 The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on the Ministry of Defence basing reforms. The Cabinet Secretary will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I'll call Keith Brown. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. Scotland is a society that holds the members of our armed forces in high esteem. We have a long and proud history with the military. Many of our military sites stretch back hundreds of years and are deeply embedded into local communities. On Monday evening, the defence secretary announced his plans to reduce the size of the defence estate. An announcement was long anticipated and followed a period of extreme uncertainty in many communities across Scotland. The defence secretary announced that the future lay-down of the free services in Scotland will be concentrated on existing bases at HM Naval Base Clyde, RDF Lossymouth and Lucas Barracks. Those are described as regional hubs. However, the scale of the cuts in Scotland are much harsher than were expected. The defence secretary confirmed eight sites for disposal in Scotland, reducing the size of the defence estate by almost a fifth. Proposed sites for disposal are Fort George in Inverness, MOD Caledonia in Recythe, Glencourt's Barracks in Pennycook, Meadowforth Barracks in Stirling, Craigiehall and both Redford Barracks' sites based in Edinburgh and, as well as those, RM Condor airfield in Arbroath. Time scales vary, with most sites intended for disposal by 2022 but with longer leading times for the army to vacate Fort George and Glencourt by 2032. Scotland's defence footprint is therefore being hollowed out through successive cuts, so the severity of this fresh round of cuts comes as a real shock. It also comes just three years after Philip Hammond announced the last army-basing plan, billed as offering stability and certainty. These recent commitments of Scotland have, for the most part, been disregarded. I'll turn to the impact on individual sites. Fort George, a garrison for almost 250 years, will be vacated by the army by 2032. As well as severing historic ties, it also represents a near total removal of the army from the highlands, a traditional recruiting ground. Initial estimates by Highlands and Islands Enterprise indicate that over 700 jobs could be affected directly and indirectly. Highland Council estimate a loss of approximately £20 million from the local economy. Fort George is an historic property in the care of Scottish ministers operated by Historic Environment Scotland under a memorandum with the MOD, yet despite its direct interest, the MOD failed to keep its promises on consultation. Urgent discussion is now needed to establish the financial implications. The Ministry of Defence's claim is that Fort George is not fit for purpose as a modern garrison, not least because they have failed to invest properly over the years and it will now struggle to bridge that gap. However, the cuts have also been extended to Glencore's barracks, a state of the art facility, home to over 500 personnel from two Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers. The announcement proposes that the army vacates this site by 2032. I know that there will be a particular interest to yourself as it falls within your constituency. Glencore's, as you will know, has had a garrison for almost 150 years and a loss on this scale will be a major blow for Midlothian. It is a modern fit for purpose barracks, popular with the army. I visited it to myself recently and I expect very serious questions to be levelled at the MOD about the logic of its argument in relation to this facility. Meadowforth barracks, Stirling and both Redford Infantry and Cavalry barracks have been listed for disposal by 2022, with no clarity on where army units will go. Interestingly, more than half the bulk of the Royal Regiment of Scotland will now be changing its location. That is a contempt that has been shown by the UK Government in terms of the stability and the certainty for our armed forces personnel and their families. The MOD has long struggled, of course, to dispose of Craigie Hall and Edinburgh, listed again for disposal for the third time. It begs the question whether those barracks will yield the financial savings that we are told are required, or whether they are simply generating uncertainty for personnel and communities. Incidentally, the barracks at Stirling also include the DIS vehicle maintenance unit. In the case of the city-based barracks, and in the case of RM Condor airfield in Ermbroth, I would encourage the MOD even at this late stage to engage with the local authorities and the Scottish Government to discuss the practical impact in a constructive way. The defence secretary's remarks to the House of Commons treated the impact on Fife, I think, extremely carelessly. Both his statement and the accompanying strategy document fail to acknowledge that closure of MOD Caledonia will mark the end of the Royal Navy's presence in Fife. MOD Caledonia is a mixed site, housing a variety of lodger units, military and civilian personnel and naval assets such as HMS Scotia. We urgently need clarity on plans for this site. The Royal Navy has had an enduring presence in Fife stretching back to the battle of Jutland and beyond, and it is extremely sad to see this legacy cut away and run down in such a discourteous way. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday to express her firm opposition to these cuts and to seek clarity on personnel numbers, unit moves and any financial support that will be provided to communities affected by closures. She also expressed concern about the MOD's failure to keep their promises to consult with the Scottish Government. I personally made every effort to meet MOD ministers before decisions were made, but they cancelled meetings on several occasions. No consultation took place even in the case of Fort George, where Scottish ministers have a direct interest in the operation of the site. That shows a complete lack of respect for the Scottish Government's legitimate interests in those decisions and that they have a clear impact on Scotland and indeed the Scottish economy. The Scottish Government does not accept that Monday's announcement is the end of the story, and I will work closely with local authorities most directly affected to the green next steps that I have asked officials to establish a working group for this purpose and also to campaign against those decisions. I am also keen to work with parliamentarians from all parties as there is a clear interest throughout the chamber in retaining, I would hope, a strong defence footprint across Scotland. The announcement contained very little detail on unit moves and personnel numbers. In recent years, the MOD committed to increase numbers of regular personnel in Scotland to 12,500 and increase from roughly 10,000 as it currently stands. As an attempt to remedy whatever decreasing numbers, however, no mention was made of this figure and I am very concerned that this commitment will no longer be met. There is also a clear risk that, in the midst of the chaos of the statement, that army units will be diminished or quietly moved out of Scotland altogether. There are other risks on the horizon to the reserves and the training estate with further cutbacks planned. As I said, Scotland has long held a strong connection to the military and we cannot let down areas like the Highlands, Fife and other strong recruiting grounds where this has been torn away. We must unite as a chamber to sustain a strong defence footprint here in Scotland and to that end I would ask for support from members across the chamber. The cabinet secretary will now take questions and the issues raised in his statement and tend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question press their questions to speak buttons now and the shorter the questions I keep saying it, the more questioners we get in. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his speech. I would like to declare an interest. The interest is that my father was a soldier, I was a soldier and my son is a soldier. So I recognise the recent announcements made by the Defence Estate that the latest step in ensuring our armed forces have the best facilities, not only for training but also for their families. What we have to accept is the army reduced from 1980s figures for about 150,000 regular soldiers to the 82,000 we have now. Many famous regiments were lost including the one that my family and I served in. The UK Government's commitment to an effective defence remains strong. We have got two new aircraft carriers being built in Scotland, eight new frigates being built in Scotland and a new fleet of PA patrol aircraft being based in Scotland, £100 million being invested in Scotland at Lossymouth, no reduction in Scottish regiments which formed 10 per cent of the armed services which will be based in Scotland. None of those would have been achieved if we had Scotland being independent. What we heard on Monday was a gradual and planned reduction in the defence system, allowing our servicemen and families to loyally support them to have the best access to training areas and facilities. So I would like to ask the SNP Government if they will now accept the need to firstly support the services and to use a quote that was used yesterday by Michael Matheson in relation to another service to become fit for the needs of the future and secondly to work with us towards finding a way of making the redundant defence estate an asset where possible for local communities. Cabinet Secretary. I think that I recognise in Edward Mountain's initial contribution the interest, the very direct interest that he has in the armed forces. I think that that led me to hope and expect that what we would see would be something other than total and unquestioning support for the moves of the Conservative Government and the cuts that have now been proposed. More of an interest, and I do not know how many members, 16 members, serving members of armed forces that Mr Mountain has spoken to recently, but they will tell him, I am sure, that they are sick to the back teeth of the uncertainty that has been given by this Government. Shifted around in the previous basing review, he told you are going to one place then to another. How does he expect members of armed forces to plan family life around that, children in the schools? The school at Fort George, at Sir's Fort George, half of the pupils are from Fort George. What is going to happen to that school? He asked if I will support the services. Of course, that is the very reason why I have made the statement. What I would ask him is, rather than just slavishly reading out the latest press release from the Conservative Government, will he not get behind the armed forces properly and oppose these cuts? Rhoda Grant, please. I thank the cabinet secretary for a prior sight of the statement. I am also disappointed at the outcome of those decisions. It is a very difficult time for the communities who depend on those bases. The base jobs will go, but also so too will jobs within those communities. We have seen areas that have had basis close in the past impact on public services because they suffer from a lack of staff due to the absence of service personnel's partners who actually staff their schools and hospitals in those areas. Can I ask what discussion the Scottish Government has had with the MOD about safeguarding those communities and assets? Have they set up a pace in each of the areas that is affected? Have they invited the MOD to be part of those partnerships in order to mitigate, as far as possible, the negative impacts of those closures in Scotland? I thank Rhoda Grant for her question. I also agree with much of what she said in relation to the impact that will have on local communities. In relation to pace, I should say that we have already been in contact with the local authorities affected. We intend to take that further by, as I have mentioned, having a working group to establish how we work through the proposals that are here. I have had discussions directly with two of the local authorities. We did not know, of course, where the cuts were going to be felt, so we were not taken into the conference by the MOD or the Westminster Government. For that reason, we have not had the contact from the MOD that we have asked for. I had a meeting with Mark Lancaster some months ago when the basing review was first announced and I asked for proper consultation. There is not a single recorded instance in the last 10 years, nine years, of the Scottish Government being taken into the conference of the UK Government and betraying that conference by making it public. I offered that private space to be there to see if we could discuss how some of those challenges could be met, and that was not taken up. A serious, farcical attempt to hold meetings with the relevant minister, a letter from the First Minister to the Secretary of State to try to get a meeting off the ground. The way that it eventually happened was to be given a courtesy call after the announcement had been made. That prevented some of the discussions that Rhoda Grant rightly says should be taking place, but it is my intention to make sure that we have as inclusive as possible an approach. If there are other Conservative members, for example, who are not willing to just slavishly tow the line and challenge some of those things, that would be useful as well if they could have all parties involved in this. I give my commitment that the Scottish Government will engage with the local authorities pace where it is necessary. Certainly, we would offer that assistance. Also, I would hope that we would get continuing support from Labour benches in relation to those activities. Mary Todd will be followed by Douglas Ross. The announcement from the UK Government that Fort George will close means that the Black Watch will no longer have a permanent presence in the Highlands of Scotland. The armed forces will continue to visit us for training exercises to use the bombing ranges and the controversial Trident nuclear submarines will continue their presence in our waters. The announcement will result in the loss of £20 million a year to the Highland economy. Over 700 jobs— I am sorry, Ms Todd. I want short questions. I know that your heart is in this, but other people want to question it. In a part of the country that has suffered depopulation— No, question. Will the Scottish Government join me in asking again that the UK Government should honour its commitment to permanently base the Black Watch at Fort George and should the closure go ahead, what can the Scottish Government do? To mitigate the potential social and economic impact? Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary. Yes, we have made that point already. I can assure the member that we have made that point that Fort George should continue, not least because of the historic connection that has been there. We will continue to make that case. That was the part of the purpose behind the establishment of the working group. I can give the member the assurance that we have met with Highland Council. We made a joint statement about the need to avoid exactly this outcome. I have to say that I can never remember a time in previous strategic defence reviews where a base has been scheduled for closure 16 years and perhaps two or three SDSRs away from the actual effect of it. The real issue is when, of course, the personnel will move away from the base, so I can assure the member that I will take those issues up both in concert with Highland Council and to the MOD, and if we can manage to get a meeting eventually with the UK ministers. Thank you. Douglas Ross will be followed by Bruce Crawford. The cabinet secretary did not utter the word canloss once in his statement this afternoon, which I think is a shameful omission by him because, as the BBC reported in August this year, the SNP has raised concerns about the future of canloss barracks in Murray. Murray MP Angus Robertson says that he has been told by an impeccable source at the Ministry of Defence that the former air station could be closed. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that reckless tweet from Angus Robertson for political motives has caused unnecessary anxiety among military personnel, their families and the local community and, on reflection, the MP concerned should have had far more respect for the armed forces and the people of Murray? The question that has just been asked demonstrates how far removed that particular member was from the interests of the campaign group, the local authority and the other elected members who took up the issue and he refused. You have had your question, Mr Ross. In fact, he deserted the field. When the rest of us stayed to make sure that canloss would be saved, he deserted the field. He let down the people in that awful community and we helped save it. When I say that you have had your question, I mean it. Can I call Bruce Crawford-Pollard by David Stewart, please? The cabinet secretary shares my concern and sadness at the closure of Meadowforth barracks and Forthside vehicle maintenance depot in Stirling. We will bring into an end a long and historic direct connection between Stirling and the military. Does he agree with me that I believe that the decision to dispose of Forthside together with the recent job losses that were announced by HSBC strengthens the case for the go-ahead of the transformational Stirling and Clackmannanshire city deal, which can help to redevelop and reinvigorate the Forthside site? I do share the member's sadness. I'm well aware of course that Stirling forms part of my constituency as well of the very long connections, not least through the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, with Stirling. There's a huge connection in the Stirling area and there'll be a great deal of sadness around the area because of this closure. Also, as the member mentioned, some of the other functions that are currently carried out. I should say that, although the UK Government seems content to hollow out our armed forces, the Scottish Government will work towards trying to achieve a city deal with both Stirling and Clackmannanshire in order that we can help to rebuild, perhaps fill the hole from some of that economic loss and do the constructive thing. What we'll do in relation to that is what the UK Government has not done, which is to consult with the UK Government how we go about doing that. We're constantly asked by members on this side for us to work with the UK Government. We tried to do that. They've got nothing to say when their own Government refuses to do it. David Stewart, we follow by Willie Rennie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the economic and social effects of the closure of Fort George? What forward strategy has the tenants' historic environment Scotland developed to keep Fort George open as a tourist icon post-2032? That's sufficient, cabinet secretary. Those very issues are the ones that we sought to discuss with the MOD and the UK ministers, and we've been unable to do that. I will happily, if the member wants, provide him with the different requests that we've made for meetings to try to discuss that. We have had some discussions with Highland Council, who are equally concerned. I've mentioned the school in particular, but he's right to say that there's a huge economic impact in the area. Any further information that we can get as we try to get some consultation, some discussion with the MOD, we will certainly pass on to the member. Of course, the local council will continue to be involved. Willie Rennie, followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. He's made reference to Looker's station in my constituency. If the Fort George announcement does proceed, the Black Watch will be looking for a new headquarters. Will he meet with me to consider the possibility of headquartering the Black Watch in Looker's and Fife's traditional recruiting grounds? Cabinet secretary. I'm happy to meet with the member, of course, to discuss the general implications of that. I would make the point that, yes, it is the case if, as the member describes, Fort George is closed, then you'll see the Black Watch essentially evicted from the traditional home and looking for somewhere else. I think that that's a scandalous treatment of the Black Watch, given its historic position and its location in the Highlands. It will have the implication, as I say, of adding to the fact that nearly or more than half of the Royal Regiment of Scotland is now going to have to get on the move. About three years after we were told, the review that was previously announced was going to provide certainty for armed forces. In relation to the specific point that the member makes, I'm more than happy to meet with him. Gordon MacDonald, to follow by Jackson Carlaw. The announcement on Monday by the MOD that both Redford, Cavillry and Infantry barracks were to close by 2022 will have a massive impact on local businesses, shops, schools and services in and around the Collington area of my constituency. In the run-up to an independence referendum, the UK Government highlighted that the defence presence generates economic benefits for communities throughout Scotland through jobs, contracts and requirements for supporting services. Given the potential economic impact that will have in my constituency, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is not acceptable that the UK Government had no discussions with the Scottish Government prior to this announcement? I do agree with the member and it seems that everybody else, apart from the Conservative members in the chamber, agree that there is a scandal and there was no consultation. Of course, there is going to be an impact on that part of Edinburgh. Certainly, the Redford barracks I grew up in Edinburgh, everyone knows about the Redford barracks, they've been there for many years and its closure, if they can achieve that, given what's happened or not happened yet in relation to Craigie Hall, will be very damaging. All the more reason why there should have been that discussion and all the more reason why that discussion should take place now. Jackson Carlaw, please follow by Mark Griffin. In recognising the sincerity of the minister's own interests in the armed forces, can I ask what specific experience or expertise the Scottish Government has to determine either the defence estate required or the actual defence needs of the United Kingdom, and given that this will be at best limited to ask what the ultimate objective of his statement actually is today? Cabinet Secretary. It would appear from the question that's been asked that Jackson Carlaw sees no role for the Scottish Government in relation to this review, the impact on local communities, the economic dislocation. He also must assume from Jackson Carlaw's statement that there should be no interest in the Scottish Government or any member of the Scottish Parliament in the welfare and the interests of several members of the armed forces. I think that that's a terrible indictment of the limited approach of the Conservatives in this Parliament. We will continue to be concerned and we will continue to try and work with the UK Government. Very difficult when they refuse to even talk and perhaps it would have been better if Jackson Carlaw had actually contained that total lack of consultation and prior discussion rather than trying to make some pure out point. Mark Griffin, please follow by Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, if the UK Government does decide to force ahead with these base closures, can I ask if these sites will transfer to the Crown Estate after being declared surplus? Will they then, under the new devolved powers, become the responsibility of the Scottish Government? Cabinet Secretary. I thank Mark Griffin for his question, but I'm afraid I have to say the same as I said to a previous member. We haven't had that discussion. We have no idea what's in the mind of the MOD or UK ministers. There's not been the courtesy of a single meeting to try and explore those issues, including the one that he rightly raises. Of course, on some of the sites, we have a very legitimate interest, like Fort George, where the Scottish Government has got the interest through Historic Environment Scotland. I did make the plea to Mark Lancaster all those months ago that there might be an interest in securing land for the provision of veterans housing from land that's made surplus to requirements. Again, no consultation on that. I can assure the member that, as we get more information, if we get more information, I'm more than happy to pass it on to him. Andy Wightman, followed by Richard Lochhead. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. Given that sites such as Redford and Glencourt cover extensive areas and given the pressing need for affordable housing, will the Scottish Government urge the MOD to do what's already happening in England, where the MOD plans to transfer five large sites to the Homs and Community Agency and seek a commitment from the UK Government that the ownership of Redford and other sites will be transferred to Scottish ministers who will then seek to develop them for wider community benefit in partnership with local authorities? Cabinet Secretary. I made the point to defence ministers, as I've just mentioned, that transferring in some cases land or buildings to the Scottish Government would enable us to provide housing with that. However, I do think that we should not miss the point, first of all, in relation to Redford, the listed nature of some of the buildings that are there. There is also the fact that there is the economic dislocation. The number of people who are paying into the local economy who are helping local services is going to be a massive loss whether or not we are subsequently able to produce additional housing. The point that the member has made, I have made to the UK ministers and I will continue to do so. Richard Lochhead, followed by Mike Rumbles. Cabinet Secretary to join me in paying tribute to the Murray Economic Partnership that I attended, as did Highlands and Islands Conservative Douglas Ross MSP on occasion, albeit clearly he had covered up his ears for the role that they played in saving the Kinloss barracks. Will he now ask his officials to liaise with the MOD to find ways in which the spare capacity on the Kinloss site that has been available since the RF base was closed by the Tories can be used for job creation in local or new businesses? First of all, yes, we will look into that question and come back to the member as to progress. If I could also thank the member and other elected members in that area, the ones that we are willing to fight for the future of Kinloss. As I say to question whether it was right to raise this as an issue, Richard Lochhead must have been aware and that is why he was concerned of a senior MOD official briefing the chief executive at Murray Council that Kinloss was at risk. Obviously, Douglas Ross was unaware of that because he was so disengaged from the campaign and deserted the field at the very moment when people in Kinloss were looking to the elected members who were trying to save Kinloss, which we did and he ran away from. Mike Rumbles will be followed by Graeme Dey. Could the minister inform the chamber and his plans how many major army bases there would be in Scotland if we left the United Kingdom? Cabinet Secretary. Maybe we are perhaps just worth reminding the member, we are discussing the UK Government's commitment to cut the armed forces and it would be useful if you could ask a question that was genuinely about that. Obviously, he has no genuine interest in any of those issues. This was the UK Government three years after a review into where the disposition of forces were going to be in Scotland, now going further and cutting that back once again. The member has not a word to say of concern about that, which I think is deeply unfortunate, so it may rest with the Scottish Government and other members that are genuinely interested in their armed forces to take those issues forward. Graeme Dey. A plans to dispose of airfield at Condor will do nothing to address long-held concerns locally that four or five commando is destined eventually to move to the south of England, something that was intended to happen in 2013. Can I ask whether the cabinet secretary, given his close personal connection to the marines, shares those concerns and whether he, like me, wonders who might want to buy an airfield within a marine base given the likely security restrictions? Cabinet secretary. I think that that is a very good point. Anybody familiar with four or five commando and the airfield there will wonder what the rationale is behind that particular move. As they wonder about Fort George, I cannot see a huge potential receipt being received in Fort George at any time soon, not least given the restrictions, not in the case that the members mentioned security restrictions, but certainly the architectural restrictions that will apply there. I have no idea as to what the thinking was from the MOD behind selling off the airfield at Condor at Caving four or five commando there. I have no idea because they refuse to discuss it, but I am willing to commit to the member that we will try to find out exactly what the purpose is, whether there is any likelihood of a receipt and whether there is any likelihood of reversing this absurd decision. Thank you very much. That concludes questions. I know that it is quite hard on members, but that meant that everyone who wanted to ask a question got to ask a question, something of a world record in here. I will pause for a few minutes before the next item of business.