 oes f 게isnogio ryw meddwl sy'n bryd ei wneud i gweithie i gael i'r prifissenau a'i siaradiau i go iaith o'r eirinol i Abola. Yser oedd defnyddio. Mae gennych ddiddordeblog ar gyfer y cws yng Nghaerffod siger ei wneud o'rchannwch, golwch yn rhan o gwyfovlog o fawr i gael i wych yn ein dangos mwneud cwm yn mwyn fwy o'r ysgolfawr i chi'n gweithio'r cyflwyno. Ieithio, ymateb ddod i'r ddIG yn gyntafol fod yn ymweithio ar gyfer hynny, a oedd nid i ni, John Swinney, yn teimlo i ddig i ddeallu mwythwyr. Dim ond, ddig i ni, ddIG yn ddeallw i ddIG. YsbDeim Figurant yw, i ddDig i nrŷm gondol, i ddDig i nrŷn cael ei ddig i nghydatori chi, sef helpu ei ddig i ddDig i ddDig i ddDig i ddDig i ddDig. The afternoon's debate is not about, should we be independent? And it is about what are the opportunities independence will bring for us to improve Scotland's economy and to ensure that everyone can benefit from our wealth, from our resources and from our ingenuity as a country. The government believes that the powers of independence and the ability to take decisions for ourselves will give Scotland a means to grow our own economy by focusing on what matters to us to get more people into work, to improve living standards a chael ei wneud o gwybod i'r ffordd o'r cyflawni ardalol i'r cyfleuio ar gyfer y cyflawni. 2014 yn gyfan i ddweud o gwybod i'r economi Llywodraeth Cymru. Rwy'n ddiddordeb o'r bydd o'r strategi tynnu ystod yng Nghymru yn gweithio i'r economi Llywodraeth Cymru yn 1 per cent yn y ffwrdd ffyrdd y peth yn gael i'r holl yn 0.8 per cent. Rwy'n ddwylo i'r gwaith ysgrifffordd aniau yn y mhwyllt 3 ysgol. Scotland's economy has now officially moved to pre-recession levels of output three months ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Scottish Government's chief economist state of the economy report highlighted last week, our economy has shifted from recovery into expansion mode, and this is set to be Scotland's best year since the UK recession began. Indeed, yesterday's Bank of Scotland PMI showed that private sector output in Scotland expanded for the 22nd consecutive month during July, with the fastest rate of growth in six months. Such trends have also led to an improvement in the labour market, with employment up by 76,000 over the year to around £2.6 million, and employment and economic activity now at appropriate levels of performance. Those facts demonstrate the healthy outlook for the Scottish economy, but they also fundamentally undermine the claims made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 2011 that the referendum uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland. In reality, the most recent Ernest and Young Attractiveness Survey of international investment reported that, during 2013, the number of international investment projects in Scotland rose by 8 per cent to the highest number of projects since 1997. We would begin life as an independent country from a strong base, excluding North Sea oil and gas. Output per head in Scotland is the third highest of any nation or region within the United Kingdom, behind only London and the south-east. I am pleased that the finance secretary recognises the progress that the whole of the United Kingdom economy is making. Can I take him back to his interview with Gary Robertson last week on the BBC? Has he had time to reflect since then about, rather than ruling all the options in and ruling all the options out, that he has a stated plan B for the currency? Is he going to tell us this afternoon? What I would simply say to Mr Rennie is that the Government has gone through a process of exploring, in great detail with the Fiscal Commission, the various options that would be available to an independent country. The Fiscal Commission assessed a number of different options, set out that there were a number of perfectly viable options and recommended the option that they considered to be the one that was the most appropriate for Scotland. Mr Rennie shouldn't be a surprise to him. He shouldn't be a tall surprise that the Scottish Government chooses what we consider to be best for the people of Scotland, the one that will deliver the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland, which is exactly what we have set out. I may give way to Mr Rennie in due course, because I will make some further comments about currency in... OK. The Government has said that if we don't get a currency union, we will walk away from the entirety of the debt. Do all members of the Fiscal Commission working group, including the noble laureates, support that particular argument? Mr Brown should just look at what the Fiscal Commission has said. The Government has set out that if the United Kingdom Government is going to advance an argument that is about seizing the assets of the United Kingdom and not engaging in a fair distribution of the assets between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland, then why an earth-tuned and independent Scotland take on its appropriate share of debt, which we are perfectly prepared to take on, given that the United Kingdom Government is prepared to act in such a reckless fashion, that is the consequence of the recklessness of the UK Government. An independent Scotland has contributed more in tax revenues per head of population in the rest of the UK in every one of the last 33 years. We have oil and gas reserves that will last for decades and renewable energy reserves that will last forever. We have key strengths in diverse sectors from food and drink to life sciences to advanced manufacturing. We have more universities in the world's top 200 per head than any other country on the planet and the most highly educated workforce in Europe. Those are strong foundations from which an independent Scotland can emerge. We will begin life as an independent nation in full knowledge of the benefits that taking decisions for ourselves can bring. Central to the Scottish Government's argument about why we should be independent is the record of this Parliament. Over the last 15 years, the Scottish Parliament has worked hard to create a fairer society and a more competitive economy. We have established the most business-friendly local taxation system in the UK, with our small business bonus scheme, reducing or removing business rates for over 92,000 business premises. We supported Scottish Enterprise and HIE at a time when the UK Government has scrapped its regional development agencies. We have undertaken a range of initiatives to protect capital expenditure despite cuts of 26 per cent by Westminster. We have invested to improve the fabric of the Scottish economy, improve the labour market and ensure that we are in a situation where our employment rate has moved from a position of being 2.6 percentage points below the UK in 1999 to 2 percentage points higher in the most recent figures that are available. The ability to take certain economic decisions here in Scotland has been a strength for the country. The Scottish Government has ambitions to do more by taking a wider range of economic decisions, which only arises as a consequence of independence. All of us know that, despite Scotland's great wealth, it is huge potential, too many people in our society do not feel the benefits of that wealth. We know that other countries have been more successful in utilising all of their resources and harnessing the benefit of those resources for the future. We know that countries with the full powers of independent nations perform better, not just economically, but in measures of social wellbeing into the bargain. In 2011, the OECD reported that income inequality has increased by more in the UK than in any other country in the organisation for economic cooperation and development since 1975. The UK now has the highest levels of regional inequalities in the EU. While we have made improvements to our productivity rates relative to the UK, our productivity is still 22 per cent lower than in Denmark, 20 per cent lower in Germany and 13 per cent lower in Sweden. The ability of us to use the powers of independence to create a stronger economic platform for the people of Scotland is demonstrated by the performance of other small independent countries that show exactly how we could strengthen the economic base of Scotland and how we could have greater and higher ambitions as a consequence. If all that is true, why is it that Scottish unemployment figures since January have actually gotten worse, whereas they have improved in England and Wales since the start of this year? What I have cautioned Jenny Marra about in the past is looking at some of the annual comparisons about unemployment, where she will see on annual comparisons. She is looking at issues right across the year, seeing the relative contribution of one year versus another that unemployment in Scotland is lower than it was 12 months ago and employment is at a record high. How on earth can Jenny Marra not get up and make an intervention and welcome the fact that employment in Scotland is at a record high as a consequence of the interventions and the measures that the Scottish Government is taking? Independence would allow future Scottish Governments to combine our powers over business investment, employment creation, taxation and welfare to secure stronger levels of economic growth from which all the people of Scotland could benefit. It would ensure economic policy is designed for the needs and the opportunities of the Scottish economy, provide greater flexibility in decision making and offer an opportunity to rebalance our economy. Our economic case for independence has, at its heart, a plan to improve business conditions and re-industrialise Scotland through initiatives such as using our tax powers to support high-value manufacturing and key sectors vital to the Scottish economy, boosting innovation through the establishment of an innovation agency and encouraging and motivating greater private sector investment in research and development, integrating skills and employability by bringing together job matching, employability training and career guidance, improving access to finance through the Scottish Business Development Bank and expanding our international presence and reach through using a network of overseas embassies dedicated to boosting Scottish exports. Those are just some of the measures that the Government of an Independent Scotland could take to strengthen our economic foundations. I give way to Mr Brown. Does the cabinet secretary support the creation of an innovation agency regardless of the result of the referendum? What I would want an innovation agency to be able to do is to make a discernible impact on the performance of the economy by working with the Government to use the tax powers that are available to the Government to encourage and incentivise the development of innovation policy and innovation delivery within Scotland. The Scottish Government has already taken forward—I am surprised that Mr Brown is not all-fave with this point—a range of innovation centre proposals supported through the Scottish Funding Council, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Good work has been done already. We are doing that within our existing powers, but we are still only operating at one quarter of the level of private sector R&D investment in the Scottish economy without the incomparison to comparable countries. We need to have the powers, the tax powers to ensure that we can strengthen the operation of the Scottish economy and to encourage and to motivate those points. I will give way to Mr Finlay. Cabinet Secretary for Transport mentioned taxation. I wonder if you could point to the taxation rates in Scandinavia and Germany and tell us what the corporate tax rate is there. Can he also point to anywhere where lower-incorporation tax has created full employment as he claims he can? That is perhaps a point that Gordon Brown should have reflected on when he was reducing corporation tax in the United Kingdom. Of course, Mr Finlay and Mr Brown are notionally joined at the hip in this campaign. We could also seek the removal of barriers to competition such as the current air passenger duty scheme, which has been recommended for change by the UK parties, but which they have failed to deliver. Of course, it is a scandal that, despite being one of the richest countries in the world, an estimated additional 30,000 children in Scotland have been pushed into poverty in the last year, in part due to the UK Government's welfare changes and a further 100,000 face the prospect of that if we are not empowered to change course. Those are some of the opportunities that we have to change the economic direction of Scotland as a consequence of winning the powers of independence. We will, of course, do all of this using our currency, the pound. Today, it is what the vast majority of people in Scotland want us to do. Today's social attitude survey shows that 68 per cent of people want an independent Scotland to use the pound in a currency union, and far more people believe that there will be a currency union than by the bluster of the no campaign. Of course, we hear about all the bluster in this parliamentary chamber on a daily and weekly basis. Only independence provides us access to the levers of responsibility that will enable us to put Scotland's economy on the footing to tackle the long-term challenges of inequality and the need to secure greater prosperity for the people of Scotland. One of the best examples of that is the steps that the Government can take on childcare. We are doing a great deal of investment under devolution to invest in childcare, but only independence allows us to use the resources that are currently invested in the Trident nuclear missile system to redirect that to invest in childcare within Scotland and, crucially, for us to be able to reap the rewards of that through the tax system and what that generates in investments in the public finances of an independent Scotland. Those are some of the choices that are available to us if we are prepared to take the step to support independence in the referendum in September. We have heard a great deal from the other parties about the promises of further economic powers if there is a no vote in September. It will not be lost on any of us that even some of the proposals that have been set out by the UK parties, which have already been set out by the Kalman commission, have not been delivered to the people of Scotland. Why should we have any confidence that any of those powers will come to us in due course? The people of Scotland in September have the opportunity to take responsibility into their own hands, to build on the record of this Parliament, which has been about taking decisions about the people of Scotland's future based on the needs and the aspirations of the people of Scotland. Independence gives us the chance to link all the remaining powers that are currently being misused by Westminster and used properly for the benefit of the people of Scotland to create the prosperous and just society that all of us want to live in. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Ian Gray to speak to and move amendment 10 at 7.69.1. Mr Gray, 10 minutes or thereby please. This must be the third or fourth attempt since the white paper the cabinet secretary has made at an economic plan for independence, so we cannot accuse him of not trying. Today's effort really has nothing new to say and simply rehashes all his previous failed attempts. It is rather like one of those disappointing greatest hits albums, which when you get them home turn out to be full of old songs, which were in fact flops the first time around. I suppose we should be glad at least that this one is held together by staples rather than a paper clip, but there are few other improvements. It largely covers policy areas where the Scottish Government already has power, such as education and training, childcare infrastructure investment, promoting renewables, promoting innovation too. It makes assertions about economic benefits evidenced by nothing except references back to the Scottish Government's own previous documents making the same assertions. It includes now-you-see-them-now-you-don't policies, such as the development bank, which has been launched and relaunched on a number of occasions. It repeats figures about the economic impact, for example, of childcare, which do not add up and which the Government has already had to admit were simply made up without any modelling. Today, we found out that the Scottish Government also had to admit that the figures on the impact of productivity, employment rates and immigration have also been made up without any economic modelling. The report talks about powers to incentivise growth and jobs creation. The cabinet secretary spoke about that at length again today, but, yet again, the only actual policy that the plan outlines is a 3 per cent cut in corporation tax, which it claims could create 27,000 jobs. That claim does have some modelling behind it that was published three years ago, so I asked Spice to have a look at it. Not only do they tell us that the calculations are based on 2006, when the corporation tax rate was 30 per cent, they also tell us that, by accident or design, the Scottish Government used the headline rate change 3 per cent in their job calculation, when they should, in fact, have used the effective rate change 1.2 per cent by their own calculation to quote Spice. If the effective rate change was used instead of the change in headline rate, then the number of additional foreign direct investment jobs would be 60 per cent fewer than in the Scottish Government's analysis. Most of the claims in this plan have no credible figures behind them at all, and where they do, the Scottish Government has got its sums wrong again. Compare those hollow promises to the 800 jobs secured this morning by another MOD order for the Clyde real jobs building real ships in the real world. If Mr Swinney's assertions about the benefits of independence had any credibility, then surely those in the businesses that he says would benefit from the increase in economic opportunity would be convinced of his case, but they are not. Big financial companies remain unconvinced, companies like Standard Life, who employ 5,000 people in the city managing £254 billion of assets for a customer base 90 per cent situated in the rest of the UK. They told us just last week that, after five months, they have had no answers to their concerns about independence and their preparations to move business and personnel out of Scotland continue. Large manufacturing companies remain unconvinced, too. Like Wears, whose chief executive Keith Cochran recently said that their material issues had not been addressed and that independence would damage investment in Scotland, not help it. Energy companies, the industry that is so beloved of the Scottish Government, remain unconvinced, too. Companies like Infinis, who last week put their current wind power developments in Scotland on hold until after the referendum. Small and medium-sized companies remain unconvinced. Companies like Endura, whom I met a couple of weeks ago, are companies that design, make and sell top-of-the-range cycle ware across the world from Livingston. They marry innovation, technology, R&D, design and fashion to compete in a global market. They employ women, they employ graduates, they clothe the top touring cycle team in the world. This company does everything right. They are adamant that a yes vote would require them to start moving operations and jobs to Europe on September 19. That is how unconvinced Scotland is of the premise that independence will create economic opportunity. The past week can only have increased their concerns, because there is nothing more fundamental to economic opportunity than a stable economic base and nothing more fundamental to that than a stable currency. No matter how glittering the image that the Cabinet Secretary asks us to dream of of the opportunities of independence, as long as he has no answers on currency, his whole proposition has feet of clay. If the member would care to comment on the announcement by Alistair Darling last year on Newsnight when he said that a sterling zone is in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK, if you have independence of course the currency union is desirable and logical. Of course the currency union is desirable. I desire a currency union as well. That is why I am voting no next month and that is why Alistair Darling is voting no next month. The First Minister, writing on the Sunday press this weekend, said that the language of politics can be instructive and deeply revealing to the motives and priorities of individuals, parties and campaigns. How true? So what of his language on currency? It is our pound and we are keeping it. Come what may. No currency union, no debt. That is indeed deeply revealing, because it is not the language of someone whose motive is to liberate the Scottish economy. It is the language of someone threatening to take the Scottish economy hostage and blow it up if he does not get his own way. Because what it promises is a Scotland, without its own currency, without a central bank, with no say whatsoever in monetary policy and without any credibility with lenders. This is a recipe for impoverishment, not a plan for jobs. The NEICSR summed it up coolly last week. This is likely to have important consequences for Scotland's financial sector and therefore its capacity to export financial services, its new balance of payments and general economic prosperity. In other words, 200,000 jobs in the financial services sector and 15 per cent of our exports would be in jeopardy just for starters. As long ago as December, the economist David Owen of Jefferies Ltd told us that walking away from debt would raise the cost of borrowing by 5 per cent. Investment would be hit, public finances would suffer and mortgages would go up. What is more, membership of the European Union requires a currency and a central bank, so a sterlinised Scotland would not be able to stay in the European Union. If they can explain to me why the European Union would break its whole history and allow a country without a central bank or its own currency in, then I would be very interested to hear it. Indeed, even the Scottish Government's own fiscal commission dismissed this option out of hand, and yet this is now the Scottish Government's desperate fallback currency plan. Perhaps Mr Swinney should direct his boss, the First Minister, to read what the fiscal commission says, not the rest of us, and it would be sure, then, if he had read it, that he would not describe this option as quite attractive. However, the most irresponsible thing about this currency car crash is that the potential victims are not the banks and businesses of Scotland but ordinary Scots. They will not be able to make higher mortgage payments or move their money out of Scotland to somewhere else, or upsticks and follow jobs if companies do relocate them. I say again that Scotland's best economic prospects lie in a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Bank of England as the lender of last resort. Just as I believe, the best platform for economic success and full employment we can have is a single energy market, a UK-wide financial services industry, a home market of 63 million people, with open and fettered borders across their countries, continuing membership of the European Union, but not the euro, MOD contracts such as the aircraft carriers and the one that we heard about this morning, access to UK-wide research funding for all of our universities. Those are things that we have. Only independence places them in jeopardy. That is why I moved the amendment in my name and why we should vote positively, proudly and resoundingly no on September 18. Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to begin on the issue of currency and specifically on the intervention that I made on the Cabinet Secretary during his opening remarks. The official Scottish Government position, as was said by Mr Swinney yet again last week, is that if we do not get a currency union, we will simply walk away from the entirety of the debt. It is one thing for a politician being a bit reckless to say something like that, but it is quite another for economists to say that. The question that I put to Mr Swinney was very specific. Do all members of the Fiscal Commission working group, including their two noble laureates, support that particular argument? We know that the Fiscal Commission working group has recommended a currency union, but that was not the question that I asked. Do they support the assertion by the Scottish Government that they can simply walk away from the entirety of the debt, were there not to be a currency union? I have read the Fiscal Commission working group reports, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have read their published statements. I have read the minutes of their meetings. I have not been able to trace anywhere a specific comment from that group saying that they all think that that is a logical, intelligent or even a correct thing to say or do. I understand, or at least it was reported in the press at the weekend, that the chair of the Fiscal Commission working group will be giving a keynote speech on Monday of next week. I asked the Scottish Government again, in that keynote speech—or even before that keynote speech—will there be a firm statement made publicly by the Scottish Government that every member of their working group supports that argument? If they do not, they are standing pretty much by themselves. Economists have pointed out that that is not a logical position to take. Even economists who support independence cannot support that particular assertion and claim made by the Scottish Government. If they cannot do so, their position on currency is even weaker than has appeared over the past couple of weeks. Let us now move on to the substantive part of the Government motion about the economic growth that it says that it will be able to achieve where we have to separate. There is a gaping hole in the Scottish Government's position. What it has been unable to say at all is what are the big-ticket industries that are not coming to Scotland at the moment because of the constitutional setup, but suddenly they will all be coming to Scotland because we are independent. What are the big-ticket industries that are being held back by being part of the United Kingdom, but they are desperate for Scotland to become independent? In one second, what are the hard policies? Not the sound bites, not the claims. What are the hard policies that are going to be brought in? What are the hard policies that we could not already do that are going to make this stratospheric difference? I give way to the cabinet secretary. Mr Brown is probing to find out what industries are not coming. Mr Brown's colleague, the Chancellor, told us that various industries would not come because we were having a referendum debate, and he was proved to be comprehensively speaking nonsense as a consequence of the performance of our economy. Why does Mr Brown accept that the detail that is set out in outlook for Scotland's public finances and the opportunities for independence or the economic levers paper that was published in November or the white paper in November contains all the answers to the material that he is looking for? I have read the white paper. I have read the reindustrialisation of Scotland paper. I have read the 10 greatest hits paper that came out this morning. I have read every piece of paper that the Scottish Government has produced, and the answers are not there. Let me give you a simple administration. If he wishes to make an intervention, I am happy to take one, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Brown has rined off all the different documents that he has read. Why does he not just report to Parliament on the contents of those documents so that Parliament can hear all the contents of those documents, rather than simply repeating a speech that supports his narrative in the debate? Let us deal with the material that the Government has published to support the arguments that are set out in all of these documents. It is a bit rich to accuse me of repeating a speech, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mine is not a reputation, and at least I have written my own speeches, Cabinet Secretary. However, he asked for the detail. He said, okay, let me focus on the detail. Then he said that they are going to have the Scottish Business Development Bank. This was announced a year and a half ago by the Cabinet Secretary. We are going to be doing this come what may. It was re-announced at the budget in September last year, and it was quietly dropped in March of this year, only to resurface a couple of months later as a big idea of what we are going to do. There is no credibility on that particular issue. We heard about corporation tax, which no modelling has been done since 2011. It has completely ignored the actual corporation tax of the United Kingdom. Well, if it has been done since 2011, I am sure that it can tell us. It says that it takes 20 years for their headline figures to work, and it assumes zero response from the rest of the United Kingdom in Scotland, reducing their corporation tax. Deputy Presiding Officer, this Government's credibility is withering by the day. It had no answer on currency. All its financial projections rely on high oil every single year of independence. They tell us that the high ones are actually conservative estimates, and they have no real plan for economic growth. A group of sound bites that are not convincing this chamber, and I do not believe that they will convince the people of Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate. Six-minute speeches are thereby, and I call on Jamie Hepburn to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. In welcoming today's debate, can I say over the course of the recent recess that we all have knocking doors in our areas? I have been speaking to many people across the area. I represent and I have been keen to make the point that all that accepts Scotland could be an independent country. As the cabinet secretary said, this is now universally accepted. Surely no one in here would suggest that Scotland could not be an independent country. Of course, we know that the Prime Minister has said that it would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be a successful independent country. We know that Ruth Davidson, the leader of Scottish Tories, has also said the same thing. Arthur Darling has said the same thing, although he seemed somewhat unwilling to get to that place in a recent debate. Michael Moore has said the same thing. Indeed, the parents said to the Treasury that Nick McPherson has said that if there is a yes vote, Scotland will still be a prosperous economy. Of course, they have said that because it reflects what others out there are saying. The Financial Times has said that Scotland is richer than the rest of the United Kingdom and the top 20 countries globally in terms of GDP per headstand and rappours has said that, even excluding North Sea Output, Scotland would qualify for its highest economic assessment ahead of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is often cited in debates in here. It has said that the statement that this is a rich and successful economy is one that I would entirely agree with and there is other evidence out there. When he is knocking on those doors in his constituency, is he asked by constituents what his plan is on the currency and is he able to answer the question? He might surprise Mr Rennie to find that currency is not an issue that particularly comes up that often when I knock on the doors. I see Mr Brown as laughing, I suspect that I am knocking rather more doors than you are over the last few weeks, Mr Brown. However, the question is not so much could we be an independent country, but should we be an independent country? Let me explore some of the things that come up on some of the doors that I am talking about. Some of the people that I am engaging with in my constituency will be some of the people that I want to go on to talk about. A message that I have heard much of in recent times from the No Campaign is that we are in the best of both worlds, a strong Scottish part in the strength of the security of the UK. Let us examine the best of both worlds, because I think that that can only mean something to people on the ground. As part of the UK, we are in a society where the wealthiest 10 per cent of households own 900 times the wealth of the least, the wealthiest 10 per cent. The UK is one of the most heavily indebted nations in the world. The UK has had the weakest economic performance, the exception of Italy, of any G7 nation, and the UK is one of the most regionally unbalanced economies in the world. I do not need to remind Mr Rennie, who has stepped away from his desk, that his colleague Vince Cable, who is himself a London MP, said at the end of last year that London is a kind of giant suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country, even though there is no sign that he or his Government are going to do anything about it. I will not give way at the moment, Mr Graf, to say a lot today. I also question the best of both worlds. How will those who are struggling to find work? How will those who are in work who do not have enough to get by worry that their hopes and ambitions for their children will be achieved? Those who look forward to the future with some uncertainty? How will they relate to the idea of the best of both worlds? How can members in here argue that we are better together than the best of both worlds when the chancellor is committed to an additional £25 billion in cuts to public spending of re-elected in 2015? How can Labour members argue that we are better together than the best of both worlds when their party—I will not, Mr Finlay—has said, like the Tories, that they are wedded to austerity of their re-elected in 2015. Ed Miliband said that Labour will cut spending. How can we be better together than the best of both worlds when Oxfam recently set out to the United Kingdom's five richest families and own more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent of the population? How can we be better together than the best of both worlds when with the UK Government we did not choose to impose a welfare reform agenda that is resulting in 100,000 more children living in poverty and driving thousands of families in Scotland to food banks? We know that, if we remain—I will not, Ms Marra, I have quite a lot to say today, so I will not give way—we know that if we remain part of the UK there are those cuts ahead, we know that there is austerity agenda, and we know about the disinvestment that is planned for the national health service down south that will reduce the amount that we have to spend on devolved areas. A position understood by the Labour Party in Wales, Mark Drakeford, Labour Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Government, has said that that is what the fundamental problem is here. We have a Westminster Government that believes in shrinking the state, which believes in doing less through the public realm and passes less money down to us in order to be able to do it. That truth—no, I will not, and I'm in my last minute, I'm afraid, Mr Brown—that truth for the Welsh Assembly Government is true for us here too. That is the future that we face with a no-vote, and with less to spend on public services, that will damage our economy. Independence gives us the chance to move our economy forward, to give more people more opportunities here in Scotland, so that we can match the performance of other similar-sized independent countries in terms of productivity, population growth and employment. We will generate £5 billion extra tax revenues within 15 years to say nothing of a more fairer and more prosperous society. We know some of the things that the Scottish Government has pledged to do, transforming childcare with its radical proposals, establishing a fair work commission to ensure work pays and to help to improve working lives and supporting Scottish industry with an industrial strategy to strengthen boost and promote our existing base. Those are some of the opportunities with independence, Presiding Officer. Those are some of the opportunities if Scotland votes yes in just over a month's time. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Maureen Watt, six minutes or thereby, please. I think that people aren't talking about the currency, but I suppose we should be pleased and grateful to the Scottish Government for the rehash of the white paper, because one of my constituents contacted me this morning because he'd got in touch with the Scottish Government and been told that more copies of the white paper would be available in five weeks' time. We should be grateful. The only new thing that I heard today was that Trident is now going to pay for childcare. I had such a long list last week about all the things that Trident was paying for, and now I can add childcare to it. Of course, all we had today was three kind of assertions—the misleading ones—Scotland is more in tax revenues, but we didn't hear about the fact that we have more public expenditure. I think that the last year for which figures were available was £700 more per head tax in Scotland because of the oil. We received £1,200 more per head in public expenditure. Many of the other assertions could actually be delivered now, so they are not problematic—it's just that they are not being delivered. Other ones, of course, were assertions about what would happen in terms of increased productivity, for example, but absolutely no detail or explanation of how it was to be happened. The only specific policy that we got was the folly once again of outdoing the Tories on corporation tax. Since John Swinney will now be standing up telling me about Gordon Brown, he should know that Labour is committed to increasing the rate of corporation tax by one pence, and yet, in spite of what his fiscal commission tells him about the folly of a three pence below the UK rate, he is hell bent on doing it. He should look at what happened in Canada when they had a big cut in corporation tax. Business hoarded the money and there were hikes in executive pay. Think again on that. However, the reality is that whatever economic objectives and dreams that he has are dependent on secure currency arrangements and sound public finances. The reality is that, in both those key regards, we are better off now than we would be. We already have a currency union and the benefits of a deeply integrated UK economy without borders. Remember, in a new book from the David Hume Institute this week, David Bell is reminding us that GDP falls by 5 per cent because of the border effect. Remember that 70 per cent of our exports go to England and 74 per cent of our imports are from England. By contrast, 14 per cent of our UK exports go to England and 8 per cent of their imports are from Scotland. That puts in context the issue of transaction costs, which we keep hearing about when we are talking about currency. I have no time at all. I know that the cabinet secretary has a great deal of respect for Gavin McCrown and some of his colleagues quoted him on the off. This is Gavin McCrown speaking, not George Osborne, not Ed Balls or anybody else. Gavin McCrown at the Finance, Committee on the Seventh of May 4107 said, The problem that I see is that I cannot imagine a Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remainder of the United Kingdom with no electoral responsibility for Scotland being prepared to put taxpayers at risk in the rest of the country for the sake of Scottish debt and bank debt in Scotland. That is Gavin McCrown. It seems to me infantilism in the part of the Scottish Government to say, we have a sovereign mandate, not recognising the fact that, once you are independent, other countries also have a sovereign mandate. Peter Jones has a devastating critique of that whole Government attitude in the Scotsman this morning. One final point at the same Finance, Committee on the Seventh of May 4107 said, if there were to be a currency union, one of the reasons why it will never happen is because the Scottish Government could never accept the term that goes by, by, cutting corporation tax, by, by three billion extra borrowing, which John Swinney wants in 2016. Now we know what their plan B is. It is sterlingisation and we were told last week in a devastating and important report that banks would be off to England. There would be much higher rates than the higher interest rates that we would already have and people have questioned whether that would be acceptable as well to the EU. 15 per cent of our exports are financial services, so a lot of rhetoric today about exports, but that is the reality of a very key export sector in the event of Scottish independence. I have no time, I cannot spend the whole speech giving independent experts on the fiscal situation. The IFS, the CPPR city group, pension policy institute, Brian Aestrott, Martin Wolff. I haven't got time to do that. Quickly, two quotes, Angus Armstrong and Monique Bell. An independent Scotland is likely to require a more restrictive fiscal stance than proposed by the coalition government for many years. Secondly, Rowena Crawford and Gemma Tatlow, also of the National Institute, are a broad conclusion that Scotland faces the tougher long-run fiscal challenge in the UK as a whole is robust to a variety of alternative, sensible assumptions. The spending commitments on which, which is the basis now of the appeal of the Scottish Government to the Scottish people is a cruel deception on the Scottish people. The reality is that, under independence in 2016, the up-front corporation tax will lose hundreds of millions of pounds right away with that. The childcare money has to be up-front as well. Obviously, we support the objectives of childcare policy, although Trident is paying for that and 100 other things as well. We have the overseas embassies in today's paper. We have a body called Scottish Development International that already does all this for us, but we need to pay for those 90 embassies now, apparently, to have exports abroad. We have the loss of the pension bonus. Remember, we get £500 million more for pensioners and pension benefits in Scotland than our population share would dictate. We have the demographics going to accentuate that particular problem. We have public sector pensions. They are never mentioned. There are more public sector workers in Scotland. That is covered by the UK now. It would not be. My final minute seems to me that we will not hear very much more about the economy from the Scottish Government over the next five years, but five weeks it will be all the warm words about we can do this and we will not have the Tories any more. The reality is that what we are going to have for the next five weeks is project which and project scare from the yes campaign, because project jobs and project prosperity are hold beneath the water line. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I am pleased to be given the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate, as I believe the voters on 18 September are really interested in knowing about the strengths of the Scottish economy. For far too long in order to keep Scots in their place and for Westminster to dictate what they think is best for Scotland, we have been led to believe that Scotland is too poor and too weak to be the strong, vibrant and growing economy for all our people that it has the potential to be. So, while Alasdair Darling last Tuesday on television couldn't bring himself to stand up for Scotland and its constituents and agree that Scotland can be independent, we know, of course, that he has in the past shown that Scotland can be an independent country. For example, in the Guardian in 2012, when asked, he said, of course it could. As did Ruth Davidson on 27 May 2011, when she said, Scotland is big enough, rich enough and good enough to be an independent country. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, said, you will never hear me suggest that Scotland could not go its own way. Even Alasdair Darling's pal, Nick McPherson, the Parliament Secretary to the Treasury, said, if there is a yes vote, Scotland will still be a prosperous country, as is stated in the Sunday post of 2014. On the theme of many of the speeches from the Benches Opposites, we could deal with it. Will she accept that all of those people she quoted said those things, but they all also said that Scotland's prospects were better as part of the United Kingdom? Trying to point out, while they say that Scotland could be a prosperous country, of course it should be a prosperous country. Sit down, Maira, I want to continue. Members of all the better together parties know that Scotland can be an independent country and that currently it pays its way more than it pays its way within the union, and so has the potential to do so much more and release the wealth of our resources to the benefit of all our people. We still hear too many in the unionist camp say that we are too small and not capable of controlling particularly our energy industry and the oil and gas sector. Which other country better together folk has discovered oil and gas and been poorer than it was before it discovered it? Tell me that, Mr Gray. Will she give me one single quote for someone supporting the case for the United Kingdom? She said that Scotland was too wee, too poor and too stupid. One single quote. What did she just make that up? I haven't made it up because on every single thing where they say that we're not capable, that's the implication that they are making. The way in which the successive Westminster Governments have mismanaged the oil and gas industry is plain to see, not only have they continually underestimated and underplayed the size and benefit of the resource but have also failed miserably to use the income from it to benefit the people of the UK, never mind Scotland, and to see that it would benefit future generations. The UK and Iraq are the only two countries that have not set up an oil fund for benefit of future generations. Scotland has 60 per cent of Europe's oil reserves and about 40 per cent of the national gas reserves, but Sir Ian Wood's review on maximising recovery said that the clear views expressed were that fiscal instability has been a significant factor in basin underperformance. That is not surprising since we have had numerous changes to the fiscal regime in the North Sea over the last decade and we have had 14 UK oil ministers over the last decade. In the last 17 years, three of those in the last four years, that's hardly a situation where energy ministers can get to know the industry and understand its long-term needs. That's why the people of Scotland are best placed to manage this resource. They know about it and Professor John Patterson of Aberdeen University said that he believed that an independent Scottish Government could offer more predictability to the industry, rather than less. Tony Hayward, former chief executive of BP, said that the industry is very good at working with whoever happens to be in power, as did Ed Daniels, chairman of Shell UK, said that it's up to the people of Scotland and they will work with whoever. That's why 64 per cent of North Sea oil and gas workers are likely to vote yes. The recent 20th survey of Aberdeen and Grampian chambers of commerce oil and gas survey of June this year said that out of 700 firms surveyed, more believed that independence would be positive rather than negative. With the value of oil discovered to have been equal value, of course an independent Scotland has a bright future. It's very interesting that the latest edition of the Investors Chronicle stated that it believes that Westminster has deliberately downplayed the potential of the UK continental shelf ahead of September's referendum on Scottish independence. Indeed, the Financial Times or the Investors Chronicle said that this is undermining the investment and the buying of shares of certain oil companies. That is absolutely disgraceful. It's little wonder that each and every argument that the better together people have put forward is being batted out of the field and that Opposition members are focusing solely on currency because it's the only tool that they have left in the box and can speak of nothing else. Yet it is absolutely clear that if the UK Government does not accept the common currency, then it will no longer be a petrol currency and that will be, of course, detrimental to the rest of the UK. It is very clear that Scotland can be an independent country and I look forward to it being so. I admire Maureen Watt's passion. She clearly believes that national independence is something that she wants and Scotland deserves and I admire and respect that. However, when it comes to defending Scotland against an allegation that has never ever been made, she is defending something that is just a fabrication. We have never said, nobody has ever said that Scotland is too poor, too wee and too stupid. That allegation has never been made. The fact that Maureen Watt was unable to come up with one person who has said that is clear evidence that she is defending Scotland against something that does not exist. Therefore, I believe that this passion is passion to a fault. It is passion that is leading nationalists to believe that they should never ever question the concept of independence, whether it is on corporation tax, on shipbuilding or on the pound. They refuse to accept that there are any weaknesses in their argument. I propose today to take the chamber through some of those arguments to try and flush some of them out. The weaknesses are in his argument. Jimmie Dee says, just the main ones, that I am going to proceed this afternoon to set out the positive case for the county kingdom because that is what Maureen Watt is also arguing that better together should make and that is something that I will do this afternoon. First of all, on the currency. The currency is one of the most successful parts of the apparatus of the United Kingdom. It means that a business here in Scotland can trade right across the United Kingdom with limited barriers with no transaction costs, and that means that they have got a great opportunity to expand their business. What the United Kingdom parties have clearly said is that if Scotland goes independent, then the currency arrangement changes. There are three simple reasons. Firstly, on the temporary nature of the currency, as is proposed in the white paper. We have seen in the Czech Republic and Slovakia that within weeks of that shared arrangement being set up, it collapsed, so we see the dangers of the temporary nature of a currency. The one-way insurance policy that has also been set out, which means that it expects the rest of the United Kingdom to stand as a financial guarantor to an independent Scotland when that country would have no influence over what an independent Scotland would do, and the favour the insurance policy could never be returned. Scotland being one tenth of the size of the rest of the United Kingdom encourages a moral hazard, so therefore the one-way insurance policy does not work. Secondly, thirdly, is the explicit desire to diverge the economies of the United Kingdom. We have a separate and growing economy in Scotland, and apparently leaving behind the rest of the United Kingdom, with aggressive policies such as a three-pence cut in corporation tax and the £3 billion extra borrowing. That, again, creates that extra tension in the currency that would pose significant difficulties. Those are solid reasons, solid reasons, as to why we are better off together in the United Kingdom. I know that John Swinney never admits his wrong like his boss, but he thinks that he can play this dangerous game of bluff with the United Kingdom and believing that he is incapable and unwilling. It is not desirable to set out a plan B, but people want to know, and despite what Jamie Hepburn says, it comes up every single day when I am out in the doors. Everybody is asking about the currency, and they want to know the answer, but those people are refusing to answer the question. My second point is on shipbuilding. We have seen today the order for three new offshore patrol vessels on the Clyde, guaranteeing 800 jobs at BA Systems, one of the clear benefits of the United Kingdom. I was at the aircraft carrier launch in Rossife to see one of the biggest ships that the Royal Navy has ever built, and it probably could be that the three new offshore patrol vessels could be the last orders that the Clyde ever receives if those people on those benches have their way. The facts are clear, and they shint involved. The facts are clear that no complex warship has ever been built outside the United Kingdom, and, on that point, I will take Mr Swinney to see if he has an answer to the question. Mr Rennie would just like to confirm that he is just issued on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, just as his chief secretary called this morning, a very clear threat to the people of Scotland about the future of shipyards. Would you like to confirm that point? The threat is quite clear that it comes from this Government, because this Government is proposing to create a separate country, and no separate country from the United Kingdom has ever received an order of a warship—a complex warship—that has never happened. Mr Swinney is posing the threat to the Clyde. No one else could withdraw his plans right now, but the reality is that he is more than keen to progress with it. On the final point, we have been asking for months for the detailed analysis that Mr Swinney has made, apparently, behind the scenes, but will refuse to publish, of what will be the cost to the public extractor of his plans for corporation tax, a cut of three pence more than anything a Tory chancellor would do in Westminster. Anything, three pence more, but he will refuse to set that out. I want to praise Mr Swinney on his opening remarks, where he praised the progress that the United Kingdom has made. The fact that we have an extra 130,000 jobs in four years, in fact, that is probably much more than his plans on corporation tax will ever achieve, so I thank him for praising a policy that he said would never work. That has resulted in masses of more jobs for Scotland. On today's debate, it is really thrown into contrast the difference between the aspirational case for a yes vote and the doom and gloom of the no campaign. I will give you a wee quote from Michael Bartillo on 28 February. If he did get a referendum on Europe, the UK Government would use the same tactics that it is using in the Scottish referendum scaring people rigid. I think that we have just said a wee example of what Willie Rennie was trying to attempt there. Indeed, in terms of oil, which Maureen Watt talked about, what was it Lord Healy said on 19 May this year? We did underplay the value of the Alta Scotland because of the threat of nationalism, so we have had our economy underplayed by unions for many years. A lot of those arguments were used against devolution referendums. Unfortunately, Labour has now jumped on the unionist bandwagon. I have no intention of talking about the currency in my speech, so I was going to talk about the economic opportunities of independence. Before I move on to the debate, I do not want to switch to sterling because so many of the unionists are obsessed that that is going to be the deal-breaker. Let us look at what Avinash Persaud, emeritus professor of Gresham College, chairman of intelligence capital and a former global head of currency research, JP Morgan said on 31 July. What he said was that truth is usually the first casualty of political battles, but 25 years in currency markets tell me that the no-campaign argument that Scotland cannot keep the pound is false. Moreover, assuming that Scotland continues to run a healthy external balance of payments, courtesy of 90 per cent of the United Kingdom's oil and gas being in Scottish waters, and other foreign currency earners such as whisky and tourism, sterling liquidity will likely flow from the rest of the UK to Scotland. Scotland will be a net lender to England. Malcolm Chisholm quoted from the finance committee, but what did Professor Andrew Hughes say? Given independence, Scotland gets to add tax powers to the existing monetary set-up, it should therefore be unambiguously better off more polished instruments to serve the same targets, instruments that can now be designed to fit Scotland's specific needs rather than the UK average. He went on to add that, facing a tight general election in 2015, it is hard to believe that the UK Government would, in fact, choose to deny a current union when the consequences would be to make their own constituency worse off while Scotland was made better off. People do not usually voluntarily choose to shoot themselves in the foot. Did anyone giving evidence to the finance committee, either written or verbal, support the Scottish Government's position that, if there was not a currency union, it could simply walk away from the entirety of the debt? David Simpson said an actual fact. Indeed, Dr Jim Cuthbert said Scotland should be compensated by the UK for all the oil money that it has taken out of Scotland over so many years. Although the financial secretary explored the economic opportunities that would open up to an independent Scotland, unionist MSPs can only say what they can do or hypothesise as to how it would all probably end in disaster. Far better, they say, to let Westminster keep calling the shots and better they say not to take responsibility for Scotland's future into our own hands. It has always puzzled me that so many members in the chamber seem so unsure of their own ability and that of their colleagues that do not wish their powers to make Scotland a fairer and more prosperous society vested in this Parliament. The ability to make our own choices and make decisions of the national interests would become normality for Scotland. Instead of remaining shackled to a political union with Westminster, where different priorities and policies and vested interests are entrenched, independence will improve Scotland's economy by providing greater prosperity and opportunity for both businesses and citizens, and let me run through some of them in the two minutes that I have left. By moving economic decision-making, Scotland will have greater control of our policy-making and crucial areas such as taxation, employment, immigration, exports and industrial policy to provide more opportunities and improve our finances. We can improve the tax system by being able to make it more efficient and more effective to support key growth sectors in Scotland, collect a fair amount of taxes to fund public services, increase our prosperity and support stronger public services, as set out indeed by the Murley's review. Opportunities for participation in company structures, improving labour relations, can improve productivity and economic output. Indeed productivity can improve up to 10 per cent, as Scandinavia has shown, and we would have a national convention on employment and labour relations to shape a new policy and a fresh start with employer representation on boards to allow workers to contribute effectively alongside management. Independent Scotland would ensure that we could control immigration. Of course, the great success of the union in the 50 years since the war was to have net immigration of 2 million Scots. If we go back to 1900, Scotland had the same populations in the Netherlands. 16.1 million people now live in the Netherlands, showing the difference in their economic prospects over those years. Of course, students contribute £779 million annually to international students. In many of those, if we allow more people to come and study here, we would want to stay and build our economy. By diversifying manufacturing, investing more in research, Scotland can build on its industrial base. Of course, an industrial base, which in the 10 years of Tony Blair lost 37 per cent of all manufacturing employment in Scotland, 53 per cent in Ayrshire, I should say. A Scottish Government will provide greater support to the process in Westminster. Examples of industrial events will include developing the Clyde for renewable activities similar to Belfast Docs, developing offshore technologies in the oil sector for international export, specialising in Scotland's chemical strength, computing life sciences, et cetera. However, we need to have full economic powers to develop an ambitious industrial policy to reverse decades of relative decline under Westminster mis-management. I guess that what means business will have the full support of a global trading and investment network and greater opportunity to support Scottish SMEs who want to enter export markets and promote the unique strengths of Scottish business in key sectors. Also, an increase in productivity would help to reduce inequality, reducing a low-wage society, which does not provide an optimal environment for growth. We must tackle inequality, such as countries such as Norway and Sweden that have done so successfully. I have so much more to say, but I was derailed by the stilling argument, but thank you very much for your patience, Presiding Officer. Colin Neil Findlay, to be followed by Mike McKenzie. Central to the white paper is the plan to create what the Scottish Government refers to as one of the most competitive business environments in Europe. Central to that aim is Mr Swinney's belief—I see him just leaving the chamber at this point—but his belief in cutting corporation tax. He believes that that will create full employment as companies flock to Scotland's low-taxed economy. He wants to cut corporate taxes to 3 per cent below whatever level the UK sets. If he does, a few things could happen. First of all, if Scotland did cut tax and this did attract foreign investment—I certainly dispute whether that would happen, but let's imagine that it did—does he not think that England and Wales would follow immediately, wiping out his so-called competitive advantage? Then we would be back to square one, and all that they would have achieved is a reduction of £350 million in the cash available for public services. In those circumstances, what does Mr Swinney propose? Well, according to the white paper, he would cut by 3 per cent below the rest of the UK again, and then the cycle would start all over again. That would be followed by a subsequent race to the bottom and wages in terms and conditions, too. Trickledown economics has failed across the globe, yet it is an experiment that the Scottish Government wants to repeat in an independent Scotland. I fear that Mr Swinney has been reading too many of Mike Russell's books. If that is such a great wheeze, then why are the Germans, the French, the Scandinavians and others not doing it, too? The corporation tax rate in Germany is 30 per cent, and Norway is 28 per cent. Why are they not doing it? Even Professor Stiglitz, Alex Salmond's own economic adviser, said of this policy, and I quote, "...it's a gift to the corporations and will increase inequality in our society." James Daunt, the head of Waterston's books, said in a moment that it's a dash to the bottom and that it is insanity, because, personally, I think that schools and hospitals are rather a good idea. Somebody has to pay for them. Will he reflect on the fact that the previous Labour Government gave a 10p corporation tax rate to life sciences companies that placed their research, innovation and intellectual property into the United Kingdom? Is that something that the Labour Government should not have done and does he regret that decision? Neil Findlay? No-one is arguing that, at certain times in the economic cycle, he adjusts taxes. What we are arguing is that those taxes should be consistent across the UK to avoid tax competition. Does the cabinet secretary reject the comments of Professor Stiglitz? No, thank you. Professor Stiglitz and James Daunt, or does he know something that they don't know? Can he point to anywhere in the world where lower-incorporate taxes have created full employment, as he says it will? Of course, the cabinet secretary is confident that independent Scotland will become a member of the European Union. Is he aware that, as a new member, the state would have to adhere to the 3 per cent deficit limit? The IFS says that we would have 5 per cent. What about the currency? Let's, for a second, drift off into the imaginary world where the cabinet secretary gets his way and we have a currency union. Mr Swinney has already accepted that this means a loss of sovereignty. Does he also accept that this would hand control and influence over the interest rates, borrowing, regulation and all other areas affecting the currency? To what by then will be the central bank of another country, the Bank of England, and that the rest of the UK chancellor would control that? Does he accept that, with no politicians at Westminster, the rest of the UK would sign off her budget, want a say on her tax and benefit rates, and more in return for agreement to use the pound? What type of independence would that be, and why would anyone want to sign up to that? Jim Sillers is absolutely right when he says that policy is stupidity and stilts. Has the cabinet secretary learned nothing from the eurozone crisis, where an attempt at economic union without political union has been disastrous for working people in Greece, Portugal and Spain and other countries? I think that we have a choice on September 18. We can keep the pound, we can avoid the mess that sterling's own will bring, we can avoid our budget tax rates, benefit rates and financial regulation being signed off by the chancellor of another country, or we can have the nonsense on stilts of the currency union. We can keep the Barnett formula and UK-wide redistribution where Scotland gets a greater share of public spending, or with independence we can scrap it. We can have progressive taxation in a 50p tax rate for those earning more than £150,000—no mention of that from Mr Hepburn—or we can cut taxes in public services while rewarding big business. Something that I would hope Mr Hepburn and those who regard themselves as the SNP left should be supporting, and yet we never hear a word from them on any of that. We can have a bankers' bonus tax to fund youth employment, or we can have the bankers keep their eye-watering bonuses, as Mr Swinney would have. We can use procurement rules to ensure that contractors pay the living wage and end-zero hours contract, or we can see the SNP vote that down again, and we can use existing services, or we can spend hundreds of millions setting up new agencies. Remember that it costs £180 million to centralise the police. Surely the estimate of £200 million to set up a whole new state is pie in the sky. Those are the real choices that we have on September 18. I trust the Scottish people to make the right one. I trust them to vote no, and that will be a no for change. I now call on Mike Mackenzie to be followed by Hugh Henry. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is no doubt at all that Scotland will be a successful and prosperous country after independence. I suggest that each and every member of the union's parties agrees with that, and yet they persist. We have heard that this afternoon they persist in talking Scotland's economic prospects down. I urge them to abandon the too-poor and the too-stupid arguments, because they are not only dishonest, they are offensive to everyone in Scotland. I would ask them to consider the question instead after independence. Will they recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people, or will they continue to dig their political graves with their tongues? No, thank you, Mr Henry. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has shown that what can be achieved by good economic stewardship. In the economic race, we have competed more favourably than any other part of the UK except London, and we have done so without the full economic powers, without any fiscal powers, with both arms and one leg tied behind us, hopping on one foot, and all the while, Mr Swinney has maintained a balanced budget. Has Mike McKenzie stolen Jamie Hepburn and Warren Watt's speech? Mike McKenzie? Great minds think alike. The question that we are addressing is, can we maintain this economic performance? Can we improve on it after independence? I believe that yes, we can, because having had a taste of good government, the Scottish people will accept nothing less. Yes, we can, because we in Scotland understand best the unique challenges and the opportunities of our economy better than anyone else, and for the first time of the powers required to improve that. Yes, we can, because the opposition parties in this chamber will be free from the need to take orders from London and will have the opportunity of genuinely putting their shoulders to the wheel, abandoning bad politics in favour of good economics. In any case, it is not the often-quoted headline statistics that are the only matter of economic importance. The sharing of that wealth is crucial. Independent Scotland has been ranked at number 14 by the OECD, but for most people it does not feel like a wealthy country. Scotland's enormous wealth has not been shared equally, and this inequality in itself is a drag factor on our economy, limiting demand and limiting the success of our businesses. Inequality is a challenge that we will be able to properly address after independence, and rather than denying that it exists. I hope that the opposition parties will join us in the endeavour to make Scotland a fairer as well as a more prosperous country. There is a question, too, of what we do with this wealth in improving our quality of life. It is no coincidence that Orkney and Shetland, the only parts of the UK with oil funds, also happen to score very highly in UK quality of life surveys. That suggests to me that public goods, rather than private goods, contribute more to quality of life than the Westminster mindset can imagine. Devolution of 100 per cent of the crown estate revenues, which will fall after independence, is a measure that will significantly tackle the regional inequality that has been faced by many of Scotland's island communities for many generations. The only economic argument left in the Unionist arsenal is the sharing of risk that, somehow, bigger is better. We have just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Being big did not save the banks. Being big did not save the UK, and being big did not save the US. Indeed, many small countries—Norway and Denmark, for instance—did not experience this crisis at all. As for the sharing of risk, we all know how that works. The poor are made to pay for the failures of the rich. We are seeing that happening right now. That is how that so-called insurance policy has always worked, and that is not a policy that has ever served Scotland well. Three chapters of the White Paper Scotland's future are devoted to the economy. It is a well-thought-out and incredible plan. It is informed by the thinking of the Council of Economic Advisers by a long stretch, the most formidable array of economic talent in the UK. In contrast, the no campaign has no plan beyond project fear, which certainly has not heard an economic plan from the no people this afternoon. Project fear is a plan that is offensive to many Scots who are sick of being patronised in this way by unionist politicians. With good political and economic and financial leadership, the scales are tipped heavily in favour of Scotland's prosperity and economic success after independence. Thank you. 36 days until the Pigeonapoke referendum. 36 days until Scotland has been asked to have a leap in the dark. 36 days until Scots have been asked to vote on the basis of assertion, backed up with no evidence, of bluster from the First Minister and of the basis that, if we vote for them, everything will be all right on the night. People want answers, because there is a fundamental decision that has been asked to make. One that affects every man and woman in Scotland, but one that affects their children and their grandchildren and generations to come. A decision that, if we get this wrong, we cannot go back and say that we made a mistake and we have changed our mind, we are stuck with the consequences forever. It is right today that we have a debate on the economic implications of independence, a debate on what are the job implications and we have heard about what will happen in the defence industry. We know that there are worries in the financial service industries, but we also know that there are other companies seriously considering what they will do if Scotland decides to separate from the United Kingdom. It is right that we also look at what happens to prices, what happens to the money that we have to spend. We know that, for example, companies such as Tesco, which operate on both sides of the border in Ireland, actually charge more for the same goods in the Republic of Ireland than they do for those goods in the north of Ireland. We know what the people who know the retail market best have already said. We know that the chief executive of Sainsbury's has said that we and other retailers will take a view of what the cost structure is. There is no doubt that Scotland is a more costly country in which to run a retail business. The chief executive of Morrison's, the burden of the cost structure in business, would potentially have to be passed through consumer pricing. Why should the English and Welsh consumer subsidise the increase of doing business in Scotland? They are not the only ones. There are others who say much the same. Of course, the third element is currency. I understand why Kenny Gibson does not want to talk about currency. I understand why they want to get off this debate, because they have no answers. Do you know that currency affects every single thing that we do? Currency affects how we buy our groceries. Currency affects how we buy our house or pay for our rent. Currency affects us when we buy goods and services, wherever currency affects us when we go on holiday, wherever that is. Currency impacts on every single aspect of our life, and yet we do not know for certain what currency we would be using. Alex Salmond can give us his opinion. Alex Salmond can make assertions, but Alex Salmond cannot give us a guarantee about the currency that we would use. I appreciate your question. Can you tell me what the no-side believe the currency should be if Scotland votes yes? I do not believe that Scotland will vote yes. Why should I speculate? If you were correct in your assertion that Scotland is going to vote yes, perhaps you should listen to some of the others in the nationalist ranks. Perhaps you should listen to some of your colleagues in the yes campaign, because the yes campaign is fundamentally split from top to bottom. We have the Scottish socialists, who are founder members, telling us that we should have a Scottish currency. We have the Scottish Green Party telling us that we should have a separate currency. We have Dennis Caniff in the chair of the yes campaign telling us that we should have a separate currency. Alex Salmond is ignoring every single one of them, but it is not just in those other organisations, Mr Gibson, that people are saying that there should be a separate currency. There are others in the Scottish National Party, including in your cabinet, who are saying the same thing. I'll leave us. I want to go into the issues that Mike Russell said about abandoning social democracy, decimating the welfare state, putting up dropping taxes, issuing vouchers for education and hospitals. I will concentrate merely on what Mike Russell said about a separate currency. You say rubbish. Mike Russell says that control of its own currency is a country's most potent economic weapon. It allows Governments to control the money supply, interest rates and exchange rates, all of which can have a profound and relatively rapid impact on our economic growth and international competitiveness. Mr Russell says—not me, so it's not rubbish that there are people in the SNP saying this—that there are simply no other methods, says Mr Russell, by which the economy can be fine-tuned and geared to meet the ever-changing and accelerating challenges of the information age. As he puts it, so eloquently, a country without its own currency is a country not only without a steering wheel but also without brakes and an accelerator. The nationalist camp is split. It is worried that Alex Salmond is leading them to doom. We can understand why long-standing nationalists such as Jim Sillars are so profoundly unhappy that they have been led up the garden path by a Scottish National Party that cannot deliver. If you could advise me if it is an order or if it is just a lack of courtesy, the Government is bringing forward a debate on the economy. Its chief spokesperson has been absent now for the fourth speech, and there is no member of the economy team here. Is that an order or is it just a lack of courtesy to the chamber? It is not a point of order, but you have put your point on the record. Thank you very much. I now call on Colin Beattie to be followed by Chick Brody. For too long now, we have seen a major imbalance between Scotland's economy, the Welsh, Northern Ireland and the regions of England's economies versus the south-east of England. Indeed, the south-east of England accounts for over half of the annual UK economic output. Eight out of ten jobs now created in the UK are in London. Scotland has historically lost thousands of young people to the south every year, and this risk remains despite our current jobs market being comparatively better than most other areas. An unstable situation that is currently out of our hands and one that in current circumstances inevitably creates a drag on attempts to improve our own economy. We know that Scotland's public finances are stronger than those of the UK. Since 1980, on average, we have run a public sector surplus. If we had been in charge of our own economy in that time, there is every chance that our public finances would, according to the Scotland Means Business report prepared earlier this year by bigger economics, still be benefiting from a significant cumulative surplus. Another factor that we must take into account is the, frankly, appalling levels of inequality in the United Kingdom. The UK has ranked 26th out of 29 advanced countries for inequality, clearly quite an alarming figure, but one that is perhaps unsurprising given the levels of increasing poverty thanks to Westminster's economic initiatives. To take one example of that, the low-paid lose out year after year due to Westminster's refusal to peg rises in the minimum wage to inflation. For comparison, in 2010-11, Scotland ranked 16th out of 29 for inequality. Clearly, given our high levels of GDP, our strong public finances and facts such as Scottish output per head being 10 per cent above the UK average, not to mention oil and renewable energy resources, Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The economic opportunities afforded to us by independence would provide the choices to make inroads into reducing inequality and to build a fairer society. We will be able to peg minimum wages to ensure that the lowest payers are not cast further adrift, and we will, of course, take charge of our own welfare system, thereby never having negative and unproductive measures such as the bedroom tax imposed on those who can least afford it. Let's not forget that Westminster still has many more spending cuts it wants to make, and independence is the only guarantee that we can choose not to impose those cuts. If Scotland was in charge of its own economy, we would design an economic policy tailored to Scotland and our society's needs. That would benefit all sectors and ages in this country. We can transform our childcare system by providing the same number of hours of pre-primary education childcare that children receive in primary school at present. The economic knock-on effect of that will be that more parents and women in particular will have greater choices and career prospects, thus increasing jobs and tax revenue. If the number of women in work increased by just 6 per cent, tax revenues would rise by about £700 million. For those who are studying, we will certainly continue our policy of free education for Scottish students who study in this country, thus minimising the amount of debt Scottish students have when they embark upon careers. For those who come here to study, we will have the opportunity in an independent Scotland to examine the reintroduction of the post-study work visa, which Westminster abolished without considering Scotland's economic needs. Independence would put the Scottish welfare system back in Scottish hands. Cutting the bedroom tax would put roughly £50 a month back into the hands of over 80,000 households. Every penny counts at a time had increasingly many of our poorest people are relying on food banks, and Westminster's planned roll-out of universal credit is only going to make matters worse. By ensuring that the most vulnerable of our society have the financial support that they need, our economy will be stable from the ground up. The ability to provide a fair and stable pension is another opportunity independence provides. The UK has one of the worst records of state pension provision in Europe. Like the welfare system, Westminster ignores Scotland's differing needs in terms of life expectancy. Indeed, it is more than likely that the state pension age will be raised to 70 if we remain part of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government intends to increase the state pension by at least 2.5 per cent for the first independent Scottish Parliament. It is a start. Scottish pensioners will no longer be left alone to struggle to make ends meet. We would also finally have the ability to set up an energy fund for future generations, a step that successive UK Governments have never taken due to the lack of long-term vision at Westminster level. Scotland has over 60 per cent of oil reserves of all of the EU, not to mention the second highest gas reserves, and companies in the energy industry are planning to invest more than £100 billion in the years to come. Having our economy in our own hands would protect the oil and gas industries from unexpected tax hikes by Westminster. An independent Scotland would provide stability in the environment to encourage long-term investment in oil and gas. Over the past few years, energy bills have constantly risen for consumers and businesses alike. Independence can help us to get the choices to stop and reverse this trend. Taking control of our own tax system would allow us to encourage business and investment. Unlike the very limited tax powers being suggested by Opposition parties, an independent Scotland's tax regime would mean that Scotland could choose to cut business rates, making it an attractive country for companies to retain their headquarters in and improving the opportunities for career progression. That logic speaks for itself. In Midlothian North, within my constituency— I'm afraid you must come to a close, please. Clearly independence will bring us the opportunities we need to ensure that our economy is stable and competitive while providing a solid foundation so that the most vulnerable are not left behind. Independence gives us a mean to ensure that Scotland's economy is run by Scottish voices for the betterment of the Scottish people. Thank you very much. I now call Chick Brody to be followed by Murdo Fraser. I thought when Mr Finlay was talking about books. He was about to tell us that he got an economic book for his holidays, but he hasn't filled it in yet. It was Bill Clinton's team of advisers who said that the key to winning his first election was that it's the economy stupid. Just as that has provided the basis of his victory, so will it be the basis of securing Scotland's independence. Several events show that we are on the way but that we can and will do even more. Last week, under the stewardship of Murdo Fraser and the EET committee, we met senior people involved in social enterprises of which there are now 509 in Glasgow alone, and we are Scotland as one of the global leaders. That same day in the evening, I hosted a reception on crowdfunding, where we learned that the participation of small investors and clients in that process means that Edinburgh and Glasgow are now hot on the heels of London. Both situations, among many, demonstrate the wielding of economic strength, power and opportunities that arise from the people and from the grassroots. Additionally, as mentioned, the chief economist's report last week highlighted the strengthening of the Scottish economy, as did the Bank of Scotland report yesterday. Because of the stewardship of the finances in 2014, which will be the strongest year of growth since 2007, that despite the constraints, as we know of budgets. We still can and have to do more to achieve a fairer, more equal and participative Scotland when it comes to jobs and incomes. Although the increasing economic contribution of the grassroots is—and it is great—larger companies, be it in life sciences, renewable energy, manufacturing, tourism and so on, combine to confront the myths that are proposed to dispel Scotland's great economic opportunities—myth one—and I will do it briefly, the currency. In 2013, in Scotland, recognised by Scotland, and recognised by authorities of financial sources as potentially one of the richest countries in the world, Scotland had a trade surplus of £2.8 billion. The rest of the UK had a trade deficit of £29.5 billion. Scotland's net fiscal balance, on average over the last 30 years, has consistently been better than the rest of the UK, as has its current budget balance. So, a refusal to do a deal on sterling union will mean just one thing. It will be one contributing factor only to the decline of sterling or the currency of the rest of the UK. Myth two, a significant contributor to Scotland's economic opportunities is, of course, as Maureen Watt mentioned, oil and gas. The chief secretary of the Treasury keeps chanting his mantra that oil is declining. Let's turn it around, Presiding Officer. If that is the case, it will also, in the unlikely event of a no-vote, apply to a continuing UK Government. Given that, in 2011-12, UK net borrowings were £120 billion—£131.5 billion, if you strip out Scotland's offshore contribution. In 2010-11, it was £149 billion, and in 2009-2010, £164 billion applied the same criteria. It has to tell us—in that scenario, unlike it may be, it has to tell us in the face of that myth of declining oil that it should tell us now whether it will make savage cuts or increase taxes to shore up its currency to decimate its debt. We certainly know where those cuts will fall and it won't be on the bankers' bonuses. Of course, Presiding Officer, we know that it is not declining. We had witnessed Mr Cameron's clandestine visit to the vast clear ridge oil field just two weeks ago. The exploration of Tyree and the cover-up of oil production 30 years ago—that is production—under production licence PL262 in the lower Clyde in Atlantic margins in the early 80s. Such cover-up is acknowledged by Michael Heseltine. The UK Government continues to perpetuate those myths and others because it knows that Scotland's contribution from food and drink, from general exports and from oil are required to reduce UK borrowings in an attempt to balance its books. Without Scotland and then pulling out of Europe, I now will encourage my children to consider, along with other young people in the past who sought jobs in London and south-east to come home, and those who are being trained and skilled here to stay home. The opportunities to build a solid Scottish economy based on the economic strategy that embraces the strong sectors that I have already mentioned will allow us to increase our working population and compete on employment and productivity. Young people, more apprenticeships, skills development, more women in management in their workplace, will underpin the economic strategy. During recess, I had the opportunity to meet innovators and business people from China, Norway and elsewhere who are attracted to investing in Scotland because they see and sense the economic opportunities that exist here. In 2006-2007, 8 per cent of inward investment jobs in the UK came to Scotland. In 2010-2011, it was 19 per cent. In 2011-2012, it was 18 per cent. You must come to a conclusion, please. Finally, I started with a quote from a US president. I end with a quote from another, the current one. Not only can Scotland be a successful independent country, it will be a successful independent country. Yes, we can and yes, we will. Thank you. I now call Murdo Fraser to be followed by Claire Adamson, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Perhaps as you start by paraphrasing Winston Churchill, who said that it is always a challenge of such occasions to have to follow a really great speaker. Fortunately today, I only have to follow Chick Brody. I miss the Brody like many other speakers of this debate, talked a little bit about the issue of currency. That is important because currency is at the heart of how we take our economy forward. Nothing typifies the weakness of the SNP's case better than its stance on currency. We know that the SNP's stance is that there should be a currency union with the rest of the UK post-independence, not a stance that is shared by many other people involved in the S campaign, whether that be Patrick Harvie, Jim Sillers, Colin Fox or even the chair, Dennis Cannon. Mr Swinney and his colleagues continually assert that there will of course be a currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK post a yes vote, because that is manifestly in the rest of the UK's interests. However, that is not the view taken by the leadership of the three major Westminster parties. It is not the view taken by the people of the rest of the UK who in successive opinion polls have said that they do not want to share their currency with an independent Scotland, nor is it the view of a whole range of experts. When the Parliamentary Economy Committee took evidence on the issue in the spring, we heard from a whole range of experts. Sir John Geave, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Professor Ronald MacDonald, Glasgow University, Dr Monique Ibel of NIE SR, Professor David Bell of Sterling University and the currency expert Dr Angus Armstrong. All of those were quite clear in their view that a currency union, as proposed by the SNP, would not be in the interests of the rest of the UK. I know that the committee also heard from Professor Anton Muscatelli of Glasgow University who does, in fairness, take a different view. However, he was very much a lone voice amongst those who gave his evidence. The weight of expert opinion is contrary to what the SNP claimed, and yet they still assert it as fact. That leaves us with the question of plan B. The First Minister seems to be hinting that the preferred alternative to currency union is sterlingisation, using the sterling without a formal currency union. However, as was pointed out in an expert report last week, that would be disastrous for the financial services sector in Scotland, leaving us without a lender of last resort. There are some 115,000 people directly employed in the financial services sector in Scotland today. How many of those jobs would be retained if we went down that route? The First Minister says that it is our pound and that we are keeping it. We have heard him say that the pound is an asset of the UK, which we are entitled to retain. If it is denied a share, we do not need to take on any of the liabilities. However, that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding, because a currency is not an asset. It is a means of exchange, issued by an institution, in this case the Bank of England. If the people in Scotland vote to leave the United Kingdom, they vote to leave its institutions behind. We might be entitled to a share of their asset value, but to claim that we retain a right to the Bank of England, post a yes vote, is as absurd as saying that we retain a right to other institutions such as the House of Commons, the House of Lords or the Ministry of Defence. Yes, I will give way to Mr Brody. Check Brody. The Fraser is normally used to proving himself right through which, this time, he is only half right. Who do you think will carry out the negotiations on a currency union? You seem to attribute it to the UK Government when, in fact, that rests with the Board of the Bank of England. A bizarre intervention from Mr Brody. Those will be negotiations between two sovereign Governments who will be answerable to their electorate. I have already said that the latest poll said that 68 per cent of the population of the rest of the UK do not want to countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. What would Scotland walking away from the share of UK debt actually mean? Writing in this weekend's Scotland on Sunday, Bill Jameson put it better than I ever could. It would be an act of national financial suicide, branding Scotland as an untrustworthy borrower and wreaking havoc with our claims to fiscal property. Angus Armstrong addressed this point when he appeared before our committee and was clear that there were two substantial downsides to Scotland defaulting on the share of UK debt. Firstly, the impact on borrowing costs. International investors would regard an independent country that has just repudiated its debt share as a poor risk. The consequence of that would be much higher borrowing costs in Scotland than at present, representing a real financial burden on businesses and ordinary families across the land. Secondly, in the words of Angus Armstrong, the president that would be set for the rest of Europe would be extraordinary. Any part could unilaterally have a referendum on independence and have no debt. There are lots of places in Europe that would like to do that. People have to think about the broader consequences of that. Dr Armstrong is absolutely right to highlight that concern, because imagine the consequences for debt-laden countries such as Italy or Spain if a president were established that parts of them could vote to leave without taking any debt with them and then presumably think they can waltz into EU membership without difficulty. Nothing would be more likely to provoke a veto on Scottish accession to the EU than that. I am sure that the leaders of the arguments that weighed heavily with the fiscal commission when its members failed to support the Scottish Government's stance on debt, although we await hearing with interest from Mr Beverage when he makes a speech on Monday his answers to those questions. The fact is that the SNP stands on currency is a total shambles. Do not just take my word for it. Listen to what the party's former deputy leader Jim Sillars has said. I have a lot of sympathy for the view that the logical position to take is that an independent country should have its own currency, perhaps one in a currency board arrangement with the rest of the UK, but that is not what is on offer here. Instead, we are being offered something impractical, unworkable and increasingly incredible. People need to know the currency in which their wages will be paid, in which they will pay their mortgages and where businesses will make their loan repayments. We need to hear from the Scottish Government what their preferred alternative to currency union is. Until it tells us, its economic plans are totally without credibility. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On 18 September, the Scottish people will be given a chance to vote and answer the question, should Scotland be an independent nation? The S-Camp has made a very positive case for why Scotland should indeed be an independent nation, and the other camp, the Better Together camp, has given us a bunch of fear stories and a negative assessment of Scotland's opportunities of independence. Better Together always leaves me with a question, and it is one that I would ask the Scottish people who are still undecided that they should ask themselves. Better for whom? We are not better together for the people who are affected by the bedroom tax. We are not better together for those who are using food banks, and we are certainly not better together for those who are experiencing the indignity of workability assessments. No, thank you. What I question most about the whole situation at the moment is how we can possibly be better together in a country whose overriding economic trend is one of wider inequality. That means lack of social mobility, low wages, low productivity and an economic model that will lead us to a less prosperous country. On 14 July this year, the BBC analysis programme on the radio broadcast is an episode called the end of the pay rise question mark. Something strange has been happening to the British economy. Over six years now, wages have fallen for most of us, which is unprecedented in British modern history. Despite the return of economic growth, wages have not picked up, so what has happened? Cursially, is this a long-term problem and is it the end of the pay rise? There are many contributors to the programme, including Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies—not someone I would normally quote in this chamber, I have to say—but it does explore the direction that the UK is going in in terms of wages and the prospects for people on low wages in our economy. It is not just the BBC and the analysis that has raised those concerns. The CIPD, the professional body of HR in the UK and internationally, published a megatrends document, which is the trends and shaping of work and working lives. It asked the same question, have we seen the end of the pay rise? The key summaries for this document make worrying reading for people who are living in the UK. Since January 2009, average weekly earnings, including bonuses, have fallen by 8 per cent. It also states that the pattern is widespread across workforce, affecting women in public, private sectors, women and men, all parts of the UK and most industries. It is a drop in real earnings that has been slightly gated at the top of the earnings distribution than at the bottom. It is even worse for self-employed people. It is seen an even bigger drop in real-term average earnings of sometimes between 20 to 30 per cent in the three years from 2010 to 2011. What the analysis programme and what this document shows them is that if we continue on the US model of a low-wage economy, low productivity economy, which most of the economic experts tell us that the UK is heading at the moment, we will end up in the position of the US. Between 2008 and 2012, the average earnings fell in real times in many OCD countries. In fact, five of those of which have their data are no thank you, but in the USA, real earnings for medium full-time workers are no higher in 2013 than they were in 1979. If we continue on the road to low productivity, low-wage economy and inequality in the UK, we will end up with a situation as in the UK and ask that question better together from whom, not for ordinary workers who are living and working in the UK context at the moment. What is interesting about some of the analysis that the HR study does is that it looks and asks the question about who is most affected across the OECD countries. It is no surprise that when you look at the current situation and ask the question of employees, if you compare your current situation with that of January 2009, have you experienced a change in the following aspects of your work, your salary? Those who have experienced an increase in salary not surprisingly include Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Those small northern European countries with similar prospects to Scotland as an independent nation who continue to buck the trend of the economics, who reduce inequality in their countries and are developing a model that can go forward. We just heard the cultural conference in this Parliament this weekend, and Simon Arnold of East Angliau University presented a very interesting table of analysis about how good a country is. Despite some of the disparaging comments from better together representatives about some of our neighbours like Ireland and Iceland, the good country index, which measures not what country does at home but what it does is greater good to the wider world. The one that tops that table is the Republic of Ireland, and not surprisingly again, in the top five we have Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, countries of which we can aspire to have a similar inequality, a progressive economic model and prosperous future for our country. Thank you very much. Now Paul Elaine Murray to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Now, nobody here has been arguing that Scotland couldn't be an independent country. The only people I've ever heard saying that Scotland could be too poor, too weak, too unsuccessful are members of the SNP. Nobody else I've ever heard on the union side has ever said that. I think that the success of the Scottish economy under separation is maybe more questionable and the questions are there because of the lack of answers that we're getting from the SNP. People are not getting the answers that they want, but the question, as the cabinet secretary himself has said, is should Scotland be independent or indeed would Scotland be more successful with a devolved Parliament with increased powers within the United Kingdom? The argument still seems to the SNP to put forward are the assertions of the Scottish government of all the uncertainty that they seem to be unable to resolve. I have spent many, many hours on the doorsteps of residents of Dumfries and Galloway over the last several months, it feels like, and I've been listening to their views. There are some who remain undecided, but what they tell me is that they are not getting enough information about how separation or independence would work. They are not getting the answers that they seek about what would actually happen. They are not interested in being told that page 110 or whatever of Scotland's future will explain it all. They want straightforward answers to questions about currency, about how all the aspirations in the white paper will be paid for and what will be the effects on the local economy. The effect on the local economy is very important to people in my constituency because of our links with Carlyle and Cumbria. Those are very important to us both economically and socially. Carlyle is, by a long way, our nearest city. We have much greater kinetic connectivity with Carlyle than we have with any city in Scotland. My constituents use Carlyle for leisure, shopping and access to more of the rail work. There is a whole barrage of reasons why people do not want to be separated from Carlyle. People in the east of my constituency access medical services in Carlyle. Businesses in Gretna, for example, operate on both sides of the border. Many of the tourists who visit Dumfries and Galloway come from Northern England and the Midlands. In fact, those areas are targeted in local tourism campaigns because they are such a strong source of visitors. It is highly surprising that the links across the border are so important to my constituency. The reason why I believe that a substantial majority of my constituents will vote no on 18 September. There is no way that those links would be improved under independence, but devolution, I believe, offers further opportunities. Members of the chamber may not be aware of the work of the UK common select committee on communities and local government, which last month published a very interesting paper on the potential for devolution in England, and specifically on fiscal devolution to cities and city regions, giving those cities and city regions created through local authorities working together additional tax varying and spending powers. There are some limited examples already functioning through the city deal, but what is being proposed by the select committee goes much further. The committee was composed of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, and those MPs are urging those proposals to be taken forward in the next Westminster Parliament starting next year, so I hope that the parties are listening. Kenneth Gibson Talking about devolution, what does he say to Professor Peter McGregor, who told the Finance Committee that Labour's devolution proposals are of higher taxes in Scotland than in England, which Mr Finlay would not let me ask him about? It would cost the Scottish economy £4.6 billion a year and 75,000 jobs, and it is the only way that could be a virtue to reduce the wages of public sector workers. You can look it up on the Finance Committee website if you have any questions. I wish I hadn't taken that, because it is a diversion from what I am trying to argue about my own constituents. I know that the Government at MSPs, like Kenneth Gibson, thinks that what is happening in England is completely irrelevant, but, actually, it could be extremely important to the south of Scotland, so long as we remain part of the United Kingdom. Additional powers are already being devolved to Scotland in 2016, as we all know, and all three UK main parties have agreed that further powers will be devolved. No, I won't, because the previous one went on far too long. There are differences between the parties' proposals, as should be expected. However, the transfer of power from Westminster to Holyrood should not be in order to consolidate power here—something that this particular Government does not seem to understand. We, too, should be considering how powers can be further devolved more locally. It is in that devolution of power—I think that there is an opportunity from Dumfries and Galloway—to work with the authorities in Carlisle and Cumbria with more power to develop the regional economy. I consider that to be a huge opportunity for the Solway Basin, and it cannot happen if both sides are in separate country. Even if there was not a physical border, that sort of collaboration would not take place. We know that one of the consequences of devolution in the south of Scotland is that cross-border working has not taken place to the same extent as it did in 1999. The cross-border co-operation needs to be reinstated if we are to take the city of Carlisle region, which Dumfries and Galloway is part of, forward. Devolution on both sides of the border offers that opportunity, but I do not believe that separation could possibly offer that opportunity. It will kill its stone dead. If we have separation, I will tell you what will happen in Dumfries and Galloway. It will remain a forgotten corner of Scotland cut off from Carlisle, with no strong links to any Scottish city. I have said on several occasions that if the people of Scotland vote yes, I will respect that decision, and I will, but I will have serious reservations about the effects of my constituents, because I genuinely cannot see how separating from the rest of the United Kingdom and Carlisle and Cumbria in particular can have any economic benefit to Dumfries. I make no apologies for being parochial in my contribution, because I was elected to represent the interests of my constituents. It is my firm belief that separation from our closest neighbours in Carlisle and Cumbria cannot be in their interests, and I believe that that is the reason why my constituents will vote no on 18 September. Thank you. I now call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Margaret McDougall. Like Elaine Murray, I am going to be a bit of a parochialist, but I am also going to be an internationalist. The people in my constituency earn their living in a variety of ways. Fishing is a long-run industry. Over the years, we have been the biggest whaling port in the world, and people have travelled to the other end of the world. Today, we have Europe's biggest white fish port, and we are significant in the pelagic industries as well. Many of my constituents work offshore in the oil and gas industry, and, increasingly, they are getting involved in the offshore renewable industry. Agriculture is a very significant industry. We deliver the finest beef in the world, not only in Scotland but beyond and around the world, and we have significant engineering interests. How are the various interests served by the present arrangements, and could they be better in an independent Scotland? We in Scotland have the longest coastline of any country in Europe. To give you a sense of how long it is, China's coastline is only 50 per cent longer than Scotland's. We are essentially a country with extensive and important maritime interests. What that requires when you have maritime interests is that you have the ability to defend those maritime interests. Do the present arrangements provide for adequate defence? We heard that there are going to be three new small vessels to protect the UK's coastal interests. Where are they to be based? Here is a picture of the total number of vessels in the Royal Navy protecting our maritime interests that are based in Scotland. That is not just a theoretical debating point. In January this year, the coosnets of the biggest capital ship in the Russian Navy, built in Odesa in the late 1980s, nearly 60,000 tonnes, with squadrons of Sukhov 27s, with Antonov 41s, helicopters, surfaced air missiles and seven varieties of radar for detecting threats to its integrity, and 2,000 sailors on board were moored so close in off my constituency's coast that, even with my eyes, with hypermetropia, myopia, presbyopia, lowlight, myopia and the stigmatism, only one sight defect to go and I'll have the full set, I could see the coosnets off, legally moored in the muddy earth outside the 12-mile limit, but inside out of an area of economic interest of 200 miles. You could see beyond it, further out, the Beatrice oil platform, so that's how close in it was, and we could all see it. How did the Royal Navy know the coosnets off was there? Well, the Russian sailors have caught up with the modern world, and one of them advertised the presence of the coosnets off via Twitter, and, believe me, on the case at once, the Ministry of Friends spotted it and dispatched a vessel to protect our maritime interests, and in only 38 hours it got there to see what was going on. Now, of course, how can it be done better elsewhere? Ireland has eight vessels around its coast. It's just increased from seven to eight, distributed around its rather shorter coastline, that smaller, less economically powerful country. Ireland, too, has a couple of aircraft that could have gone out and sniffed and hovered over the top and seen what's going on. Our Nimrod's history, unreplaced. The coosnets off was also an aircraft carrier, and as I said, it's got aircraft on it, and that's slightly different from the UK situation. Other interests. Agriculture. We have the lowest support for our farmers of any country in Europe, not because money wasn't provided by the European Union to help our farmers in more disadvantaged areas, but because the UK Government kept that money, which only came to the UK because of the special circumstances of agriculture in Scotland, where 85 per cent of our land is less favoured area, south of the border 15 per cent is less favoured area. We suffer in agriculture because we're part of the current union. We could do so much better. Fishing. Oh, if only I had an hour or two on that subject. We have seen a fishing industry suffer every time the UK represents fishing in Europe because the priorities of the Scottish fishing industry are not the priorities of the United Kingdom, where we are representing ourselves. Even if our own minister occasionally got to speak in Europe, we would do better, and independent Scotland would certainly do better beyond peer adventure. We have heard a lot about currency, and it is important, but even more important is our economy. The currency is secondary to our economy. If we don't get our economy right and we don't have a government that represents our economy's interests, my constituents will continue to suffer the effects of the United Kingdom. It's time with independence, so my constituents and people across Scotland can be properly supported in their economic endeavours. Thank you. Before we move on, I remind members that the use of props is not allowed in the chamber. There are many reasons for this, but one of the reasons is that the official report cannot then record proceedings properly. I call Margaret McDougall to be followed by Roderick Campbell. I have listened with interest to the debate across the chamber today, and I would suggest that a more appropriate title might be the economic uncertainties of independence. With just 36 days left until the independence referendum, the people of Scotland lack key information on how independence would work, lacking information about currency, start-up costs, pensions and taxation. Far from being an opportunity, it appears to be a leap into the unknown. I am going to focus my speech today on the two major issues of currency and taxation. On currency, it has been made clear that a currency union, the preferred option of this Government, is off the table. No matter how many times Alex Salmond repeats its Scotland's pound, it is not going to change the fact that if the rest of the UK does not want a currency union with Scotland, we can't force them into one. Even if a currency union was still an offer, it would effectively mean handing the key fiscal levers of the economy over to the central bank of another country, while losing our political union and influence. Sterlingisation is an even less attractive option. No one is denying that Scotland could use the pound, but without a currency union we would be left without a lender of last resort. It's just not credible. According to the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, that would have a knock-on effect to Scotland's financial sector, creating a financial border where banks would be forced to move their head offices to the country in which the central bank was located. The financial sector exports generate 9 per cent of Scottish GDP, so that would be a huge loss to our economy. It's perplexing that the party that pushed for this independence referendum, a party that was established in 1934 to fight for Scottish independence, seems to be fighting so hard against the Scottish currency, instead of proposing a currency union while stripping away the political union that makes our currency union work. Without a clear plan on currency, there is no opportunity, only uncertainty. Uncertainty for Scottish businesses, uncertainty for Scottish banks and uncertainty for the Scottish people, in effect, no answers, no credibility, no thanks. The plan, or lack thereof on taxation, is even more worrying. When I asked Mr Spinney last week if taxes would need to increase to pay for things promised with a yes vote, he replied and I quote, the answer is no. Taxes will not have to go up to pay for independence. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies economist David Phillips tells us that an independent Scotland could expect to be running a deficit of around 5 per cent of GDP in 2016-17, which would be larger than that facing the UK as a whole and would necessitate tax rises or spending cuts. What is your view on the Institute of Fiscal Studies telling the Finance Committee on 5 March that UK Government departments up to 2019 will face a 17.1 per cent cut in their budgets and what will the impact on Scotland? I was not party to that conversation so I am not going to make comment on it. Professor Joe Armstrong of the Centre for Public Policy for Regions told the EET committee that there are opportunities but we either increase taxes or cuts spending given that we have a fiscal deficit and potentially limits on how much additional borrowing we can make. Yet there are no signs of any tax increases or spending cuts in the SNP's plans. Instead, we are promised tax cuts and spending increases so I ask the same as I did last week. How are we paying for increased spending? The money saved from scrapping trident must have been spent at least times over by now. We know that oil and gases are finite and volatile and city group states with the recent drop in oil revenues, Scotland's fiscal deficit is now significantly above UK levels. That is fantasy economics. Cuts proposed in private while still maintaining publicly that it will be all right on the night. Disvote yes. Yet impartial expert bodies such as the IFS tell us that we would need to make cuts almost immediately. Is it any surprise that the latest polling shows support for no at 55 per cent while yes at 35 per cent? People are rejecting the separatist agenda, saying the opportunities of devolution because we have 300 years of shared experience, history and joint endeavour. To conclude, Scotland can stand up and lead the UK, not stand up to leave it. Our economic, social and political union offers us strength and security while devolution means we can forge our way forward with more powers coming with the Scotland Act and even more after a no vote. Scotland does not need independence to stand on its own two feet. We already do. I do not want to break away from my brothers and sisters from the rest of the UK. I want to tackle inequality and injustice wherever it arises and on 18 September I will be voting to strengthen our ties not to cut them. Thank you. I now call Roger Campbell and after that we will turn to the closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a lengthy debate with some interesting contributions. Ultimately, however, this debate is between those who value opportunities and rise to challenges as opposed to those for whom the glass is always half empty even when it is crystal clear, as is now widely acknowledged that Scotland can be a successful independent country. A small country like Scotland has an abundance of opportunity laid out before it. We need to make sure that we take advantage of it. One example of how we can do that is set out in the Scottish Government's jobs plan for an independent Scotland. The plan builds on the white paper in my view and sets out how we can make Scotland's wealth work to create jobs and opportunities. As an independent member state of the EU, it is clear that Scotland would have a number of different priorities from those of the UK. We already have different priorities from Westminster in many areas such as fishing, farming and energy, to which my colleague Stuart Stevenson has already referred. Independence, I believe, will allow Scotland to replicate the approach of other small states such as Denmark, Ireland and others and how to approach negotiations in the EU effectively, forming alliances when and with whom it suits us to do so, sometimes working with the rest of the UK, sometimes working with others, whether that be on fishing, farming or even arrest warrants and student visas. I turn now, if I may, to the first report of the fiscal commission. No, sorry, I'm going to press on. Much referred to in relation to comments on currency. What I found impressive in the fiscal commission report was their conclusion that under the union in terms of economic growth, Scotland has underperformed relative to both the UK and other small countries, including Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and Portugal. In the 30-year period to 2007, we have had an annual percentage growth of 2.3 compared to 2.8 per cent for the UK as a whole, and that growth rate has been broadly similar since. In the longer term, as the fiscal commission reports of, a growth depends on productivity, and in that respect, the UK record remains poor. Although Scotland has closed the relative gap with the rest of the UK, we remain behind key competitors such as the USA, Germany and France, as John Swinney has already made reference to. I recognise, of course, that in terms of growth, we need to make it clear that we need to have the right balance of growth so that we have growth that reduces inequality. We also have had a lack of growth in population historically, as Kenny Gibson referred to earlier on, particularly as compared to the rest of the UK. That lack of growth has seemed to change in recent years. We know, of course, that a modest increase in the numbers of people, particularly young people staying in Scotland each year, could have had a significant impact, not only on the independence ratios but on growth itself. We know that, while Professor Stiglitz may not be a fan of reducing corporation tax, he concludes that countries that are more unequal do not do as well, do not grow as well and are less stable. In the debate today, speakers such as Jamie Hepburn have talked eloquently of the nature of inequality in Scotland. Whilst I accept that there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland will be a more equal society, I think that there is every prospect that it will be. Indeed, some of the no campaigners seem to be positively fearful of it. Independence, Presiding Officer, gives us a unique opportunity to change the kind of society we are. On Saturday, I met a voter in my constituency, voting yes, because he wanted to see a revolution in Scotland's health record, which, in his view, would have a knock-on economic effect. Independence offered opportunities for him, which he believed the status quo simply does not offer, let alone taking account of the impact of privatisation of the NHS down south. When we speak of the risks of independence, let us also remember the letter to the Financial Times last week from Jim Spuart and others, that those seeking to evaluate risk in the financial sector must take account of the far more significant risk posed to the financial services by the prospect of a UK exit from the European Union. Let us also never forget the key mantra of the Westminster Government in this referendum campaign. No pre-negotiation, they say. That, of course, fits very nicely with an agenda, raising doubts and uncertainty as a key campaigning tool, which we have heard in this chamber today. But no pre-negotiation means there can be no definitive answers on many key issues. However, it is on the currency issue alone that the Westminster Government has decided to make the position known, in that spirit of giving the facts to the Scottish people on this very important issue. That, of course, is not pre-negotiation. That is what they say and, obviously, because they say so, that is right. Audraic Campbell, I could have stopped you for a moment. I would be grateful if members in the chamber could listen to the speeches being made, please, on all sides of the chamber. Audraic Campbell. Just as it is right that the Opposition parties will fight to the death following a yes vote to ensure a currency union because that is the best for Scotland, we can only assume that because why we have heard nothing else about a plan B in the event of a yes vote from them. Finally, I see that there was a reference earlier on to currency bluffs, but it is Henry McLeish, not a known supporter of the SNP who took the view, I think, in a statement that the currency bluff is entirely political and consistent with the unionist campaign. The people of Scotland, Presiding Officer, have a lot to weigh up over the next few weeks. They have time to reflect on where opportunities arise, and I'm sure in this part of the chamber, at least, and elsewhere in Scotland, thousands of activists will continue to make the case for the opportunities of independence. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and we now turn to the closing speeches. I call on Gavin Brown, please, with six minutes special. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that the attitude of the Scottish Government towards the referendum and indeed its governance in general was really encapsulated in one minor exchange at the very start of this debate. Not an exchange that was central to the debate, but an exchange that I think demonstrates the approach of this Government. Jenny Marr asked the cabinet secretary a question about unemployment. A question is about why it was higher currently in Scotland than it was in the rest of the UK. If it's lower in Scotland, the Scottish Government releases press release after release. They hold press conferences and it is the very start of every single speech in exchange the First Minister or the cabinet secretary makes. If unemployment is higher in Scotland, then it's something that ought to be ignored. It's something that ought not to be taken too seriously, and it's just a blip in the figures. If the figures support their case, they are the most important figures on the planet, but anything that attacks or weakens their argument whatsoever ought to be completely ignored and is totally irrelevant. We've had some bizarre admissions in this debate. I'm a bit bewoldered by Mr Brown's remark, given that every single month the Government issues a press release about the labour market statistics, regardless of what the labour market statistics are, every single month. I just don't understand the point that he's just made. Allow me to assist the cabinet secretary. In a month when unemployment is lower in Scotland, the most important figure to look at is the headline unemployment figure. If it happens to be higher in Scotland in that particular month, it's something that's buried away at the bottom of the press release and actually is one of the less important aspects of the economy. Let's return to the central aspects of this debate. Let's return if Mr Swinney wishes to intervene or take an intervention at any point. He doesn't have to shout from the sidelines. The key argument that is put forward again by the Scottish Government is that we need to vote for independence to stop austerity. They genuinely try to claim that if we were to be independent, there would be no cuts in public spending, there would be no tax increases, indeed there would be tax cuts, there would be welfare increases, you would be able to retire younger and at the same time there would be an oil fund. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, who has been quoted, I have to say, after SNP member today to support their case, said this. If an independent Scotland wanted to have sustainable public finances, they would have to have greater spending cuts and or tax rises on top of every single one planned by Westminster. We would have a greater fiscal deficit than the rest of the UK, not just in year 1 of independence but for each year after that. If members want to stand up and show me an independent, well-respected expert who has suggested that we would have a smaller deficit than the rest of the UK, I will take that intervention happily, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government claimed that everything will be fine with economic growth where we to separate, but I posed the questions at the start of the Scottish Government. What are the industries that are suddenly going to start coming to Scotland because we become independent and we have heard none? Perhaps Mr Brody is going to enlighten us at this late stage. I intend to do so. I wonder if Mr Brown could give his reaction to the announcement today that Acre Solutions has announced £150 million investment to move into new premises in Dice, agreeing to a lease of up to 35 years, 35 years with the potential to create hundreds of jobs in Scotland. I am not convinced that that lightened me or anyone else, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not think that they are coming to Scotland because we are going to be independent. I have thought that they are coming anyway, given the state of the polls at the moment. They might think that we might not become independent. They cannot suggest the industries that are going to suddenly come. They cannot suggest the industries that are deeply held back by being part of the UK. It comes down to hard policies that they intend to bring in that are not already out there. They do not have them. Some of the ones that they do come forward with, we could all ready do with the powers that we have. We lodged some simple FOIs after their last report, Deputy Presiding Officer. They stated in a press release that there is £5 billion increase in revenues by 2029. That was a headline in the Scottish Government's press release when they had their economic report. We simply asked in an FOI when they said that they could use the powers of independence to generate that tax revenue. Could they show us the modelling on how they did that? The modelling on the employment increases, the productivity improvements and the increased migration. They had done no modelling, Deputy Presiding Officer. They said that we are satisfied that we do not have the information requested. That £5 billion figure cannot be taken seriously, and it is the same again today with most of what was in the so-called top 10 reasons to become independent. However, let me close with one thing. I hope that the cabinet secretary addresses that point in his closing speech. The Scottish Government has said that if it does not get a currency union, it will walk away from all the debt. Do all the members of the Fiscal Commission working group, all of them, support that stance and that argument? If so, will they confirm it this evening or will they confirm it in the speech when it happens on Monday? Thank you very much. The point on unemployment is that when the unemployment figures look good for Scotland, Mr Swinney and the SNP Government take all the credit. When the unemployment figures look worse and bad for Scotland, Mr Swinney turns it into an argument for Scotland to separate itself from the rest of the United Kingdom. That goes to the shallowness of the SNP's whole case for independence, because it becomes rain, hail or shine. The SNP and its nationalism, their answer to every question, is to separate this country from the rest of the United Kingdom. They wanted an independent Scotland during Atley's reforming government in 1945. They wanted an independent Government when our Labour Government, Mike Russell may laugh, but this point has come up this afternoon. They wanted independence when our Labour Government raised two thirds of children across the United Kingdom out of absolute poverty, because power is about what you do with it, not where it is wielded. I am grateful to Ms Marra for accepting the intervention. I am intrigued by her argument that it is not where power is located. Why, then, were the Labour Party advocates for there being a Scottish Parliament that gives us the ability to determine policy choices differently to those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why is that appropriate for education, for example, but not for welfare? Ms Winnie seems to think that all power needs to be wielded in Edinburgh. The Labour Party, as he well knows—let me answer—believes in the principle of subsidiarity that power is wielded at the most appropriate level in the European Union, Westminster, Holyrood and local government. The debate this afternoon has been very reflective of the last week, Presiding Officer. The case for breaking up this union has completely fallen apart. Like the emperor's new clothes, his failure to answer key questions has left the SNP naked and panicking. That has been the tenor of today's debate. Audra, please, Ms Marra. Can I stop you a moment? This debate has been conducted thus far with respect to null sides. I hope that it will continue that way until the end of the debate. Jenny Marra, please. I appreciate that I have not created a pretty picture, Presiding Officer, but I will try to continue. A list of assertions from the SNP speakers, which many of them were not prepared to be challenged on, Jamie Hepburn, Colin Beattie, Clare Adamson, were not prepared to be challenged on those assertions. Kenny Gibson's list of assertions is without any evidence. Those assertions are becoming more shrill and fanciful by the day when Maureen Watt announced at a conference that I attended that ferries would go faster in an independent Scotland. I thought she was joking, but Willie Rennie is right on this, Presiding Officer. Passion and nationalism is completely obscuring any grip on reality in the SNP benches. That has been patently clear to everyone listening to this debate this afternoon. I was looking at the plan for jobs in an independent Scotland that John Swinney has re-released. I was particularly drawn to page number 24, re-industrialising Scotland for the 21st century. I was very intrigued by those five points, establishing a Scottish innovation agency. I think the exchanges between Gavin Brown and John Swinney earlier established that that could quite easily be done right now. Tax credits for R&D expenditure—this would be delivered in independent Scotland, I believe they are already tax credit arrangements in the UK for R&D—establishing a Scottish business development bank. This is another new idea and new proposal to reinvigorate the economy, but of course it is not because it has been a disappearing and reappearing pledge over the last couple of years. Ensuring a legal framework that protects and supports intellectual property rights—this, again, is another proposal that will bolster our economy—I know that Mike Russell has told a very senior IP lawyer in this country that they have not the first idea about how they will establish intellectual property system once they come out of the gold-plated patents arrangements that we have as part of the United Kingdom. If the member has the evidence that I have said that in the way that she said it, then bring it forward. If she hasn't, then withdraw it. That is not a remark that I have ever made. I am, of course, always willing to discuss these matters with lawyers and others. I understand that Mike Russell has said that they do not yet have a plan to establish an intellectual property system in Scotland if he does have a plan. If Mike Russell has a plan to establish an intellectual property system, I would be happy to hear it now. If an assertion is made and no name is attached to it, it is incumbent upon the member to bring that name forward, and I will contact that person to find out what he has said. I think that everyone in this chamber would agree with me that the actual plan for the system is much more important to the voters of Scotland than any name. That is point number five, investing in the world-class research of Scotland's universities and research institutes. Alistair Darling and I recently visited Dundee University and spoke to some of the most senior life sciences researchers in Scotland, who said that it would be the mother of all disasters for their research funding if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom. Setting incentives to attract the best researchers from across the world, the other thing that these researchers tell us is that the best researchers want funding and critical mass research relationships across the United Kingdom. The plan today is a mix of, we can do it now, it already exists, or the pledges seem to be quite fanciful. I was also intrigued, as Malcolm Chisholm said today, about the spending plans for the Trident Trillions. The Scottish Government estimates that it would cost £200 million to set up a new state of Scotland—a modest estimate. I think that that would be the Trident money gone, if I am not mistaken. No, the SNP last week in a debate in this chamber pledged to spend it on a convention on defence. It pledged to spend it on health. It pledged to spend it on education. It pledged to spend it on creating alternative jobs at Faslane. Now, today, it is pledging to spend it on childcare. There seems to be no end to this pot of money, Presiding Officer. Again, I think that the clothes have fallen off that pledge. I am happy to take an intervention, Ms Adamson, if you would like to offer one. Do you gather a discontent to continue to spend the billions of pounds on Trident? Clare Adamson will know that I have campaigned long against nuclear weapons. If I can finish this point to get rid of them all over the world, she may also know that I think that the SNP's pledge to get rid of Trident is an absolute fallacy because when it comes to negotiation in the event of a yes vote between Alex Salmond and the British Government, it will be the first thing to fall off Alex Salmond's agenda and there are senior people in Yes Scotland that agree with me on that. Presiding Officer, the people of Scotland have a right to expect better from their Government than the situation to which we have been led. We just have over four weeks until a referendum that proposes to end one of the world's oldest economic union. The pound in our pocket is nothing to do with identity. It is no posturing. It is an essence, a contract, a sign of trust, a trade that is made and that you will receive value for your labour. It is a contract. In the derogation of their duty that SNP and Alex Salmond have broken in front of the world, they are contract with the people of Scotland in their failure to come up with a plan B on currency. I will do that. This unholy mess is not fit for Scotland and let us say clearly to all those people listening that this rank in competence from the SNP is not Scotland and after the 18th of September we must all work together to make it good. Thank you. I now call on Michael Russell to wind up the debate and cabinet secretary you have until 5 o'clock. Let me give a revelation here. I think that the evidence of this afternoon is that there are no votes in this chamber up for grabs in the referendum. I think that it is pretty clear across this chamber that there are no undecideds on these benches. Perhaps there are some undecideds at home watching. I suspect that they may have turned off by now, particularly after Jenny Marra's speech, but if they are still watching, can I make a suggestion to them that if they try to come to a judgment on this debate—and there are people in the galleries who might want to judge it—do it on one thing. Do it on the basis of what has been the positive view and the negative view. Look at the positive view that has been expressed by all my colleagues in this chamber and look at the endless destructive negativity that we have had from Labour, Liberals and theories. Let me start with the clearest view of the currency issue. The First Minister has ever got it right in this chamber last week. I am going to repeat his exact words. It is our pound, and we are keeping it. No ifs, no buts, that is the guarantee, that is plan A to Z. For the benefit of those who are still trying to frighten people out of what is theirs, people like Mr Henry, who asserted today that Scots will not be able to buy food or go on holiday after independence, Mr Fraser, who referred very tellingly, Mr Fraser, no, I won't take an intervention. No, I'm sorry. One contribution to Mr Henry in an afternoon is more than enough—I have to say more than enough—or Mr Fraser, who referred to the currency as belonging to someone else. That was very interesting indeed. Let me just repeat it so that there can be no doubt. It's our pound, and we're keeping it. Cabinet Secretary, we have a point of order from Hugh Henry, please. Mr Russell just made a statement attributing words to me, which I did not say. Is it in order for members to fabricate words and attribute them to other members' words, which were not said during this debate? Order, please. Order. It's entirely up to members what they say within their speeches. It is not for me to make to decide what members should and shouldn't say within their speeches. However, undoubtedly, the official record shows every word that is said in this chamber. Thank you. I'm sure that Mr Henry reflected on that when he looks at what he said about me and my writings. I'm sure that he'll think about that carefully. But Mr Henry's words speak for themselves, as does Mr Henry's depressing demeanour. This has been a debate of great contrasts. The contrasts are this. I go back to the issue of positivity and negativity. My friend Mr Swinney is talking about ambition, achievement, resources, potential, raising the eyes of Scotland to what can be achieved. In my area of special interests, I am talking about the need for transformative childcare, I am talking about the world-leading position in Scottish higher education. What was the result? This was the result. Ten minutes in, Mr Rennie gave the knee-jerk plan B at first outing. Mr Brownan lept back in. The project fear was in there working hard. The other side of the unionist coin then showed itself. It was quite stunning. Alex Johnstone was chuntering on from a sedentary position about the fact that everything that was mentioned was a product of the wonderful union. He was being interrupted by Jenny Marra, who said that everything was a result of the failed SNP. That is a contrast. Labour hate the SNP more than anybody else, and the Tories love the union more than anything else. I do not think that either of those are a prescription for a safe future. I will tell you what is not a prescription for a safe future, too. It is to believe that weapons of mass destruction will be removed by a Labour government. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. How else are we to get rid of weapons of mass destruction except by independence? That is the reality. It was very telling this afternoon that, when Mr Swinney mentioned Trident and what we needed to do, the reaction from Labour, from Tories and even from the sole Lib Dem who was there was derision. They do want to put bombs before bairns. They do want to put Trident before teachers. That is their shame. Let me carry on, because this obsession—this absolute obsession—no, I am not going to take an intervention, Mr Bibi. The reality of this debate was shown so clearly this afternoon. It was about that negative view. Nothing could be done. You had to ask what it was about and, more than what, got it 100 per cent right. She analysed the debate early on, because the great fear that exists in project fear is that could, should, must progression. If any member on those benches could admit that Scotland could be independent—I will come to Elaine Murray in a moment, because she did momentarily—if any member can admit that Scotland could be independent, then this whole fantasy collapses, because what when we have is that Scotland should be independent. That is the argument that came from my colleagues this afternoon, and then it goes a step further. Scotland must be independent. The biggest illustration of that was Malcolm Chisholm. I was, yet again, saddened by Malcolm Chisholm's contribution. I have admiration and time for Malcolm Chisholm. He is laughing at this, but I do. I do not think that he and I differ very much in some of the things that we want to see, but here is the difference. Our Labour wants to laugh at this because it is beginning to strike home. Here is the difference. The difference is that my self and my colleagues have a plan on how to achieve those things. We know how those things can be achieved. We know how poverty can be eliminated in Scotland. We know that it is more—no, I am not thinking in grey—no, either. I want to finish this point, because I know it is annoying to think in grey. You can have a plan to change Scotland to do those things. You can set out with those intentions and you can work hard for them. Or you can simply keep your fingers crossed that sometimes you might get a Labour Government that could possibly follow the things that you want to see in Scotland rather than the things that Ed Balls and Miliband want to see south of the border. That is not a plan that you have, Mr Chisholm. What that actually is is just keeping your fingers crossed and putting party before principle. I will take it to the bench now. The cabinet secretary may have a plan, but the whole point of all the speeches on this side this afternoon is to point out that it is not a plan that can be delivered without an economic foundation. Before he had any more claptrap about the negativity of this side, will he reflect on the fact that by far the biggest and most disgraceful scare of this campaign is what the yes side is saying about the NHS. Mr Russell, sit down. I heard that, and that is quite enough. Too much heckling and too much noise. The minister is speaking. Allow him to do so. This is a parliament. It is not a public meeting. It is not a hustings. Please, there are people in Scotland listening to this debate. Make it worthy of them. Last week, the person who got that agitated about the issues of the NHS was Jackson Carlaw. Applauding this afternoon, applauding and applauding and applauding and why? Because we have hit the nail on the head. If the power of finance lies outside Scotland, then the decision on the priorities of Scotland, how we deliver those priorities in Scotland, always then lies outside Scotland too. For every £100 that is reduced at expenditure south of the border by privatisation of the health service, privatisation started by labour, privatisation of the health service, you lose £100, you lose £10 from the Scottish budget. If you look at the privatisation of higher education south of the border, every £100 that is removed there, then we lose £10 from Scotland. There is the reality. There is the nub of this debate today. It is that we can choose to make our decisions in Scotland and take our responsibilities in Scotland and have opportunities in Scotland or we can always dance to somebody else's tune. Presiding Officer, Malcolm Chisholm wants the progress in Scotland and I want to see. I repeat what I said earlier. The side of the chamber has the plan to do that. It puts its confidence. You can hear the Tories laughing. You can always hear the Tories laughing when the people of Scotland want to progress. Here is the choice. You can say to the people of Scotland, take responsibility and then you will have the opportunities to change this country for the better or you can listen to those voices who will not accept the reality, who will always keep their fingers crossed in case England votes the same way as they do and will always disappoint and let down the people of Scotland. That has got to stop. The lesson this afternoon is entirely clear. There is a jobs plan for an independent Scotland. There is a finance plan for an independent Scotland. There is a currency plan for an independent Scotland. There is a plan to make the independent Scotland the country that it could and should be. The people who stand in the way of that are this unholy alliance between Labour and the Tories. The people who have plenty of ambition for their political parties are none for their country. It includes a debate on economic opportunities of independence. Before we come to decision time, I am sure members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery his excellency Dr Peter Amann, the ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 10769.1.1, in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend amendment number 10769.1, in the name of Ian Gray, on economic opportunities of independence, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10769.1, in the name of Gavin Brown, is as follows. Yes, 45. No, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 10769.1, in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend motion number 10769, in the name of John Swinney, on economic opportunities and independence, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10769.1, in the name of Ian Gray, is as follows. Yes, 46. No, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10769. In the name of John Swinney, on economic opportunities of independence, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 10769, in the name of John Swinney, is as follows. Yes, 63. No, 46. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.