian threat. Let me turn to the issue of nuclear capabilities, which seems to be confusing for the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has stated again in its paper that it intends for Scotland to become a nuclear weapons-free zone, which does not sound compatible with NATO being an explicitly nuclear alliance. It appears to confuse not holding nuclear weapons with explicitly forbidding them from their territory. It has been reported that the cabinet secretary has said that Scotland would join the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, but that is not what he said in answer to Ross Greer and the paper talks of a nuclear-free Scotland. If the Scottish Government wants this paper to be taken remotely seriously, then that needs clarification. Is the Scottish Government saying that it would allow NATO nuclear assets into Scottish waters and onto Scottish land? Yes or no? Does the cabinet secretary want to make it clear to the United States, to France and to the rest of the UK that their nuclear fleet would be banned from Faslane or not? I am happy to give intervention. I am thankful for Neil Bibby for giving way. What he has outlined is the position of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway, of Sweden and the Republic of Finland. If it is all right for them, why is it impossible for Scotland? Neil Bibby will give you the time to talk about not answering the question. I did not ask about Denmark, Finland or Norway. I asked about the Scottish Government's position that whether the Scottish Government would allow NATO nuclear assets into Scottish waters or lands. I am happy to take another intervention. I am. The cabinet secretary wants to answer that direct point. Are you saying that you would forbid NATO nuclear assets from entering Scottish waters or lands? As Neil Bibby should know, the right of passage for any vessel, conventional or nuclear, armed or powered, is guaranteed under the United Nations Conventional Law of the Sea. That is a statement of fact. I think that the cabinet secretary's position is extremely confusing. Do we seriously think that NATO would allow a situation that a member would prevent them from using nuclear assets on their own souls? There are many other key questions that remain unanswered. The Scottish Government has said that it will have a review of defence and security, and its outcome will be in place for independence day. That is the very definition of saying that it will be all right on the night. That is simply not good enough. It is not good enough that there are no details in this paper on the number of warships, no details on the number of submarines, no details on the number of fighter jets, no details on the number of bombers. It also gives us a rough estimate on needing 15,000 armed forces personnel, which it just asserts seems reasonable because it did 10 years ago. The paper does not even mention the term navy, army or air force. It talks of a maritime component, a land component or an air component. What is wrong with calling them a navy, army or an air force? For that matter, what is wrong with the British armed forces that we already have? It was quite apt that, before the debate, we had a statement on Ferguson Marine. The paper acknowledges the importance of the defence sector and its 33,000 jobs. Leaving the UK would put those jobs at risk. Given that the Scottish Government has struggled to procure two ferries on time and on budget, are we seriously meant to believe that this Government is going to procure us a naval fleet to match the Royal Navy? Those papers are a waste of time and a waste of money. They fail everyone in Scotland no matter their constitutional viewpoint. The vast majority of people in Scotland want the Scottish Government to focus on the cost of living, the NHS and schools. Most people want the Government to give up the spin and be honest, as Alexander Stewart said, and do their job, not attempt to gaslight the Scottish public, as Shelter Scotland said this week. Even for those who are true believers in independence, that lets them down too. It is not a serious piece of work. It does not even attempt to answer the serious questions. The paper itself talks about co-operation on defence and security with the rest of the United Kingdom as common sense. I agree that the SNP's plans are the complete opposite of that, and they are not serious either. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Bibby. I now call Willie Rennie around six minutes. Deputy Presiding Officer, you already know that I think very highly of our Minister for Independence. I think that he is destined for many greater things in the world, but I did not think that he was this cunning. Jamie Hepburn has clearly a new strategy for achieving independence. Paper after paper relentlessly produced week after week in boring, soporific detail. He is trying to bore us into submission, just when is it all going to end. Just like the others, I have not read this paper, but I can imagine what is in it. Full of grand assertion of just how brilliant the SNP and Greens have been on the international stage. But let us look at the actual record. China. Nicola Sturgeon personally signed a deal with the China Railway No. 3 engineering group called CR3 during a meeting at Bute House. No due diligence was done, and it was discovered that CR3 had been blacklisted by the Norwegian state pension fund for gross corruption and were found by Amnesty International to have connections to human rights abuses. China company Sinofortone were also signatures on the same £10 billion deal that was later described as all-bolics by the chief fixer after it was revealed that they only wanted... Mr Rennie, even if you are quoting, and I have made this clear before, could you please resume your seat? I would accept, I would expect members to use language that is fitting for the parliamentary chamber. That was not fitting the parliamentary chamber, Mr Rennie. I am sorry, Deputy Brownhurst. I am sure that my mother would not be impressed either with that, but I was simply quoting what was... Can I finish this point? So I will withdraw those remarks, and I apologise for that. Those comments were made by the chief fixer after it was revealed that they only owed a pub in the middle of the Cotswalt. In 2022, it was uncovered that at least 49 public bodies in Scotland were still unaware of the Scottish Government's human rights tests introduced following those deals. The Scottish Government continues to this day to use Chinese surveillance cameras a year after pledging to remove them over security concerns. First Minister Alex Salmond kowtowed to China by refusing to meet the Dalai Lama during his visit to Scotland, personally assuring the Chinese ambassador that it had nothing to do with him. Both he and Nicola Sturgeon thought by making a few speeches in China about Adam Smith would wash away all the human rights concerns. Alex Salmond thinks that we have forgotten about the Tartan Trues. On a trip to China, he got a poor downtrodden official to buy him a pair of Tartan Trues because he had left his own at home. Then he tried to claim those Tartan Trues on expenses and cover it up from the taxpayer. Alex Salmond did that, like strong leaders. Back in 2014, in the wake of the Russian invasion of Crimea, he said that he had a certain admiration for Vladimir Putin saying that his restoring Russian pride must surely be a good thing. Did Humza Yousaf, Nicola Sturgeon or any of the ministers, any of the members of the Parliament at that time criticised that outrageous statement? Not a chance that was going to happen. Let's say that it's wished for independence, I suspect. Alex Salmond later hosted a long-running TV show on the Kremlin propaganda channel Russia today. More recently, he agreed to front a new television show on Turkish channel TRT, described by critics as a propaganda arm of the Turkish regime. The current First Minister for now, Humza Yousaf, has been flirting with the Turkish regime as well. He quoted President Erdogan inviting him to Scotland despite concerns from including in his own party about civil liberties and human rights abuses. In 2013, let's not forget, as international development minister, Humza Yousaf visited Qatar but failed to raise the case of an imprisoned poet, Mohammed al-Jahami, despite visiting a poetry festival in the region on the very same visit. The hypocrisy continues. An SNP minister held an unrecorded dinner with disgraced Australian financier, Lex Greensill, amid financial deals that have exposed taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. They have dodged questions about whether Government-owned presswick airport was once used for US rendition flights the subject of a 10-year investigation. The SNP wants an independent Scotland to have the protection of the nuclear alliance NATO while rejecting nuclear weapons. They are still breaching international minimum standards on the age of criminal responsibility. Do not forget the Greens. In 2015, they passed a motion at their conference calling for Hamas to be taken off the international terrorist list. How outrageous that was! Despite that record, the Scottish Government, with all the pomposity that it could muster, pledged to create a peace institute. The peace institute would utilise all its incredible talent and credibility to bring peace across the world. That was before cancelling the whole project because it had run out of money. Whether it is being duped by China, ignoring the jailed poet in Qatar, standing by whilst Alex Salmond praised Putin, flirting with Erdogan or the Greens previously stating that they had backing to remove Hamas from the terrorist list, what a shower they are, parading as saints on the world stage but clueless, bumbling and a little bit more than grubby. They are an embarrassment to Scotland but none of that will be included in this paper. That is for sure. Thank you. When I move to the open debate, I call first Stuart McMillan to be followed by Croy Coy, Mr McMillan, in six minutes. First of all, Alexander Stewart, in his closing earlier on, spoke about the abandonment of communities. Neil Bibby also touched upon the issue regarding the cost of living. I wish that his colleagues and Inverclyde council last week had decided to accept the £2.9 million from the Scottish Government as compared to Labour Party council as voting against it and the Conservative council sitting on their hands and abstaining. Neil Bibby also touched upon Estonia. Estonia was talking about the 30 years but they were an independent country, they are an independent country, they had that decision and they chose to do that as an independent country as compared to the situation had beforehand. I am pleased to be speaking in today's debate and I welcome the latest building a new Scotland paper called An Independent Scotland's Place in the World, which shows how Scotland can take its place on the international stage as the 194th member of the United Nations. The paper makes clear that the Scottish Government's vision for our country to join the global community of nations and as an independent Scotland in the UN, the EU and NATO will hold the powers needed to protect the citizens and prosper in the global community. It is especially important at a time when every nation faces immense global challenges, from climate change to energy and also to the security crisis that we see day in and day out. Scotland must face those challenges through more or less cooperation with our fellow Europeans and also the wider international community. However, Scotland is being prohibited from pursuing such approaches due to a Brexit that we did not vote for, which has seen the UK retreat from positive values-based foreign policy. Although Brexit Britain obsesses over and I quote stopping the boats, an outward looking independent Scotland would commit to multilateralism and also the education of global poverty. In fact, despite the limitations of devolution, Scotland already plays its part on the world stage. We have an envial reputation with our strong international profile and a large global diaspora. With independence, those global linkages could be maximised for the benefit of Scotland's people, businesses and also institutions. That is particularly important, as I have previously spoken with the cabinet secretary about the potential work to connect Scotland to a diaspora in Australia and New Zealand. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the CPE, has helped to cultivate those conversations. I hope that my fellow CPE colleagues across the chamber will agree that the Scottish Parliament's engagement with the organisation has been important for helping to boost Scotland's reputation and Scotland's name within the Commonwealth. I know that you formally were a member of the Scotland branch of the CPE, so you will know exactly how important the job that our branch plays within the wider CPE. With independence, we could build on our strengths and take our place alongside our fairer, happier neighbours. We provide us with the opportunity to develop a genuinely different and progressive approach to overseas aid and development. The UK has squandered its international leadership on aid. In contrast, the Scottish Government would use the full powers of independence to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent gross national income on official development assistance. That would safeguard a sizable aid budget with which Scotland can make a real positive impact on the world's poorest countries. Independence Scotland would also be more ambitious in tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis and making a positive contribution to the planet and also to its people. Scotland could join its voice with others, including those in the global south, to champion their perspectives on climate justice and advocate for global vaccine equity or for debt relief. Some detractors will always say that Scotland is too small to have an impact in the world, but smaller countries already lead effectively on the international stage. Finland, for example, has passed one of the world's most ambitious climate targets into law, acting as a global exemplar. Independence can therefore unlock even greater influence working with partners within the EU and beyond to demonstrate how a fair transition to net and zero greenhouse gas emissions is actually possible. Crucially, an independent Scotland would be nuclear free. Immediately upon securing a vote for independence, the Scottish Government would pursue negotiations with a view to securing the expedition's removal from Scotland of the nuclear weapons, based for over half a century just across the Clyde from my constituency. There is no reason why this should be an obstacle to NATO membership. After all, only a minority of NATO members host nuclear weapons. The Finland's accession to NATO proves that hosting nuclear weapons is not a precondition for membership. I therefore fully support nuclear weapons being removed from an independent Scotland in the safest and swiftest manner possible. Of course, we need to consider how Scotland would protect itself, so I welcome the pillars of defence that are outlined in the latest building on new Scotland paper. To conclude, when the UN was established in 1945, it had 51 members. Today, it has 193. Independence is normal. I want us to be 194, so why not Scotland? Craig Hoy, to be followed by Ivan McKee, around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not think that I commend Keith Brown often enough or warmly enough, but can I commend Keith Brown today? Because, while his Westminster colleagues have flatly rejected his proposed boycott of the Westminster Parliament, judging by the number of SNP MSPs on the benches today, they have taken his boycott of this Parliament to heart. I am sitting out this entirely irrelevant and fantasy debate. I will give way on that point. Keith Brown, Craig Hoy, for both giving way and allowing me to live rent-free in his head. I joined the SNP 40 years ago because I believed in the withdrawal of Scotland from Westminster. Did he believe in Brexit when he joined the Tories? I tell what I believed 30 years ago. I believed that when Alex Salmond said Scotland free by whatever it was, that was 25 years ago, and you are still not achieved it, and you will not achieve it, because it is not Scotland's number one priority. I spent nearly a decade in Asia Pacific, and in Hong Kong you are never far from a Scottish connection. Take the Macklewhos trail, the reminder of the Glaswegian governor, who made Chinese an official language of Hong Kong and who commissioned the construction of the Hong Kong underground, or looked to the central skyline and you cannot miss the HSBC logo, and modifies St Andrew's Cross and a reminder of the Bank Scottish Roots and its Abaddonian founder, Sir Thomas Sutherland. I will take a walk through the bars of Lockhart Road, named after James Stewart Lockhart, the former registrar general and a Scot. It was an Edinburgh man, John James Cowperthwaite, who masterminded Hong Kong's financial success when he assumed the role of finance secretary in the early 1960s. Some may rightly take issue with recent events in Hong Kong, and I, for one, am fearful for the territory's future, but it is still not hard to find a Hong Konger who does not speak affectionately about Scotland and also the United Kingdom. In recent times, what we have achieved overseas as a nation is achieved in large part because we are both Scottish and British, and it is not just in Hong Kong. I vividly recall a Singaporean taxi driver hurtling me from Changi Airport to the city centre. When I told him that I was from Scotland, he pointed out that I was a Scot and a Brit before swerving erratically whilst pretending to play imaginary bagpipes and waving like Her Majesty the Queen. For him, those two images embodied everything that we can achieve by being Scottish and British. The point of this trip down memory lane is that Scotland punches above its weight in the world precisely because we are part of one globally recognised United Kingdom. I know from first-hand experience from a decade overseas that being Scottish and British opens doors, cements relationships and gets deals done. The SNP remain obsessed about symbols and flags, not about global reputation or global reach. Stuart McMillan, I thank Craig Hoy for the intervention just as he speaks about memory lane. Does he think that Scotland being dragged out of the European Union is actually a positive or a negative? I am saying that as someone who studied in Europe, and that opportunity is now lost to many people in Scotland. Craig Hoy can give you the time back. For a start, there is a replacement scheme. For a start, it was the UK vaccine programme, which we would not have had access to in independent Scotland that meant that we could open up quicker than our international competitors. For example, we are now involved in entering into the Trans-Pacific Partnership so that we can open up the whole of the region that I am talking about to Scottish companies who want to export to those markets. Effectively, the SNP is saying that Scotland is closed for business. The dangerous truth of the matter is that in independent Scotland, we would not be wrapping ourselves in the blue and white of the saltire for which the party is obsessed. Instead, as the paper yesterday showed, we would be hoisting a white flag above Scotland, yielding our defence and energy security to despots like Vladimir Putin. Rather than being an intrinsic part and parcel of a NATO nuclear nation, you would hope—the minister would hope—for a free pass to shelter under the nuclear umbrella of our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom. I do not have time. At the same time, this Government would destroy our oil and gas sectors and dismantle our nuclear energy industry, making us yet more dependent on despots like Putin even still. You do not need to be a foreign affairs or defence analyst or a Cold War warrior to realise that this is not a serious paper, because this is not a serious Government. I say this genuinely to Angus Robertson, my coming into this Parliament with a grudging respect for him. He is not Henry Kissinger, and the paper suggests that he fails to grasp the intricacies of global diplomacy and international relations. Whether it is the fake foreign embassies or the collapse in our global education rankings, the SNP Government is diminishing our place in the world. The debate today could have been used to good effect—this time could have been used to good effect—to calculate how we grow our economy, reduce waiting times, end violent crime and improve education standards and public services. However, no, because yesterday's paper reveals everything about this SNP Government. It is desperate to try and reactivate an increasingly disenchanted core SNP voter base. It is frankly ludicrous—a new set of Scottish spies, the eye spies, a Scottish security and intelligence agency to replace MI5, MI6, GCHQ and defence intelligence. That paper says that this would support Scotland's role as a good global citizen, it adds, as in all other aspects of an independent Scotland, national security would be delivered in line with Scotland's values. Would anyone actually know what that means in terms of international security? I would hazard for the minister to explain to me. You do not have to be John McCarrie to determine that this SNP Government is making it up as they go along. This fantasy paper and this fancy debate is just the latest attempt to divert attention from the SNP's appalling record office and to distract from its collapse in support from around Scotland. When he is doing yes, once he has said, stop the world, Scotland wants to get on. Now, sadly, I think that most people would agree that that cry has now stopped the SNP because Scotland now actually wants to get on. However, Scotland will not make progress, it will not get on, either at home or abroad, so long as this independence-obsessed Government remains in office. Ivan McKee to be followed by Alec Rowley around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I think that Craig Hawley is getting a bit confused about whether he wants to get on or get off or what he wants. I welcome this paper, part of the series building a new Scotland, laying out Scotland how an independent Scotland would thrive as one of the independent nations of the world. This paper is particularly important covering, as it does Scotland's international relationship. Scotland looks forward to taking its place as a full member of the international community, projecting our values onto the world stage of human rights, working in partnership with others, addressing global challenges around defence security, human rights international development and climate change in Scotland, being a good global citizen. In contrast to the approach of Westminster and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, he has already outlined the stark contrast between the approach of this Parliament and the views of the Scottish people compared to the approach of Westminster when it comes to demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I think that the area of international relations that is looking at the living papers published so far is one that offers the most opportunity for progress and change when Scotland becomes an independent country. Given the opportunity for Scotland to truly make its mark on that international stage, I have to thank Craig Hoy for spending some minutes of his speech outlining the high regard that Scotland is considered in countries around the world. There is widespread international awareness of the nation of Scotland and I think that he has struggled to find any other sub-national entity that has such recognition in Singapore. In China, a new name at countries all around the world, be it in terms of our history, our culture, trade relations and the iconic export products that Scotland sends all around the world. There is education in our universities world-renowned, and there are so many international students here. Of course, this summer, celebrating Scotland, the Scottish national team's men's football team, taking part in the Eurochampions in Germany. I give way to Craig Hoy. Mr McKee ignores the point that I was making. Scotland is not a sub-national entity. Scotland has a unique place in the world where we can leverage everything that is good about Scotland and everything that is good about the United Kingdom to go forth and to take both of those reputations to the world trading environment. Why does he not see that? I am glad that Craig Hoy recognises already Scotland's independent country. The point is that when you look at other countries—and I have worked as a trade minister for a number of years—we can do nothing like as much as Norway or Denmark or Switzerland, or even Singapore. I mentioned that an ex-colonial country now independent is not much bigger than Scotland and is very successful in the world. That shows what independent countries can do when they have the ability to be able to take forward their own policies to suit their own circumstances. Scotland already operates internationally. If you look at the trading investment environment or network of Scottish Government offices and Scottish Development International offices, it is working with partners, including through Nordic partnership relationships, as well as the success of Team Scotland. The best-performing part of the UK when it comes to attracting inward investment outside of London is the fastest-growing rebound on-shore exports after post-Brexit, recognising that the success that Scotland can deliver. One of the mistakes that his party and others make when they try to poo-poo Scotland's international footprint is to recognise the jobs investment and the export success that that very footprint delivers as a consequence of Scotland having its own ability to project itself on to the world stage. I look forward to being a full member of the European Union, reversing the disaster of Brexit and having access to one of the biggest markets in the world, because this party, unlike the Labour Party and the Tory Party, and now even the Lib Dems—sorry, I will have to say it again—remains committed to Scotland being a full member of the European Union. The paper also addresses the future defence and security arrangements of an independent Scotland, recognising Scotland's key geographical position and our commitment to working with neighbours and partners for that broader defence positioning. Very briefly, if I have time. You can get the time back. Fergus Ewing. He will recall Mr Rennie, who did not take the intervention from me, opined that the Lachaber smelter should not have been the beneficiary of a deal with which I had a role back in 2016. Does Mr McKee recognise that, if that deal had not gone ahead, the smelter would have shut instead of having remained open since then for the last eight years? Does he think that the Liberal candidate in Fort William would have supported the closure of the smelter there? Ivan McKee, give me the time back. I do not have much time to enter the details of that, but I do agree absolutely with the member. It must be remembered that it was a cross-party finance committee that agreed that deal, having seen the details of it and, frankly, much of the information that is put about that deal, is very, very far wide of the mark. The assets that exist more than cover any liabilities due to the Scottish Government as a consequence and, as the member rightly identified, the jobs are absolutely still in place. Moving on to industry, very appropriately, the defence strategy recognises—I need to focus on Scotland's defence needs—the Scottish defence industry's role in that and how that sector would continue to support the needs of maritime needs to a significant extent of Scotland's defence strategy. An independent Scotland would also have control of our arms exports regime, which would allow us to align that with Scotland's human rights approach to international relations. That would be quite different to the UK Government's approach. We can use our internationally well-regarded vision for trade that we already have as a Scottish Government document as a model to help inform how we align our arms export regime with our human rights and other principles. Moving on, Presiding Officer, the commitment to a non-nuclear Scotland is absolutely central to that document and to the SNP's approach to that, unlike the Labour Party, no nuclear weapons on a Scottish soil. Similar to most other NATO member states, I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to maintain our position on nuclear non-proliferation and prohibition treaties internationally. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, Scotland is well-equipped to an independent nation, in fact the best-prepared country ever to become a full member of the international community when we achieve our independence. That paper takes us one further step along the road on that journey towards independence as independence becomes the settled will of the Scottish people. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Gordon MacDonald around six minutes, Mr Rowley. Presiding Officer, at a time when many in this country are confused about the seemingly contradictory priorities of the Scottish Government, it is good to be able to rely on our monthly fantasy debate on an independent Scotland for a sense of stability in an often unsettled world. That often unsettled world is what today's debate is about. Where would an independent Scotland find its place in the world? I have to say that I have little objection to the Scotland that the cabinet secretary describes in his foreword to the 11th paper on building the new Scotland series. Scotland has a long history of being an outward-looking nation, and we are clear about the country we want to be, providing development assistance to the most vulnerable overseas safeguarding human rights, upholding the international rules-based order, and supporting and promoting Scots and Scotland around the world. I would agree that not only has Scotland long been an outward-looking nation, but it has been well known to punch above its relative weight on the international stage over decades, centuries. My concern, however, is that the Government is so consumed by its singular focus on independence as the only answer to any difficult questions of the difficulties that Scotland faces that our current place in the world is diminished purely because we refuse to believe that we have the ability to build a better country with the powers that we have. Right now, Scotland, I would argue, lacks any sense of direction. Where is the industrial strategy that will set Scotland on its way to being a high-skilled, high-waged economy? Our education system is failing on so many fronts, and, after 18 years of failed interventions into further education, our colleges struggle from crisis to crisis. I would argue that, in order to have our place in the world, we must have a strong economy, a highly skilled and motivated workforce, and the very best education system in the world. Ultimately, as an independent country, Scotland would need to rely on things that we used to take for granted but have been left severely lacking in recent years. On the point of education that he raised, I note the recent comments of University Scotland highlighting international students who have committed £4 billion to the Scottish economy. However, the shameful rhetoric on immigration from the UK Government will cut across the success going forward. Does the member agree that an independent Scotland would address that issue, which is only set to get worse without independence? What I want to say is that Scotland is tackling the massive crisis that we have in education in Scotland, so that every child in Scotland gets the opportunity to go to university, every child gets the chance to succeed and, right now, we are failing. Before we start lecturing the rest of the world what they need to do, we need to put our own house in order, would be my view. Our manufacturing base, once the pride of Scotland, has been badly let down over years of poor investment. Where opportunities have arisen for the Scottish Government to stand up for Scottish industry, I have been left disappointed by decisions taken. The failure of the Government to take advantage of the opportunities of Scotland, for example, is enough to raise concerns on the impact of future manufacturing strategy, or lack of it, would have on the future of Scotland's economy. The SNP could have followed through on its promise of delivering a state-owned energy company like so many other countries have around the world that could have taken advantage of Scotland, could have secured manufacturing guarantees for Scottish industry, could have allowed much higher bids from the private companies that they decided to work with for their development sites. Instead, as Common Wheel stated in its report, Scotland, one year on, and I quote, the Scotland auction of January 22 has massively undervalued Scotland's offshore energy resources and placed a low and arbitrary maximum ceiling on the amount of competitors could bid for their development. Indeed, compared against three offshore wind auctions that took place in the year following the Scotland auction, two in the USA and one in England, Common Wheel found that those auctions raised 40 times as much money as Scotland did. Imagine what Scotland could do with the £16.4 billion single payment had it matched the success of the New York buy auction, or the £28 billion had it matched the success of the English auction. But where we have failed in securing high bids, we could have at least secured the opportunity for manufacturing, a project of this scale that will bring to Scottish industry. Will we, or will we continue to see the manufacturing for renewables, take place in other countries across the world, while Scotland remains simply the host of the turbines? In Fife, reside.yard, has an order book that will secure jobs well into the future. What it does not have is a skilled Scottish workforce and is heavily reliant on skills from abroad as much of the construction and engineering sectors are of our economy. The good news is that we are seeing more and more people getting apprenticeships being created here in Scotland, but be clear as a result of Scotland working as part of the United Kingdom. In conclusion, Scotland has always plunged above its weight across the world, but we need to start to put our own house in order. We need to start addressing the crisis that we have in Scotland's education skills, which will once again put Scotland out there in the world. I welcome this paper on Scotland's place in the world, which sets out where we see Scotland's future in terms of defence, international co-operation and the global economy. Before I focus on the global economy, I wanted to highlight from my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands one example highlighting that there is little certainty in UK defence policy and no status co-position for people to build upon. Redford Barracks was once the largest army base in Scotland, but in 2011 it was earmarked for closure, then that decision was reversed in 2013. Then it was announced in 2016 that Redford would go in 2022 as part of a package of cuts that included 56 bases across the UK and eight of them in Scotland. Then the closure date was put back to 2025. Now it has been announced that closure will be 2029. Lack of long-term planning by the Ministry of Defence has created uncertainty impacting on the local community and its future. The MOD just six days ago sought parliamentary authority for the maximum number of personnel in the armed forces. The army regulars are to be cut by a further four and a half thousand and the air force regulars by 700 during the next financial year at a time when our armed forces are stretched. You couldn't make it up. Independence will mean that we become the 194th member of the United Nations. It will also provide us with the opportunity to rejoin the European family of nations, giving us access to a marketplace of almost 450 million consumers compared to the UK's 67 million. By rejoining the EU, it will restate our right to live and work in any of the 27 countries across Europe. It will also allow EU nationals to come to Scotland and help grow our economy. Scotland is also the only UK nation with a consistent international trade surplus in goods since records began. In 2021, we exported 28 billion in manufactured goods and a further 51 billion in services and other items. Many of the people who purchase Scottish goods are part of a large global diaspora of around 40 million people that cover every continent and who claim to have a Scottish ancestry. Our international trade is supported by our global Scot network, which has 1,200 members across 64 countries. It assists companies to understand local markets and customs to help one trade that in turn supports employment here in Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Government's network of offices from Beijing across Europe to Washington support businesses to trade internationally, improve Scotland's international profile and attract inward investment. The result is that Scotland continues its record of attracting foreign direct investment, outpacing both the UK and Europe for the number of projects and maintaining its position as the top performing area of the UK outside of London for the eighth year. That record on inward investment is at risk since we officially left the EU in 2021, as many companies no longer consider the UK to be the gateway to Europe. To combat that risk, we need independence, as for the first time it would enable Scotland to have a dedicated diplomatic network devoted to promoting and protecting Scottish interests. Soft power is important in diplomatic circles and our international brand is strong, but we need to protect our reputation as it is one of our most important assets. Former Obama White House aide Jennifer Erickson said of the Scottish brand, there is huge currency Scotland has around the world and a tremendous amount of goodwill that can be claimed in a good way. The nation brand index confirms this when it asked 60,000 people from 20 countries what they thought about the 60 countries that make up the index. Scotland ranks 16 out of 60 countries ahead of Austria, Belgium and Ireland, showing that Scotland continues to have a strong reputation abroad. We were seen as hard working, honest and skillful when questioning about investing in Scotland he said, we were forward thinking, modern, developing and ambitious. Given the views of people from across the world and goodwill towards Scotland, we need to break away from the UK, a country that is now considered to be an unreliable partner since a UK minister during Brexit negotiations indicated that he was prepared to break international law. How can the UK Government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of any agreement? The nation's brand index also indicated that people ranked Scotland 10 out of 60 countries for fostering international peace and security. Recent events have justified this ranking as the First Minister has consistently called for a ceasefire in Gaza and last autumn we in this place voted for an immediate ceasefire, but once again our voice was ignored by Westminster. With independence we can promote human rights, build partnerships with other countries and be good global citizens working towards peace and security in the interests of the people of Scotland. It is time that Scotland took its place as an independent country as an equal among the global community of progressive countries. There has been a narrative primarily from the London commentary over recent weeks and months that international affairs is not really of interest to voters or worse, that it is something that the public should not be interested in and should not vote on the basis of. I think that that is profoundly undemocratic. We do not do that with any other area of government policy and it is also patronising, because it presumes that the public only cares about other people if they also live on these ions. I do not think that that is true of communities anywhere across the UK. I certainly do not believe that it is true of communities in Scotland. Our country has always had an internationalist outlook, in part because of centuries of immigration. Scotland has had a disproportionate impact on the world relative to our size, both a good and a bad impact, but today our voice on the global stage is severely limited by being part of the UK. There is no clearer example of that than in relation to the on-going genocide in Gaza. More than 30,000 Palestinians killed, including at least 13,000 children, and we know that those numbers are a massive undercount. The public in Scotland and across the UK have been in favour of a ceasefire for months, and I am confident that a majority would support an arms embargo in Israel as well. However, Westminster has treated public opinion with contempt. To the extent that the UK Government is now considering a ban on MPs and councillors engaging with pro-Palestine and, for some reason, climate change protesters as well. That is a proposal that is put forward by John Woodcock and an adviser to the current Conservative Government, but previously a Labour MP, who spent a lot of his time in office palling around with some very unsavory regimes across the world—certainly no defender of human rights. If Scotland were independent today, we could apply that arms embargo and we could end the scandal that Ivan McKee mentioned of equipment made in factories in Scotland being used to supply an Israeli occupation force committing a genocide in Gaza. Rather, we have a UK arms export control regime—so lax—that the relevant minister, when answering a question in the House of Commons last week, cited the robust oversight of the Arms Export Control Committee. That is a body that has not existed for years. In December, the UK Foreign Secretary—or the Foreign Office officials expressed concern to the Foreign Secretary that Israel was not acting in line with international law—something that we can all see on our TV screens. They presented the Foreign Secretary with options on arms export control licences to Israel, and David Cameron chose to continue those arms licences, which have been very hard to square with Alexander Stewart's claims of significant effort being made by the UK Government to secure a ceasefire. One of the most effective things that the UK Government could do to secure a ceasefire is to stop providing bombs to the people bombing civilians in Gaza. Recently, the Parliament held a reception for young Scottish apprentices who are working at the cutting edge of Scottish science and innovation. Mr Greer was implicit in trying to block their access to the building, causing concern to some of those who were attending. He went on to describe those young people who were coming to the Parliament to promote engagement as being a who's who of Israel's arms dealers. Will he now apologise for doing so and for the offensive cost? I am grateful for the intervention, because Mr Hoy gives me the opportunity to point out that the Conservative Party hosted a reception in this Parliament for the companies currently supplying an occupation force committing a genocide. Those shameful events that happened in this Parliament a couple of weeks ago were the presence of companies like Raytheon, who are Israel's missile supplier. The supplier of missiles to an occupation force destroying schools, destroying hospitals and executing children on site. That was the shameful event that happened in this Parliament a couple of weeks ago. NATO recognises an area of policy difference between the Scottish Greens and the Scottish National Party. For the Greens, there are two reasons why we would not have an independent Scotland join NATO. The first is their nuclear first strike policy, and the second is the presence of the United States and Turkey in the alliance. On the US and Turkey, first of all, those are probably not reliable partners. They are not partners for peace. They are not leaders in an alliance for democracy. Turkey is certainly not a democracy, and the United States has done all it can to undermine democracy across large parts of the world, most notably but not limited to South America. Anything that Israel is committing against the people of Palestine right now has been committed by the Turkish regime against the Kurdish community both inside Turkey and outside its borders for decades. As Greens committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, we cannot be part of an alliance that maintains a first strike nuclear policy, something that we believe to be immoral. Of course, we would want to see an independent Scotland sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. On that point, I am confused by Scottish Labour's position because, last I remember, their party conference did vote for nuclear disarmament. I am wondering if that conference vote has been overridden or if Cure Starmar has simply informed the Scottish Labour Party that they in fact now have a different policy because he has decided so. Greens believe in co-operation based on common values. We would model an independent Scotland's role in the world, somewhat on Ireland's though not quite take the same position of absolute neutrality, but Ireland's role on the UN Security Council, for example, is a clear area where a small nation is acting as a force for good in the world and punching above its weight. Of course, we want to be a force for peace but not alone. You do not need to be a superpower to do good in the world, you just need to be a team player. We believe in security in the traditional sense but also acknowledging that the biggest threat that we face is the climate crisis, which is why Scotland's defence forces need to be equipped for a world where major natural disasters are the norm. We would also want to see our international development spend match our defence spend to head off the greatest threats to our security in the decades to come. We are not proposing that an independent Scotland will be a land of milk and honey, but independence is the opportunity for us to have a positive impact on the world in a way that reflects our values, to be that force for peace, to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, to fight to protect this planet. The UK, whether it is under a red or a blue government, will not reflect those values, will not reflect the public's values. There is plenty of historical precedent, never mind what is going on right now to show that. I do not believe that Scotland is better than any other nation but I certainly believe that we are equal to any other nation and that we want to play an equal part in building a better world. Another world is possible and another Scotland is possible, but for us to play our greatest part in building that better, fairer and greener world, we must take the opportunity to become an independent nation. Ultimately, independence would enable Scotland to determine the kind of state it wants to be on the world stage. I quite agree and I such welcome this debate and the paper published yesterday by the Government. In my speech today, I would like to further develop some considerations that I proffer as a constructive contribution. I start by considering an independent Scotland as a good global citizen, where there is a very welcome commitment to overseas development and meeting the UN target of 0.7 per cent GNI on official development assistance. However, that in-of-itself will not mean that we are playing our full part in tackling global poverty. Official development assistance is a necessary but not sufficient contribution. As was pointed out in a report from ActionAid some years ago, I think that it was in 2016, international taxation arrangements via what is called double taxation treaties are depriving many developing countries of vital taxation revenues, not least from global corporations. I know from our time together at Westminster that the cabinet secretary is aware of this issue, as it was the subject of a private member's bill by one of our then parliamentary colleagues. One estimate has suggested that creating more equitable tax treaties would do more for the funding of African states than the entirety of foreign aid funding. Nevertheless, even with the minimum set-out in the document, which is to initially on our existing double taxation treaties inherited from the UK at day 1 of independence, that would subsequently involve the scrutiny of a very large number of treaties. That scrutiny could bring opportunities to enhance our global citizenship. Those types of treaties need to be updated regularly to ensure that they reflect current economic conditions and fairness between parties. For example, the latest versions with Ireland and France were agreed in 2019, the USA in 2021 and Germany in 2022. However, the UK has not updated the treaty with a well-known tax haven in the Cayman Islands since 2011, and questions need to be asked as to why. Tax treaties have played a part in most well-known cases of aggressive tax planning by international corporations, often ensuring money flows on tax from poor to rich countries. For many developing countries, two treaties have not been updated for too long. Gana, for example, is a 2006 version drawn from the Bangladesh treaty of 1961. I would like to suggest that, ultimately, Scotland as an independent country could do much better and bear in mind the view of the IMF that the use of tax treaty networks to reduce tax payments is a major issue for many developing countries. I am pleased to see such a strong focus on a feminist foreign policy, with specific reference to protecting the rights of women and girls internationally. As we know from the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, it is often innocent women and children who pay the highest of prices in terms of death and physical injury. However, there is evidence to suggest that post-conflict traumatised countries are heavily relying on women in particular to rebuild the homes and communities, but often left to do so within sufficient resources. That is an area where Scotland could play a particularly important role in channeling our support in funding, expertise and capacity building. As one recent report in Ukraine pointed out, there is a huge need to develop trauma-informed education practice, and that is an area where Scotland has notable world-class expertise to contribute. I want to welcome to the commitment to rejoin the EU and also to enhance human rights and democracy. However, even under the restrictions of devolution, we can be more ambitious. In the coming days, I will speak in Malta, the home of a remarkable journalist, Daphne Carunia Galicia, who was assassinated by a car bomb on 16 October 2017. She was a journalist and campaigner against corruption, and when she died, she had 848 lawsuits designed to silence her by the rich, powerful and corrupt. The campaign for Daphne's law to protect those who are engaged in exposing corruption and human rights violations has partly come to fruition by the publication of an EU directive on 20 February, just a few weeks ago. That is an area where Scotland could act in concert with the EU to bring in its own legislation and protect those who would expose corruption and human rights violations. In that matter, we do not need to wait for independence, and it would be a small step in our path to being an active and good global citizen right now. I congratulate the Government on this paper. I would be very grateful if the minister could confirm that the Government will look at the issue of double taxation treaties and adopting the equivalent of Daphne's law for Scotland. It might be super Tuesday in the United States, but it is far from a super Tuesday in this Parliament. Yet another fantasy debate, another grotesque waste of taxpayers' money, and I say again, as I said in a previous debate of this ilk, that if the SNP wants to indulge their fantasies and speak to each other in their little echo chambers about something that is never going to happen and publish documents to their hearts content, they should do it at their own expense and not on the public's. £2 million is how much they are spending on all this nonsense, and it really is nonsense. What else could we be debating, of course, Alasdair Allan? Alasdair Allan? Could we have Dr Allan's microphone, please? Cards in. Could we have Dr Allan's microphone, please? Dr Allan, perhaps you could just move to a different position, because we are using up Mr Kerr's time, Dr Allan. It is okay for the time back, Dr Allan. No, it does not work, I am afraid. Right. There is obviously some problem. Excuse me, there might be some problem with Dr Allan's card, so that might be something to investigate. I apologise that that has not been possible. Mr Kerr, please assume. Well, I disappointed that I was not able to take that intervention. I am open for business on interventions, if anyone else. Oh, delighted, delighted to give way. Ruth McWire. Thank you, Stephen Kerr, for that invitation to intervene. Does SNP Government was elected by the people of Scotland to put forward the case for independence? If we are not to talk about it in this place, if we are not to put it forward, where does he suggest that we do it? How do the people of Scotland make the case? Stephen Kerr. I have no objection to the SNP making the case for anything. That is entirely the nature of politics. What I object to is the fact that public funds are being used to further a party political objective in an area that is reserved. The constitution is reserved, and therefore we are wasting our time talking about this fantasy. I will give way. Thank you very much for giving way. But do you agree with me that Stephen, that it is a waste of taxpayers' money at the same time? It is not SNP's conference in here, is it? And we need to speak through the chair, Stephen Kerr. I couldn't agree more than I thank the member for that intervention. So what could we have been speaking about? Well, our amendment suggests some things. I'll mention some things very quickly. Just from today's newspapers, the telegraph, public at risk in Scotland as police, all you can laugh but listen to this headline. And the member that's leading the laughing, he was the justice secretary and listened to this mess that he left after his time in office. The telegraph headline, public at risk in Scotland as police, funding cuts mean fewer crimes are being investigated. It's a shocking disgrace. What else can we talk about? Another story from the telegraph, SNP risking patient safety by accepting NHS unions reduced working demands. The Scottish Government accused of causing more turmoil by cutting the working week. Incredible. We've not heard a thing about this in this chamber. The equivalent of 10,000 FTEs has been negotiated away by Neil Gray, who astonishes me. Here's the Herald. Number of rehab beds up by just 32, despite pledge. It goes on to remind us about what the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced. There'd be this great expansion of rehab beds, 50 per cent over five years. And what is it? 32. Shall we talk about that? Because that's life and death for people in Scotland. Not this nonsense. Now, what about the Scotsman? What about the Scotsman? There's Ross Greer. I must hear from Ross Greer. It would be such a shame not to hear from Ross Greer. I appreciate Stephen Kerr for taking intervention. And champion of the correct parliamentary process that he is. If I recall correctly, Mr Kerr had significant objections when the Scottish Government published papers in this series, but didn't bring them to Parliament. And now he's objecting that these papers are being brought to the Parliament. Is it not simply the case that what the Conservatives are objecting to is the fact that the people of Scotland have voted over and over again for a pro-independence majority? Stephen Kerr. I'm objecting to the papers. They're a complete waste of time and money. They've got nothing to do with the issues that I'm highlighting, just from this morning's newspapers. You should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking that this is a relevant debate to take up two hours, whatever it is, of the time of this Parliament. But it only sits in this chamber for nine hours a week, and we're taking over two hours of that time to discuss this. There's more stuff about the police than the Scotsmen, and then there's stuff about the NHS and the Daily Mail. Oh, this is the Daily Mail. The NHS waiting time crisis is damaging the economy. A report by the CBI, CBI Scotland, and the Fraser of Allander Institute talking about the damage that's being done to our economy because of the ineffective way in which the SNP are managing the national health service in Scotland. Now, it is deja vu all over again. Someone said that earlier. Absolutely right. We hear this all the time. We're getting fed up. The people of Scotland are bored stiff of these debates, this never-ending obsession of the SNP. They should have their conference. I don't know when their conference is due to be held. They should have it soon so they can get out of their system. They can have morning to evening debates among themselves about this stuff. They don't waste the time of Scotland's Parliament on this fantasy. Have I known, when I accepted the chief whip's request, I'm doing the chief whip a favour by speaking in this debate, by the way, because had I known, had I known, had I known, had I known that this was going to be another fantasy independent white paper speech debate, I would have opposed the business motion last week. We should have opposed this business motion, and I think that the bureau should look at themselves very closely. They should look themselves in the mirror, the bureau, because this afternoon they have allowed this Parliament to withdraw from reality. That's what they've done. Now, I know that Keith Brown wants the SNP MPs to be what's going on. Mr Kerr, obviously you'll be bringing your remarks to a close and happy and generous. I will, I will, I will. I've gone on for far too long already. I have, because I shouldn't be giving airtime and grace to this nonsense of a debate. But Keith Brown, he wants the SNP members— I did indicate a concluding approach. I am not concluding. By mentioning Keith Brown, Keith Brown, whose bright idea is to withdraw the SNP MPs from Westminster, this whole Parliament, the SNP, is withdrawn from reality this afternoon, and it's a shame and a disgrace. This is a great thing. Thank you, Mr Kerr. Thank you, Mr Kerr. We will now have Ash Reckon to be followed by Keith Brown. Mr Reckon. Presiding Officer, I thought I would take up the independence ministers kind request for me to take part in one of these debates, although he may not be so keen once he hears what I've got to say. So we're more than midway through the second pro-independence term of government since the referendum. And in response to the Supreme Court judgment, the Scottish Government appointed an independence minister to build the case and rally the calls for independence, and the First Minister pledged to be the first activist. But that doesn't appear to be any concern amongst the Westminster system that this will cause any disruption to the continuing union. In a week where the Prime Minister made a statement in response to a by-election half surprise, it does seem that there is no fear for the union from the independence ministry. Now, I'm nothing if not practical, Presiding Officer, and I've already made several suggestions on how we can deliver independence. I've even presented a plan and a potential bill. And in a show of bipartisan spirit, I'm happy for it to be taken over and put into the Government's name. But on those independence papers, Presiding Officer, I must say that they are the equivalent of cold dry toast in a buffet of ideas. The hope, the dream, the ambition of 2014 is missing, replaced instead with grievance seeking and a bewildering commitment to doing things exactly the same. Now, it's unlikely that anyone has read the near 1,000 pages, and I note that Willie Rennie admitted that he has not read the report, and I suspect that Mr Kerr hadn't read it either. No. The pages of what seems to be regurgitation from the prior white paper, but carefully distilled now to make sure not to offend or not to excite anyone. So we'll just recap some of the highlights from previous papers. So a migration policy that tweaks the UK plan ignores the largest net migrators, which are the Indian and the Polish communities. A commitment to ending the oil and gas sector, which of course requires a diverse international community. An EU paper that in 84 pages manages to spare a single half page on the relationship with the UK, which will be our only land-based trading partner and our largest trading partner for some time. Complaints in it about the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy and the monetary union whilst ignoring the much better plan that the very same government advanced in 2016 in looking at EFTTA. EFTTA and the EEA agreement would solve some of these problems and have none of the drawbacks on fisheries, agriculture or monetary policy. It's also deliverable quickly, easily and more inexpensively than EU ascension and has the uniting effect of pleasing both Brexiters and Remainers. The marine paper lacking entirely in direction, strategy or plan, and I suspect that selling our oil and gas and fishing in one paper made it quite a difficult paper to write, which is probably why it was relatively short. Social security, this one is the best of the bad bunch, but it does not clearly navigate the ageing population. It doesn't seek to increase the pension or allow many of the pension age carers to have an additional financial support and the financial incentive to secure our population's future is barely acknowledged. On culture, I will. I will. I have a much sympathy with many of the points that the member makes. Would you also agree with me that if Scotland is to obtain independence, then it is desirable and perhaps essential that many different voices advocating independence should be respected and should work together, whether they be in SNP, Alba or elsewhere? I completely agree with his sentiment on that. The culture paper, 55 pages of the culture paper, aims to keep both the BBC and the Channel 4 and to support exactly the same industries that we have now. It does not bother to look beyond that to smaller creators or other visionaries. In short, the entire series of papers is a work of art in being completely unambitious. How many people will read them? Not even the people taking part in this debate have read those papers. So I suspect that it is very few. The Government hopes that they will of course be well-covered in the media, but I have to break it to the Government. Unfortunately, it seems that the launch of Celebrity Big Brother has more coverage today than the latest independence paper. Now, Willie Winnie Ewing has had a couple of mentions this afternoon, so I would like to mention her again this afternoon. Willie Winnie Ewing got us this Parliament. Alex Salmond got us a referendum. Jamie Hepburn has got us ignored. I will give way. Briefly, Mr Hoy. Okay, I have an absolute moment to come in. Does the member think that the dream has died for this Government, or is it simply that they are not up to the job? As we can. The dream will never die for the wider independence movement. I will move on to the latest paper, which I have read, although I perhaps wish that I hadn't. The only surprise was that the Scottish Government wants a feminist approach to foreign policy. I had to laugh at this, Presiding Officer, because it is feminism that is foreign to this Government. A Government that, let us not forget, is unable to define what a woman is, and I suspect that that will make designing international development policy rather tricky for them. I come back to my initial point. Who in the UK Government is scared of those papers? Not far be it from me, Presiding Officer, to burst the minister's bubble. After all, he has said in response to me urging him for action on independence over the last few months that the Scottish Government is hard at work producing those papers. Papers that present nothing new, Presiding Officer. Papers that no one is reading. Minister, this is not the action that the independence movement is looking for. Papers that address the big question from 2014 and move the argument forward would be useful. Those are not useful. We need action towards independence. I have outlined a strategy that Westminster would be afraid of. The minister should look carefully at it. Thank you, Mr Reagan. I now call Keith Brown, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Minister Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has been mentioned in the debate already— Minister, could you please refrain and look this way? Keith Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has been mentioned in the debate already, just before the First World War, there were around 60 independent sovereign states in the world, and today there are almost 200. But just thinking about last night, I went to see the production of Hamilton, and it's amazing how many of the single transferable unionist speeches from the different parties mirror exactly the arguments that were used by the UK back in that time. You can't go. You can't manage on your own. You're not good enough. You're too small. You don't have the experience. It seems that nothing in the unionist arguments have moved on, and that's why we've seen the same approach today to the publication of the Scottish Government's paper, which is the dismiss to denigrate and try and talk down Scotland's potential. In just over 100 years, our world has transformed from one of very large empires to one of sovereignty and independence, backed by the UN, and the international rules-based system, one that the UK Government, of course, said that it was happy to break into international law, break its word on treaties. Despite that, much of our world is a better, more peaceful and more democratic place because of the diversity that we now see within it. So, unashamedly, my ultimate political aspiration is to see our country join the UN in our own right as an independent country, and I firmly believe that that is the direction of travel that we are taking as a country. 150 years ago, there was no Secretary of State for Scotland or any other meaningful political distinction for Scotland within the UK. 100 years ago, there was no Scottish National Party to advocate for independence. 30 years ago, there was no Scottish Parliament, but just 10 years ago, 45 per cent of Scots voted for full independence. In other words, the direction that the world is travelling in and the direction that Scotland is travelling in is clear, and that's the direction of independence and a seat at the UN. I don't think that we can do just this as Scotland's place in the world without highlighting that fact, but independence is not only normal, it's essential to have any meaningful say in our increasingly international world. International questions like climate change or defence require international answers, and the bodies that produce those answers, the EU, NATO and the UN, are clubs of independent states which the UK is and which Scotland currently is not. The alternative is to continue to allow Scotland to be represented by the UK Government, which, more often than not, has been rejected by Scottish voters, and for whom Scotland is rarely, if ever, a priority. That does a huge disservice of Scotland's offering to the world and nowhere is that more evident than defence. To hear Neil Bibby talking about the Royal Marines, is he aware of the consternation within the core of Royal Marines about the latest threat to their existence, which he's seen since the 1980s under market thatcher previously in various Governments since? There is no confidence in a UK Government defending the existence of their Royal Marines. So the idea that they can be held up as a paragon of some kind of fantastic management of a defence by the UK Government is completely wrong. I will give way, yes. Neil Bibby. I thank Mr Brown for taking on an invention. I'm aware of concerns, obviously, that we do need to invest in our armed forces at a UK level, and there's been a lack of investment from the current UK Government. My point in relation to that was the document, the paper, which I have read, for clarity, talks about investing in core capabilities. It doesn't mention that the niche capabilities doesn't talk about special forces in England. That's a real omission from the paper and it wouldn't replicate what we currently have within the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the point that Mr Brown has made. Keith Brown. I think the point that's been made is how much planning, how much foresight is going into this and the comparison made by Neil Bibby is that the UK is doing this and this paper doesn't. The UK is not doing this. We had a commitment from the UK Government in 2012 that we would have no less than 12,000 service personnel on the Scotland. They have ditched that without even telling anybody where they ditched it. We've got the lowest UK armed forces since Napoleonic times. We've got a recruitment and retention crisis where nobody wants to stay because they don't have the equipment that they need. That goes back to Labour's time in Afghanistan when they couldn't provide the helicopters or the boots when they were issuing P45s, the service personnel, on the front line. So the UK is no paragon of virtue. Not as before we mentioned the possibility of selling off the pins of Wales aircraft carrier which cost billions to build and would be sold at a discount, possibly closing down the raw Marines because that niche capability that Neil Bibby talks about is not followed by the UK Government. Or let's go back to Labour. The Nimrod programme billions of pounds spent dismantling something before it was completed. I mean, the track record of the UK Government in defence is absolutely appalling. The idea that Scotland could not do better is for the birds. We currently have the arrangement where Scotland can, of course, be dragged into illegal wars where one of Europe's biggest nuclear, let's talk about the nuclear weapons. What does the sound of a nuclear trying submarine drill make plop in the water? Hundreds of billions of pounds spent on something that has never been independent, which does not even work and which you could not conceivably use. That's what the UK Government and they spend that money at the expense of service personnel on proper training, proper equipment. And that is something that the white paper produced by the Scottish Government says that we would not do. We would not have those nuclear weapons. But we will get dragged, as we have been, into illegal wars despite the clear express view of people in Scotland who did not want that to happen. Leaving Scotland's defence capabilities in the hands of Westminster is failing Scotland's service personnel. We have had service personnel move from Germany to Scotland to Northern Ireland within the space of 18 months. Whole families made to learn different education systems. The UK defence system is a mess. Everybody knows that. Everyone in the defence like committee in Westminster knows that. But we don't hear anything of that year. And we should because Scottish taxpayers' money goes into these fiascos. They are talking about the Ferguson's ferries. Look at the aircraft carriers massively over budget. Look at the Ajax tanks. What a disgrace. Not a word. Not a word in defence of Scottish taxpayers and the Tories on any of that because they see their role here as the defending UK Government not to stand up for the constituents that they have here. And independence would allow us to get rid of nuclear weapons. And I totally refuged the idea that somehow an independent Scotland would be uniquely incapable of joining the NATO. Much of the Union's argument relies on convincing people in Scotland that we are uniquely different to every other country in the world that we can't manage these affairs. And it's our job and the job of the paper produced by the Scottish Government to give the contrary to that argument. We have the chance to make a different impact in the world both whether it's in terms of defence and peacekeeping and certainly in terms of climate change and being a constructive partner. And we have seen the diminution of the UK's international reputation over many years. Taking our country to independence governing ourselves at home representing ourselves abroad and we hear from the Tories Mr Brown, you will need to conclude. Mr Brown, you will need to conclude. I'll conclude in this point. I don't like, apart from the honourable exception of Donald Cameron and from the Labour Party and members of the House of Lords, they don't want Scotland's voice to be heard abroad. So taking our country to independence is the way that we can govern ourselves at home represent ourselves abroad and is the essence of what I stand for. Mr Brown, you will need to conclude. My party stands for it and what the Government stands for and for that reason I support the motion in Ike's Robertson's name. Thank you, Mr Brown. We will now move to closing speeches and I call on Foisle to try to get up to six minutes, please. Thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, as Alexander Stewart noted, this latest paper shows that the SNP are still wasting time imagining that what they would do had they won the 2014 independence referendum almost 10 years ago. In 2014, the people of Scotland voted democratically to remain in the UK. Yet, the SNP are continuing to use precious time in this chamber to, as Willie Rennie and stupid care rightly put, bore us with independence papers and continue forward with their agenda. This is Scotland's people's parliament, not the SNP party conference. Alex Rowley rightly outlined concern that we have been called to this chamber time and time again to discuss the SNP's constitutional opposition. Many colleagues across the chamber, including Neil Bibby and Craig Hoy, outlined the valuable time spent in this parliament which could have been spent on productive discussions to improve the lives of people in Scotland now. People who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, housing crisis and NHS crisis to name but few. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is important that we see an outward looking Scotland playing its role in the world. As Ivan McKee and others outlined, Scotland is renowned internationally so we must focus on what Scotland can do now to continue this legacy. The independence papers have failed to adequately address even the big unanswered question such as currency, the border or the economic case for independence. If they have failed to do even detailed these big questions, how could they deliver on the massive amount of capacity building that would be required for an independent Scotland in areas such as defence, intelligence and security? We must be taking interventions. I'm sorry, I won't be taking interventions because you guys had so many debates in this parliament. I have got a lot to go through. It's wasting taxpayers' money, let me get my points and because you guys had millions of debates and probably I'm many. I'm not entirely sure if you guys is exactly the way that... Capabilities to Scotland. Minister, I'm speaking. Sorry. I'm just not entirely sure that it frees you guys to refer to your colleagues as exactly within the keeping of the tenants of courtesy and respect. Thank you. Apologies to members. Capabilities to Scotland already enjoys as part of the UK. The Scottish Government motion talks about Scotland acting in the interest of its people. In this increasingly turbulent geopolitical situation, Scotland needs to remain as an existing member of NATO as part of the UK. Instead of serving those connections and trying to build them from scratch. The Scottish Government should instead be focusing on the detail of how to improve Scotland's on the world stage, now by working closely with the UK Government and engaging with the international partners to build cultural and economic connections. It should be working closely with the UK Government to sell brand Scotland and on the world. Marketing Scotland's unique contribution and innovation to facilitate trade and tourism for Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer it is no doubt important that Scotland plays a role on the world stage as the cabinet secretary outlined. Building relationship with global partners can increase opportunities for tourism and trade. It can refrain the Scotland is committed to working with others towards important shared goals such as sustainability and tackling climate change. Indeed, as a conventer of the CPG on Bangladesh, myself, Mild Bricks MSP and Eblin Tweed MSP travelled to Bangladesh last year where we discussed the importance of knowledge and skill sharing amongst global nations on issues of importance such as climate justice. And I refer members to my register of interest. This trip showed that there is so much which can be done now to develop this relationship and increase benefits for Scotland in the current climate. Our time in the chamber should support the will of the electorate and find ways to improve offering for the Scottish people with Scotland as part of the UK. We should honour that democratic decision and find ways for Scotland to benefit from the defensive, diplomatic and economic connections is shared with the rest of the UK. Deputy Presiding Officer while is the SNP Green Government continues to use the Scottish Parliament's time and Scottish taxpayers' money to talk about their fantasy scenario. Scottish Labour stands ready to deliver for Scotland in line with the people's democratic will and improves Scotland's standing at home and on the world stage. Thank you. Thank you Mr Chaugay. I now call Maurice Golden up to seven minutes please. Mr Golden. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Working with the UK Government and within the terms of the devolved settlement the Scottish Government Scottish Conservatives not government yet Scottish Conservatives have always argued that it is vital for Scotland to have an international voice in terms of developing trade connecting with a diaspora and promoting Scotland as a destination for investment and tourism. This is a point we have debated previously. It was constructive and engaged the entire chamber. Most importantly it was not predicated on a fallacy. Now Craig happy to. Any capital sector? Given his very welcome words about international engagement would he take the opportunity to praise the work of SDI internationally for promoting trade or the Scottish Government's international network of officers that do so much to promote Scotland abroad? Would he put that on the record? Maurice Golden. I'm quite happy to praise the efforts of those individuals whether SDI who have worked within the past that seek to promote trade and link and work with the United Kingdom within the devolved settlement. It's absolutely important and I'll come on to some additional points around that in due course. But back to the central point Craig Hoy spoke about the fantasy paper and highlighted the value globally through his own experience in Hong Kong and Singapore of being Scottish and British. Alexander Stewart expressed his disappointment that this Government was wasting parliamentary time and Willie Rennie gave a highly entertaining and informative speech outlining the lack of coherence of Scottish Government policy within the international sphere. Ash Reagan who we heard from just recently outlined that this was a grievance paper a regurgitation of previous announcements and came up with some new ideas and I think new ideas are always welcome in this place. The motion today reveals a thinly veiled approach to international relations one in which the SNP put the promotion of independence at his heart. Is it any wonder therefore at a time when thanks to the SNP local council funding is in disarray the NHS is at breaking point the climate emergency has been cancelled and Scotland's once world-class education system is in the daldrums. The Scottish Government would rather waste money on this latest perspective for independence paper and related projects. Furthermore today serves to undermine the millions of pounds the Scottish Government spends on international relations on which there is very little scrutiny. Deputy Presiding Officer when the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee recently reviewed the Scottish Government's international work the Scottish Government was consistently criticised on the transparency, scrutiny and accountability of their work. This aspect has not been addressed today so if the intention is to have a real debate on Scotland's place in the world in closing perhaps this could be addressed. And on this subject last year the Parliament agreed the Scottish Government would provide more details regarding the metrics upon which the delivery of the Scottish connections framework will be measured so in closing I would appreciate an update. There is concern highlighted by the debate focus today that the SNP do not want its international outreach work scrutinised to be held to account and have full transparency because this would expose the flagrant waste of money when the SNP pursue their independence agenda at home and abroad rather than serve the interests of the people of Scotland. Moving on, no. Moving on to today's amendments Labour led today by Neil Bibby have highlighted that Scotland's place on the international stage is best served from the mutual benefits we share with the rest of the UK in areas including defence diplomatic relations and economic connections. And we will be supporting Labour's amendments today and agree with it wholeheartedly. Deputy Presiding Officer, regrettably today's debate has been a waste of time and this is a recurring theme over a number of months now with today representing the most recent in a long line of pointless debates on independence. Only one month ago we were debating an independent Scotland's place in Europe. Now it's an independent Scotland's place in the world. It continues to get more ridiculous and more ludicrous and the SNP is treating this Parliament as a mockery. Next month it will probably have us debating an independent Scotland's place in the United Federation of Planets with Humza Yousaf demanding Scotland takes its rightful spot at the top table next to the Vulcans and Betazoids. All of this is fantasy anyway so that subject would be as valuable as this one. As far as the SNP are concerned it would give them another opportunity to duck scrutiny. The SNP want to avoid the issues that really matter to the people of Scotland. Priorities such as growing the economy, reducing NHS waiting times and violent crime and improving education standards and public services. These are issues that we should be spending parliamentary time demating but the SNP clearly believe that those are not the sort of priorities that this Parliament should be concerned about. Deputy Prime Minister, I urge the chamber to support the amendment in the name of Alexander Stewart. Thank you and I call on Jamie Hepburn to wind up up to nine minutes minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking those members who have taken the time to contribute to this debate? The issues that we have debated are of importance in the context of where Scotland stands in the world and I am grateful for those who have given it proper consideration. Maybe less so the last contribution. I have to freely confess that I have no idea what a betazoid is but I can certainly assure Mr Golden that we will be bringing for more debates on the future of Scotland on an independent Scotland. And I have to apologise to him. It will not be in the context of his clear interest on Star Trek. Presiding Officer, I want to turn to the amendments that are before I would start off focusing on the contribution of Alexander Stewart. He suggested that someone tuned in to Parliament TV today they might have thought that it was on repeat. Well, they may well have done so but I would respectfully suggest I might have been because they were tuning it in at the juncture that he was speaking. I will return to that point in a moment but I have to say that it is a contribution much better than the nightmare-ish vision of Project Fear on overdrive that Craig Hoy laid out and in relation to his suggestion and suggestion from other members of the Conservative benches sometimes from a sedentary position that the prospect of an independent Scotland would in some way be capitulation to Russia. I would take that suggestion rather more seriously if it wasn't coming from members of a party who in the run-up to the 2019 general election had accepted £3.5 million worth of donations from the Russian oligarch class. Let me turn to the amendment in the name of Alexander Stewart. It says that we should accept the will of the people. Let me quote from the manifesto that we presented at that particular election in 2021. We said we would ensure the people of Scotland have the information they need to make an informed choice about their future. I respect the right of people to comment on the content of our papers. Mr Rennie might want to start reading them to be able to do so on an informed basis but that's precisely what our banned series is. Let me remind Mr Stewart and other members that at the 2021 election standing on that manifesto which I've directly quoted from we won that election his party lost that election so I say to Mr Stewart just as I've said. Minister if you could just take a seat for a moment Mr Kerr, Mr Stephen Kerr I think you may have forgotten where you are at the moment Mr Kerr I would ask you to remember that you are representing your constituents in our national parliament and as such let's conduct our behaviour accordingly minister. All I can say is Mr Kerr must forget where he is quite often because that seems to be as usual to me but Ruth Maguire also made this point an intervention on Mr Kerr we did win the election so I say to Mr Stewart that he should accept the will of the people of Scotland and understand and respect the right of this Scottish Government to bring forward these debates. Minister I am sorry to have to take up more parliamentary time but I cannot hear the minister and I am fairly close to the minister and I'm sure everyone would like to hear the minister to continue. Thank you very much I don't know if Mr Kerr will like to hear this because I want to return to his controversy he talked about economic damage we would take his concerns about economic damage rather more seriously if it wasn't his party that it's just led. Point of order Jackson Carlaw I hear what you say Presiding Officer but if the minister is pointing at other members and deliberately provoking them it's hardly a surprise if members feel that necessary to react. Mr Carlaw if I could just gently say that the person in the chair is best placed to chair the meeting and that I will intervene as and when I find that necessary minister. What news to us that we know Mr Carlaw such a shrinking violet that he's subject to such meag a provocation but let me return to the point I was making that Mr Kerr's contribution we talked about economic damage we take that rather more seriously if it wasn't his party and government has just led the UK Government into the session that where we see the resolution foundation making the point that the UK economy kept pace with comparator countries in 2008 the average household in the UK would be £8,300 better off and if we didn't see the Joseph Rowntree foundation talking about increased levels of destitution in this country we'll take no lessons on the economy from Mr Kerr and the Conservatives let me turn to the other I meant before us in the name of Neil Bibby which talks about severing connections this paper is the exact opposite the polar opposite of seven connections what's laid out in this paper is a prospectus for us to be able to reverse Brexit a Brexit that we didn't vote for and enable Scotland to return to the European fold as Gordon MacDonald set out and of course we know from that previous debate that was referred to by Mr Golden that it was the Conservatives in alliance with the Labour party and indeed the Liberal Democrats who voted against the simple prospect that Scotland is best served by being in the European Union not even in the context of being an independent country by including and being part of the negative kingdom it is very clear that the only way for us to rejoin the European family of nations is by becoming an independent country then officer fundamentally what this paper speaks to is about two different visions the cabinet secretary spoke of two competing visions I want to talk about that too the first is of the status quo doing what we can and we will always do what we can to seek out like-minded partners acting as a good global citizen and using the limited resources and powers we have to make an impact we saw this just last month with half a million pounds committed to help address the food crisis in Malawi where more than five million people are unable to meet their basic food needs we see it in our support for the people of Gaza we will always do what we can but the status quo also means having decisions of fundamental importance such as Brexit made for us by Westminster resulting in isolation and decline and isolation decline will only be hastened by any proposals to decrease or diminish Scotland's international game as we have seen threatened by the UK Government in recent times despite it being the case as it is the advent of devolution starting with the administration of Donald Stuart all the evolved administrations have sought to represent Scotland on the international stage the second vision is for independence for a sovereign nation active and engaged on the world stage with decisions that affect us made by us to take our place as a state among equals in the global community and other powers to truly transform our country to harness all the potential and ability of our nation to make a difference internationally to listen to Opposition members we would have to believe that we have laid out what we have laid out is somewhat fantastical beyond our capability but in fact actually in lots of ways nothing proposed in this latest paper should be considered particularly radical or ground baking the proposals align with how many other nations of a similar size to Scotland operate but for Scotland so long without the levers of powers and powers of state they are ground baking and they could be transformative Ivan McKee made the point when he talked about how other similar sized nations can play their part on the global stage as an independent country we could do things differently than the United Kingdom as an independent country we would seek to become a party to the UN convention the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance something the UK has declined to sign as an independent country we would join the revised European social charter something the UK has never ratified as an independent country we would not seek to exempt migrant women from the protections of the Istanbul convention as the UK does and Stuart McMill and highly to the set out in our paper as an independent country we would join Sweden, Denmark and Norway in meeting the UN target of 0.7 per cent gross national income to overseas to develop something the UK does not do and has specifically legislated for a lower amount relying the suggestion from Mr Stuart of leadership from the UK on international development and as an independent country we would seek to implement a humane and sensible immigration system that is not founded on the basis of hostility something the UK has also not done as an independent country we could and we would seek to be a good global actor and it's only as an independent country that we can properly it become one that's why this government has laid out the case in an independent Scotland's place in the world and that's why we'll continue to advocate for independence and we will continue to take this work for here here very good thank you that concludes the debate on Scotland's place in the world and it's time to move on to the next item of business there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business can i remind members that if the amendment in the name of alexander stewart is agreed to the amendment in the name of neil bibby will fall and the first question is the amendment 1 2 3 7 2.1 in the name of alexander stewart which seeks to amend motion 1 2 3 7 2 in the name of angus robertson on scotland's place in the world be agreed are we all agreed the parliament is not agreed therefore we'll move to a vote and there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system