 On-topic Eris, bobl sglu i fynd mewnent, mae'r ddefnyddio i'r toliadol ond Yrr Lyn Cynon, diolch i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i'r ddefnyddio i fynd mewnent, ond mae'n gwneud i'r ddylch i 40 oes ar y Falklands War, y ddefnyddio i'r ddylch i'r ddylch i ni i fwyaf o bydd technau. Dechreuch chi i bwysig y lluniau a'u mwyaf o'u cyhoedledd amser, yn awr i'r ddiffuithion ar gyfer ychydig. Stuart McMillan o'r debat o'r behalf o Graeme Dey, ym 7 mlynedd, Mr McMillan? I'm delivering the speech today on behalf of my colleague Graeme Dey, MSP, who is ill. I was privileged to be asked to deliver this speech today for Graeme, and I imagine that my role in the Scottish Parliament branch and also the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might have been a factor in that. In 2013, I did visit the Falcon Islands on behalf of the Scottish Parliament to take part in a conference on the issue of self-determination for the Falcon Islands, something that Graeme touches upon in his speech. Any commemoration demands careful reflection on events, impacts and legacies, and one marking a 40th anniversary requires a particular focus. Many, if not most of us in this chamber, will have some recollection of the Falcon's conflict, and I'm grateful to those colleagues who supported the motion and are contributing this evening. However, a recent survey by Help for Heroes found that almost half of 18 to 34-year-olds did not know when the Falcon's War happened. Indeed, over a quarter of them had not even heard of it. Whilst, based on the age profile, that's perhaps not surprising, but it's important that we do not allow that conflict to join the Korean War and be felt by many of those who serve on it as a forgotten war. Veterans and their sacrifice cannot be forgotten. It's crucial that we remember both those who lost their lives and those who were left mentally and physically scarred by events 40 years ago. When we reflect in past conflicts, it can be easy to get caught up in dates, overall narratives and accounts of decision making of political leaders. However, one of my abiding personal memories as a young journalist at the time was of an infamous tabloid newspaper Front Page reporting the sinking of the Balgrano. That very much returned to the forefront of my mind when watching a recent documentary in the war, hearing a British naval veteran speak of his own mixed emotions when hearing of that event. Euphoria over a significant win for the side and the conflict immediately tempered by recognition that many fellow mariners had perished. It's essential in reflecting upon what unfolded in the South Atlantic. We focus on those individual stories and sacrifices on the front line. The first front line in the Falcons consisted of 32 local defence force volunteers and the navy personnel there at their point of invasion, none of whom had gone there expecting to see any action. Just 67 men, the Marine contingent known as the naval party 8901, showed a bravery and resistance that went unrecognised for too long. In a recent documentary Major Mike Norman, who led these men in a vastly under-resourced defence against an 800 strong landing party, described how certain of death he was. Many tabloid headlines at the time painted Norman and his men as cowards. Their efforts now acknowledged, however, quash any such claim. During the several hours of fighting, around 6,500 rounds of ammunition were discharged, casualties were inflicted and arms were eventually laid down only on the orders of the British Government. After being sent home, most of the marines immediately volunteered to head back and ended up there as part of the forces who had actually recaptured the islands. 4-5 commando, based out of a broth in my constituency, played a significant role in the Falcons, being among the very first fruits to part, Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown among them. 4-5 were to become known as the ympers due to the extreme miles that they had to march ymping in grim conditions on those small islands, 8,000 miles from home. 110 mile route of constant diversions and detours, including the whole of which everything that they had was carried on their backs. James Kelly, a young second lieutenant, talked of 44 days without fresh water, without a change of clothing, freezing cold, soaking wet with wind-chill temperatures well below zero. The marines saw ships being hit and sunk and friends and colleagues injured, and it must have been unimaginably hard on all involved, but there were to be tough heartbreaking experiences of those back home too. Theresa Davidson was just 25 when she lost her husband at Clark Mitchell of the Scots Guards on the final day of the Falcons conflict. He was one of eight Scots Guards to lose their lives that day. All of this is a reminder, Presiding Officer, that there is nothing glorious about war, but apart from the liberation of the islands and the sending of a clear message that the right to self-determination is to be cherished and protected, the Falcons were proved important in another way, re-evaluating previous perceptions of trauma. It was to become recognised that even after the effects of a short-term war had the power to linger for much longer than desired. The unpredictable nature of trauma can be brought on by grief, survivor's guilt or simply the inability to cope with the reality of life after war. As a result, too many Falcons veterans have been led into paths of alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, family breakdown and also crime. When you read the stories of Falcons veterans, the main takeaway is that for most not a day goes by without a memory or thought of the conflict. Individual decisions made during the war can still play on their minds with the only solution being to live with them and their consequences good or bad. Post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD was not recognised until 1987. Before then it was known that during the Second World War there was shell shock and during the Great War it was viewed as cowardice. There remains progress to be made. For many whose services there lies a fear that by disclosing a suspected mental health issue they are disclosing a weakness that may affect their future careers. That is why I wish to express my continued appreciation for the military charities and associations who provided necessary support and friendship needed to manage the powerful emotions experienced daily by their veterans. From any Falcons service, the effects of PTSD have taken years, sometimes decades, to manifest. Before PTSD received its recognition, veterans were shunned and unsupported to the point where the act of seeking help seemed out of the question. Take the example of the youngest Scot deployed in the Falcons at David Cwickshanks, aged 17, for whom joining the navy was a dream come true. It was not until 1999, 17 years after the Falcons war, that his struggle with PTSD and depression was picked up by a doctor in an unrelated consultation. Only then did he start to speak out about his personal struggles. Last November, it was fortunate to revisit RM Condor's Woodlands Garden of Remembrance, a point at memorial to the men who have lost their lives in various conflicts, including the Falcons. The garden's tranquil environment offers a focal point for the men of 4.5 commando and their relatives to reflect and remember. You cannot visit it and fail to be moved. It is a matter of record that the 255 British servicemen lost their lives in the Falcons, as well as, lest we forget, 649 Arsentynians. According to Royal British Legion figures, approximately 350 British Falcons veterans have taken their own lives since the conflict. Whilst it can be said that, in the subsequent decades since the Falcons war, there has been more cultural awareness to the seriousness of PTSD, it is still an issue that many struggle with. The expectation during the Falcons conflict was to get on with it and deal with it yourself, whatever it actually was. There can no longer be a stigma around asking for help, and act so simple yet, in some cases, the life changing. To conclude my contribution to this debate, I want to quote Ian Gardner, then commander of X-ray company, 4.5 commando. I see reflected in the war and I quote, we are all of us changed men. For many it was a pivotal event in their lives. The time before was innocence, while afterwards was a particular form of adulthood that not many ever see. In recognition of those words, this anniversary must serve as a reminder of the need, our collective responsibility to support those of our veterans whose service exacted at all, because they bear their physical and mental wounds every single day, not just during anniversaries of conflicts in which they sow action. Thank you very much, Mr McMillan. Thank you for stepping into the brief short notice. We now move to the open debate. I call First Jackson Carlaw to be followed by Sarah Boyack for around four minutes, Mr Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to contribute a few thoughts to this debate, 40 years since the UK's victory in Port Stanley in the end of the Falcons war. I thank Graham Day for tabling the motion. Wish him well. I thank Stuart McMillan for introducing it and associating myself really with everything that he had to say. I'm delighted to see the Scottish Parliament taking the time to commemorate again those lost in the war and the fight to ensure that the Falkland island is of British free and able to choose their future. I acknowledge and welcome Mr Brown's repeat performance this afternoon and, of course, his service to the Falklands in that conflict. Over the course of a 74-day war, 250 British troops were killed along with three islanders, and debates such as this and that of my colleague Sharon Dowey at the end of last month gave us the opportunity to remember those who gave their lives to protect the freedom of Falkland islanders. It's also a further opportunity to thank veterans for their service. As a result of that military campaign to protect the island and its people, Falkland islanders have had their right to self-determination upheld, guaranteed under the protection, the continuing protection of British forces South Atlantic islands, headquartered at RAF Mount Pleasant. The islanders' gratitude for the UK's intervention and continuing support is clear to see. They remain proud to be British, deeply affectionate and appreciative of the efforts of the UK during those dark weeks and months of sunglasses no longer required, Presiding Officer, and for the heroism and discipline of our military personnel. At an event in Parliament at the end of last month to commemorate those 40 years since the conflict, we had the opportunity to hear from the Falkland islands representative to the UK, Richard Hyslop, who spoke of the nation's progression from wool production and sheet rearing, expanding to tourism, fishing and the oil and gas industries. In the time since that war, an estimated doubling of the population of the islands. Now, whilst the victory signalled change for the islands themselves, huge consequences were also felt in defeated Argentina for where there it was the humiliating failure for the Argentine junta. Our victory at that time was pivotal in ridding Argentina of military junta rule and bringing more democracy to that nation. Presiding Officer, this conflict was the UK's first large-scale military engagement following the debacle of Suez in 1956. Our military was still lacking in confidence and standing wounded on the world stage. More widely, the US was suffering following the debacle of the Iranian hostage crisis rescue mission and the longer-term trauma of Vietnam. The West was no longer as confident or as effective in the eyes of many as a powerhouse that they had come to expect. The Falklands conflict reignited our resolve because it was a situation in which talk was clearly no longer enough and action had to be taken. To paraphrase Churchill, doing one's best was not enough. We had to do what was required. In the days that followed the invasion of the Falklands, there was a united front across the country, across the globe basically for the UK's military involvement. Most members of the European community at the time were coming out against Argentina's aggression as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Many other countries stood in support. Some took their own action by implementing sanctions, all in a united effort to ensure that this was not going to become a precedent and that we could defend Falkland Islanders' right to live their lives in their way. Those were considerations at the time that we did not know we could secure but actually managed to do so. On Tuesday, we officially reached 40 years since the end of the war and I was in my early 20s and I was not writing but I remember the daily BBC reports and I am acutely aware that as we meet today in the passage of time many members of this Parliament in fact really were not there to have any first-hand recollection of the event but we can't allow that sacrifice to be forgotten. One of the key things I think is that in the 40 years since the Falkland Islands remains unique, it was the last war to predate 24-hour rolling news. Thereby at the time that allowed the news flow to be limited and controlled by the UK government and military as well as being inevitably limited by the remoteness of the islands. Contrast this with the ongoing war in Ukraine where journalists are embedded within the major conflict zones reporting live at every stage. Public opinion was therefore far more managed in the Falklands, perhaps best illustrated by the famous Brian Hanrahan quote where he had to avoid the military censors with his eye counted them all out and counted them back. The existence of in-depth and committed coverage has changed this. Never again will it be the case that western government will send troops to a country whilst controlling the narrative and limiting the media which is only right. It's now the case that military campaigns will be widely reported with the media able to promote images and sometimes uncomfortable truths which influence the public's perception. This now performs a significant role in how any military conflict must be planned and managed. The Falklands war was the antithesis of this. We saw with the Americans in Vietnam how the contrary situation could fundamentally change the way that the public supported a war. It's now a fine line for governments to tread. This level of engagement by the media is something that I think is a healthy outcome of modern conflict. At the time of the war, I remember Mrs Thatcher addressing the Conservative conference in Scotland. Nobody thought she'd come. She came because there was a major event taking place in the Falklands and it was important for continuity to be seen to be happening here at home. That statecraft is something I've always admired. It's something gained. It's a trait both learned and shared irrespective of party. As the Falklands were invaded, Harold McMillan visited Mrs Thatcher to pass on his advice and counsel, while Mrs Thatcher did the same protonablair at the commencement of the Second Gulf War. Ultimately, as we approach 40 years since the victory in the Falklands, we should acknowledge the wider influence it had on the way military conflicts would subsequently be conducted and be proud and remain proud as a nation of our efforts in 1982 and our commitment to the Falkland Islands. It should never falter, whilst we acknowledge the progress that has been made with British support by the islands in the time since. Thank you very much. I agree a little bit more time for taking the return to mood lighting in your stride. With that, I move to Sarah Boyack to be followed by Christine Grahame for around four minutes, Ms Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to thank Grahame Day for his motion, because last month we had an excellent debate prompted by Sharon Dowey, but today it gives us just a little bit more time to reflect on the impact of the conflict on people, not just as numbers or as statistics, because for many, the impact of war, serving on the front line, stays with them throughout their lives. It is not necessarily something that people want to talk about, because of the impact on their lives, their mental and physical health and the impact on their families. While we celebrate this 40th anniversary, we also need to remember that it is an incredibly painful anniversary for many who lost a family member or the impact of the war that lives with them today. I want to reflect on the impact on veterans and how we support them, but also on the lives of those who live in the Falkland Islands and how we can retain and develop our links with them going forward. It was striking to see from Poppy Scotland in their briefing that even now, 40 years on, veterans are coming forward for the first time to seek support. That 40 years seems like a long time to us, but it is critical to support them. As was said in the speech from Graham Day, the knowledge that we have on the impact on veterans' lives is not new. Between 1916 and 1919, injured soldiers were treated in military psychiatric hospitals for PTSD, as we would call it now, but then it was called shell shock, and recent estimates show that up to 325,000 British soldiers may have suffered from shell shock as a result of the First World War. However, for too long, there was stigma for those who had to live with the aftermath of their service. Results of a 2018 research project from King's College London estimated the rate of PTSD amongst Duke A veterans of all conflicts to be 7.4 per cent. The rate of PTSD amongst the public is 4 per cent, something to reflect on. The evidence showed that the rate was even higher for veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. For those who had deployed to those conflicts, the rate of PTSD was 9 per cent, and those deployed to war zones in a combat row even higher. Many of them were predicted to develop a mental health condition. As highlighted in Graham Day's speech, it is important that we act. There are on-going impacts of veterans who are living with the aftermath of PTSD and need on-going support now, wherever they live, across Scotland. It is very welcome that the motion acknowledges the work of Poppy Scotland in providing life-saving services that they offer among other support for veterans from Poppy Scotland financial, housing, mental health and employment support. Veterans coming home from combat cannot be left behind by the country that they served, and we must challenge the stigma that they often face. Poppy Scotland fills the gap of under-provision, and the work of services is absolutely vital. Across the road from this Parliament, we have Whiteford House, the Scottish veterans' residences that provide supported housing for former members of the UK Armed Forces who are homeless or at risk of homeless, and their work is invaluable. It is also important—I want to finish with a few words—on the impact of the Falkland Islands for the islanders themselves, who were grateful for support, but they themselves needed to recover from the stress and the anxiety of armed conflict and from the unexploded bombs on their land. We have many links between the Falkland Islands and Scotland with some of the first settlers being from Scotland, and even the name came from Scots, and we have strong ties with the Scots Guard there. I am told that the dialect spoken of Falklands is actually a very unusual mix of Scots and Somerset. That makes islanders somewhat unique. They have 16 nationalities now living there, and the Falkland Islanders are keen to use the 40th anniversary, not just to commemorate their freedom and to thank those who served in the conflict, but also to show the world a modern Falklands. They have research institutes with Scotland and Tartic and Mediterranean academics. They have gotten 80 per cent return back to the islands from those who leave to go to university and only 1 per cent unemployment, so maybe something to learn there. For them, the state is also important in supporting islanders. There is support for people to enable them to go on holiday because of the costs. Welfare rates are very good. University places are funded with fees to enable students to come to study in the UK and then to enable them to go home. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary, let us remember both those who put their lives on the line, not just in the Falklands, but in subsequent military conflicts since then. Let us also reflect on the aspirations of the islanders, how we retain and develop our links. I welcome the commemorative services that will be held later this month, and let us think about who we develop our links, whether through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or through our academic or research links. It is a 40th anniversary and it is a celebration, and we need to think about the past, but also about who we move forward together. I congratulate Graham Day on securing this debate and the able delivery of his speech by Stuart McMillan. As you know, this is my second contribution in a short space of time in the debate about that war. I will therefore be some overlapping, but I am pleased that the debate focuses on the men and women who went to that war, some never to return. A war thousands of miles away over a territory that practically none of us had heard of until we heard the drumbeats of war. Was it necessary? Did it resolve the tensions and dispute over sovereignty once and for all? I will consider those questions later in my contribution. First, let me emphasise my regard for all service personnel who found themselves involved in that conflict, but especially those on the front line. My sincere sadness and regret for all the lives that were lost and for those who were injured both physically and mentally—the British, the Argentinians and the civilians—death and injury does not discriminate. I also recognise that the damage both physical and emotional endures with survivors to this day. I also recognise the professionalism and courage of our armed forces. The toll was this. Three Falkland Islanders died and total nine on four military personnel were killed in the conflict. Of those 255 were British military personnel, 649 were Argentinians. British forces reported that 775 were wounded in the war with 115 being captured between April and June. Meanwhile, 1,657 were reported wounded among Argentinians military personnel and more than 11,000 were captured. 40 years ago, as I travelled on the bus to my law studies, I recall how horrified I was to hear passengers in front of me hearing that we should, quote, bash the argys. Jingoism had a field day, fuelled in particular by the Sun newspaper, which took a bloodthirsty stance from the start, gambling that this would pay off in increased circulation. It did. It invited readers to sponsor Sidewinder Missiles and offered three, quote, sink the argys, quote, computer games. Splashed its front poster page with Will Smashham printed over pictures of Winston Churchill and a Bulldog, even urged the Government to reject and offer a peace talks with the Argentinian military scene with the headline, quote, stick it up your junta. Now, war is not a death game to be played out in print and the media, distant from the reality and responsibility of the real wars, the cold, the fear on a bloody unforgiving landscape. The junta sending young conscript infantry into battle, often unfed and lacking even basic equipment such as the proper footwear. I am glad that Jackson Carlaw referenced the press coverage because coverage, as we know, was highly censored. All the significant news, good or bad then, 40 years ago, was announced or leaked from London. Reports in the South Atlantic had the sour experience of hearing their news being broken on the world service. Reports were censored, delayed or occasionally lost. When relations between the press and the navy on board the Hermes were at their worst, Michael Nicholson of ITN and Peter Archer of the Press Association prefaced their bulletins with the rider that way they were being censored. That, itself, was censored. Now, there was, I believe, an opportunity to resolve the dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands by diplomacy. It might have failed, but it was not given enough time and space. And I know I was not alone in having grave concerns about launching into this war, nor indeed the way it was conducted. But then there was the sinking of General Balgrano, the Argentinian cruiser. Was it sailing to or out of the exclusion zone, it's still under dispute. But the retaliation days later, of course, came with the sinking of the HMS Sheffield off the coast of the Falkland Islands, killing 20 men. There was no going back after that. Was there a failure of intelligence to see the Argentinian threat on the horizon? Was diplomacy exhausted? I quote from a Times article. The British Government was aware of an Argentine threat to the Falkland Islands for almost a year before they were invaded close quotes. I return to the lives lost and damaged. They must not be forgotten—I have not forgotten them—but I have also not forgotten how the loss of those lives might have been prevented with intelligence and diplomacy being tested first and taken to its limits before putting our armed forces into conflict. However, if I may finish on this, the words of a Welsh gardener speaking earlier today who is aboard the Sergalahad, a troopship attacked by Argentine fighter jets on 8 June 1982, as it sat unprotected. The explosion on board the Sergalahad at Bluff Cove killed 48 men, including 32 Welsh gardens, and dozens of men were injured and some horribly burned. Asked whether he thought the war was worthwhile, he replied as a soldier would. Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die. But as politicians it is incumbent on us with that loss of lives, loss of futures, the scars of injury and trauma and those who served. Even today, as sovereignty of the Falkland remains disputed, as politicians it is ours to reason why. I thank Graham Day for bringing today's debate forward and also my colleague Sharon Dowie for her recent Falklands war debate, and I wish Graham Day a speedy recovery. Today's motion specifically recognises the contribution of four or five commando based in our growth in my own north-east region. The unit has a proud history, taking part in the D-day landings of Sword Beach, the 78th anniversary of which we marked on Monday. In 1982 they were again in the thick of the fighting, most notably at the battle of the two sisters. One of the key engagements of the conflict that helped encircled Argentine forces at Port Stanley and ultimately in the war. But even before the battle had begun, four or five commando has shown what they were made of. The sinking of a container ship Atlantic conveyor saw the loss of almost all transport helicopters she was carrying. That meant four or five commando would have to march across East Falkland on foot, which they did, ymping 56 miles across inhospitable terrain in gruelling conditions whilst carrying 80lb loads. When the battle was joined, they were the central force of a three-pronged attack on the heights of Port Stanley. The attack on the two sisters' mountain began on the night of 11 June and carried on throughout the evening. They were met by fierce Argentine fire but again the Royal Marines showed their courage, their determination and their skill. They pressed the attack aided by accurate artillery fire from both 29 commando and HMS Glamorgan and by dawn the mountain was in British hands. But four Royal Marines had lost their lives and 17 had been wounded. On the opposing side, 20 Argentine troops had been killed, a sober reminder of the cost of war. Thankfully, the war would be over soon. Within days, the Argentine forces had surrendered and British forces had liberated Port Stanley. Today, the Falklands is a peaceful and prosperous place. Tourism is increasing, the islanders continue to develop their own distinctive culture and they make their own democratic decisions, all possible through the sacrifices of Britain's armed forces. Many of those sacrifices, those veterans that the Falklands made, are still with them, both physical and mental wounds. As is the case for veterans of all conflicts. I have the honour of meeting many such veterans, both because of the strong military community in Tayside and in my role as chair of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community. In closing, let me say that, whilst it is important that we remember the events of 40 years ago, it is just as important, if not more so, that we continue to support the brave men and women who still bear the scars of that conflict. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Golden. I now call Keith Brown to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks also to Graham Day, my predecessor as Minister for Veterans for Securing this member's debate. As Maurice Golden just said, I'm sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. The debate marks the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands and the end of the Falkland war. As Jackson Carlaw said, it's strange to think of that being 40 years ago. As I said last week, we were then closer to the Second World War than we are now to the Falklands war. It's also interesting that, at that time, my experience was as a signaler, which meant that I was lucky enough to have a radio, which was a high frequency radio, which meant that I could hear the Scotland World Cup matches, which most people couldn't. Unfortunately, this year, I'm not able to hear or see the Scotland World Cup team, because they won't be there. I'm sure that things have changed in the intervening period. The debate has also changed, I think, from the one that we held most recently with Charred and Dewey. As far as Jackson Carlaw in particular has focused quite rightly on the international implications and some of the way that states have responded to the Falklands war. I'll come back to that in a second. First of all, to say that he mentioned the principle of self-determination. I think that that's a very important principle. It's a principle that I think is worth fighting for, although, of course, the debates will continue as to how the Falklands war came about in the first place, as Christine Grahame has mentioned. Self-determination itself is a very important principle. As we near the 40th anniversary, there are a number of upcoming events and activities that will provide all of us with a chance to consider the lasting impact of the conflict. I look forward to attending Robert Sleidgen's event at the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire to mark the official anniversary next week. Just to come back to another point that Jackson Carlaw made, the rest of my contribution will focus rightly on what Graham Day wanted us to focus on in terms of his speech, which was about the impact on veterans. Just to go back to the point about, if you like, states and international states people, the Prime Minister will also come to those events next week. He's also said in the last day or two that he will, if he gets the opportunity, go down to the Falkland islands. Jackson Carlaw mentioned how important it was for, I think, it was Margaret Thatcher to get advice from Harold MacMillan and a couple of other examples of that kind. I wouldn't refute that, but getting advice in those situations is obviously very important. To come back to Graham Day's speech, I think that a really important piece of advice is to know about the impact that war itself has on those who are asked to go and fight, the veterans and the people who don't come back from wars. For my part, I'm more than happy to contribute to enhancing the knowledge of the Prime Minister if he wants to discuss that either next week or in the Falkland islands or any other time, because I think that it's extremely important that people that may have the responsibility of sending people to war have a full understanding of the impact. That's what Graham Day has tried to do in terms of his speech. I should mention, just briefly, because Maurice Golden and others mentioned the memorial garden at Condor Barracks. Just to mention the four people in my troop, as I did last week, who died and didn't come back. Sergeant Bob Lee Ring, who was a sergeant who had a wife and family. Corporal Fitton, Corporal Uren, and Marine Phillips, same age, same rank, same first name as me, who, at 19 years old, never returned from the Falkland islands. That was the real impact for those families to the four people that I just mentioned. Those were the guys in my troop. There were other guys in 4-5 Commando and many others as well, but those are the ones that I perhaps knew best. I should say that I'm also delighted to see that we, the Scottish Government, have been able to partner with Legion Scotland and Poppy Scotland, as is mentioned by Sarah Boyack, to establish a Scottish national event here in Edinburgh on 18 June, which will provide the people of Scotland with an opportunity to commemorate the anniversary. To coincide with that event, Poppy Scotland is delivering a wider learning programme. The point was made last week and this week about people being aware of it, but people not being aware of the Falkland Islands. That learning programme and the package of resources to schools across the country to allow young people to learn more about the conflict, as well as highlighting the role of the armed forces today, how we can support them and their families, is very important. It's important that we also acknowledge the lasting impact that Graham Day has tried to pass on to us and that the experiences of work can have on some members of the armed forces community, and we continue to work to address that. Many veterans of the Falklands still struggle with physical or mental scars or have faced hardships in the years afterwards. Veterans from this particular conflict served at a time when there was a lack of knowledge and education about mental health symptoms. There was also a huge amount of stigma associated with mental health issues. If I could just mention the point that was made in Graham Day's speech about the coverage, the absolutely appalling coverage of the guys who were down there at the time when the war broke out, who fought extremely bravely, but were then ordered, rightly, in the face of massively superior enemy forces to lay down their arms. To see them described by one tabled newspaper as cowards was absolutely appalling. The fact that people thousands of miles away from a theatre of conflict feel able to cast judgment on people who have fought in that circumstance and call them cowards is appalling. I hope that some of the media coverage will have learned from that kind of coverage. Jackson Carlaw mentioned quite rightly some of the ways in which the media has changed over time and the healthy engagement of the media in conflicts. Of course, we also have the reverse of that. If you look at Putin just now using his media to censor things and also prevent a very favourable account of why the Russians are wrongly illegally in Ukraine. So it can work both ways, but it's a very important point that's made about the change in nature of media. I'm delighted that we've touched on and I do appreciate that the passage of time has changed with media coverage, but would he congratulate those journalists that are out currently in Ukraine that they're not dodging the truth? I think that that's very well put, and I think that you have to remember when you see people like that, Clive, Mary and various other people, that they are in real danger in those circumstances. Just to go back briefly to that point about the way that the people that were currently there, the marine detachment that was there in the Falklands at the time, have been portrayed. I don't think that the people that made those comments, because the editor of that particular newspaper was interviewed about this recently, has no understanding of the impact that kind of comment has on the lives of veterans and people that served in the Falklands. Menderframe, of course, chose to go right back down and fight again as soon as they returned to the UK. And also just to mention that some of the journalists at the time, like Ian Bruce, a fantastic journalist, again put themselves in harm's way to try and get as much of the truth as they were able to get back to their audience. We are also trying to continue to campaign to address the stigma experienced by veterans and their families. The campaign led by CME will address negative views and promote the positive images of veterans contributing as employees, volunteers, blue light officers, clinicians, carers and community representatives. Over a number of years, we have supported veterans and their families with mental health needs through the innovative work of veterans' first point and combat stress. We funded both organisations to provide specific mental health services for veterans and their families and are continuing to fund both of those specialist providers this year. Combat stress will receive £1.4 million to provide a Scotland-wide veteran mental health service, and combat stress will also provide a 24-hour telephone advice service, recognising that not all veterans are comfortable with online services. I know that for older veterans, accessibility to services is really important, and combat stress recognised that need and they have recently opened two new bases, one in Glasgow and the other in Edinburgh. We have also agreed to continue funding the six existing veterans' first point providers. They will receive £666,000 to be matched funded by their local health boards. That will enable veterans to access an NHS service in their community, which I know is appreciated by many service users. Veterans of the Falklands signals are still coming forward to seek help and use those services for the first time to this day. Over 68 Falklands veterans have requested support for combat stress over the last year alone. As such, I would just like to finish by expressing my gratitude to the close-knit charity sector that we have here in Scotland. I am sure that I speak for all here today when I say that I am continually impressed by the level and the quality of support that they provide to our ex-service personnel and their families, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to everyone who supports those charities in whatever way they can. I would ask members if they themselves are able to participate in the remaining events to mark the 40th anniversary, or at least to encourage others. That would be gratefully appreciated. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, that concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.