 Rwyf yn eistedd Yuanna Hyslop yn ymgyrchu ym Ysbytyddiadau Sgolibanol yn y Deyrnas ein nhw. Rwyf yn eistedd Yuanna Hyslop ym Ysbytyddiadau a yn ymgyrchu ymgyrchu. Ysbytyddiadau Cymru yn ymgyrch ei wathentau ar y cyfleidio gyda'u cyffredin, ei ddych countriesd mewn cyrraedd, donc mae ei dwyl. Rwyf yn eistedd ymgyrch ei ddydd ar gyfer y cyflogau cyllid, a fy mwy oer ysbytydd, i fynd i'n ei gafod oedd yma, am gwybod yn ei gafod yma'r gweinol. trefaniaeth oedd sefydlu unrhyw unig i'w ei anghydd. Dwi'n credu mae'r piwfyddo trwy gylwgr gyda'r niwn gwneud o'r unrhyw unrhyw unig i'w ei anghydd, ac mae'r pierdwyr ei ffordd yn ymwyllfa orenu gweld â'r niwn. ef nid oes yn gyffredinol i'w gydigion o'i ddwylliant o'r ei ddigon o'r unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw Namell. Fy honi'r argyffinciad hynny yn edrychwyr y tyfydd ddych chi osbydd, ond yn fawr dechrau ysgrifenni yn llawnau y troes. Felly oeddwn i'n gwneud yn y EU ac yn tyfu? Ie'r cifnig o'r boblach ni wedi bod oeddwn i'n gwneud? Felly oeddwn i gael? Felly oeddwn i'n gwneud? Felly oedden i'n gwneud? Felly oedden i'n gwneud yn tyfu? Felly oedden i'n gwneud? Felly oedden i'n gwneud? Byddai'n bwysig i'r ffocus i gwybod i gweithredu i gyd, gweithio i gyd nid, gyd yn gweithio i gyngorau unig, gan gymrygau yn nôl i'n gwybod, ac yn y gweithio i gweithio i'r Gweithredu Scottish gan gyfleidwyr. Fy nid i'r eu ddechrau, mae'n ffarr beth i ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud. Scotland wants and deserves to see arguments that are rational, reasoned and which respect the intelligence of one of the most politically engaged electorates in Europe. Today, I will concentrate on the benefits of Scotland's EU membership and I hope that the chamber can unite between our call for a vote to remain in the European Union on 23 June. I will address what the EU has delivered in the past, what it is delivering in the present and what the prospects are for the future. The EU is founded on the principles of solidarity and mutual support is passed as a past born out of the needs of European countries to prioritise co-operation over conflict in the post-war years and shape a better world for their children and grandchildren. The EU is much more than a simple trade association. It is based on the principles of strengthening peace, security, justice and prosperity for all. Those aims are embedded in the rights that EU legislation guarantees for the people of Scotland. These important rights cover areas ranging from civil liberties to consumer protection. An EU legislation for a social Europe has been a force for good, preventing the exploitation of workers. The EU is guaranteed that workers cannot be forced to work longer than a 48-hour week that they will be entitled to 20 days paid leave per year and that women will be entitled to at least 14 weeks of maternity leave. It is the EU that guarantees those rights, and it is most certainly not a given that those rights and protections would continue in a UK Government outside the EU. In 2013, the UK only increased the minimum entitlement to parental leave as a direct result of European directors. There are other cases, for example minimum annual leave and conditions for agency workers where the UK complies with the European minimum and no more. EU action has been a major driver of progressive legislation that directly benefits the people of Scotland. Dr Allan was making this case in Brussels earlier this week in his first visit in his new role as Minister for Europe. As of now in the present day, we know that those rights are guaranteed to all Scots who choose to work, live and study elsewhere in the EU. We all know many Scots who have benefited from opportunities to live, to work, study and elsewhere in the EU. The EU membership has opened up those benefits to us. If we want them to be available to our children and our grandchildren, we have to communicate their worth to the people of Scotland between now and June 23. The Scottish Government has this week published information and webpages setting out the benefits of EU membership. Migration from the EU has also benefited the communities, businesses and people of Scotland. EU migrants make a substantial net contribution to the UK's public finances and address crucial skills gaps in Scotland's economy. In my own portfolio, the tourism industry needs access to European workers. According to a new HMRC report this month, in 2013-14, recent EU migrants contributed over £2.5 billion more to the UK Treasury and taxes contributing to paying for our public services than they received back. They are welcome contributors to our economy and to our society. We need to recognise that. I agree with the cabinet secretary's observations about the contribution that EU migrants make to Scotland and, indeed, to the UK. Will she also illustrate to the chamber whether any assessment has taken place on the impact of our NHS where Brexit takes place? Given how many doctors, nurses and other health staff come from other EU countries? Indeed, NHS Scotland has been one of the contributors to the case to the UK Government to make sure that we can have a migration system that works for Scotland for our public services. I point well made that our NHS, in particular, is very dependent on the very skilled and very welcome medical staff that we have in our hospitals. That is why we need to recognise the positive contribution that EU and, indeed, other migrants make to Scotland. Is it not interesting? Why are UK nationals living and working abroad referred to as expats, while workers from the rest of the EU working here are called migrants? I want to move on to the issue about the environment and climate change. Protecting our environment, tackling climate change, is a global challenge. European decisions have helped us to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by almost nine-tenths in the last four decades, and nitrogen oxide levels have decreased by two-thirds in Scotland since 1990. We have to act collectively to solve those problems. Environmental issues cross borders and geographies. The EU sets standards for European nations, and its projects encourage the co-operation and innovation that is necessary to develop new technologies, including renewables. That is a particular benefit for Scotland. Only this week, more than £500 million worth of EU investment in the Murray Firth Beatrice wind farm was announced. That project will eventually be worth £2.5 billion and deliver many employment and community benefits to Caithness and Scotland as a whole. Being in the EU puts Scotland in the vanguard of the global effort against climate change. Ahead of last year's Paris summit, the EU was able to negotiate far more effectively as representative of 28 member states than any member states would have done on their own. Co-operation across borders is a necessity in today's interconnected world, whether it be climate negotiations or the current refugee crisis that is facing the EU. International problems require countries to work together more, not less. I want to say something about sovereignty. I believe that Scotland should be an independent country precisely so that it can decide itself with which bodies, organisations it can pool or share its sovereignty with as an independent nation in an independent world. The economic benefits of EU membership are well known. Indeed. Mr Findlay. I wonder whether the minister could expand on her logic of wanting to leave a political union of £60 million to join a political union of £750 million, and if she believes that Scotland would have more influence in that scenario. I think that I have just made the case why independent countries, 28 of them in the EU, can decide themselves to be part of a market. If he wants to join with others to take the UK and Scotland out of the £500 million, he can align himself with Boris Johnson. More than 300,000 Scottish jobs, estimated by the Centre for Economic and Business Research, are deemed to be associated with exports to the EU. Of course, 42 per cent of exports from Scotland go to the EU, and Scotland, unlike the UK as a whole, is a net exporter to the EU. Perhaps an economic lesson that Mr Findlay might want to take up. This week, Ernst and Young revealed that foreign direct investment in Scotland has risen by 50 per cent in 2015, securing over 5,000 jobs. Their survey also found that 79 per cent of investors cited access to the European single market as a key feature of the UK's attractiveness. I am not saying that this would help to a crash if the UK were to leave the EU, but I do believe that our EU membership makes investing in Scotland more attractive and an easier prospect. I am frequently told so when I meet partners across the world, and this was especially true during my visit to Japan last year. There is clear evidence that exporting helps business to become more innovative and successful, and our priority as a Scottish Government is to create jobs in Scotland by leveraging our EU membership to grow our exports. Being within the single market is vital for Scottish businesses to have the best possible opportunities in Europe. Seven of the top 10 destinations for our most significant exporting sector food and drink are within the EU. Our new investment in innovation hubs that we are establishing in Dublin, London and Brussels will contribute to that effort. Our example of our Government's international ambition, which our EU membership facilitates. Facing the future, being within the EU offers a better chance to tackle the international big challenges of energy security, climate change and international pressures. There is no agreement or detail from the leaf side about what they are offering for the future. An arrangement similar to Norway's would leave us subject to all the same rules and as contributors to the EU budget but without any say in setting those rules or how the budget is allocated. As a former minister of Norway has said, they pay but have no say. Norway is the 10th highest contributor to the EU budget and has to pay into it to have access to the EU funds like Horizon 2020. Norwegian farmers do not receive cap payments, and we should also remember that Norway has decided to join Schengen and is now subject to freedom of movement rules. Outside the single market, the idea that the UK should model itself on Singapore does not even get off the ground, particularly given the importance that the Singaporean Government places on its membership of ASEAN. I said at the outset that different parties will come to this debate with different perspectives, but I do hope that we can unite across parties behind the motion and provide leadership to the Scotland in the vote ahead. Thank you, minister. Just on that point of different views, you seem to indicate earlier that anyone who was taking a leave view was aligning themselves with Boris Johnson. Would that mean that anyone who is taking a remain view would align themselves with David Cameron? Surely this debate has got to be much more than one oldytonian versus another oldytonian. We can take a historical perspective. The Archbishop of Canterbury is currently addressing the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and perhaps some might look at the historical perspectives of where we are now in terms of what is happening in this debate, being about an English civil war but a civil war within the Tory party. That issue is quite stark. It is bigger than any of that in terms of the internal dynamics within the Conservative party. That has got to be, as the member says, about the future of not just this country but the European Union as a whole and our impact on the wider world. In particular, I want to pay tribute to this Parliament and to the committee in the last Parliament, the European and External Affairs Committee, for the work that they did in bringing together a consensus of across Scotland, different voices from different perspectives. Let me be quite clear, we as a Parliament have to show political leadership to the people of Scotland, and that is what we intend to do with the motion today. I want to appeal to all involved in this debate to the leave campaign to cease their smears, speculation and their downright ludicrous arguments, and to the remain campaign to realise that if the biggest risk is complacency at the polls, their incredible project fear tactics will dissuade not-persuade voters to turn out at the polls. The EU is not perfect, but it is a remarkable achievement that, in over six decades, it has secured co-operation over conflict, pursued a shared sense of collaboration, exchange and purposeful endeavour to work in concert not just to advance the interests of its own members but the world on a global scale. It is on that positive basis that the Scottish Government is of the view that Scotland as part of the UK should remain in the EU. I thank the cabinet secretary for her welcome after nine years shadowing the health portfolio. It will indeed be fun to share a different portfolio and to lock horns with her. That, of course, is not for the Conservative Party party position. She was perfectly correct to identify that the leaders of all the political parties are in favour of remain as I am myself, but it is a personal position that I am advocating in the debate here this morning. It is 40 years ago since the referendum on Britain's membership with the European Union. 67% of people said yes in 1975 and 32% of people said no. In fact, the only no votes cast anywhere in the whole of the United Kingdom were Mr Allen's constituency of the Western Isles and Mr Scott's constituency of the Chetland Isles, both of whom voted no in that contest. It was a turnout of 65%. I think that there is a question mark at the moment as to whether or not people are sufficiently engaged to ensure that we have a turnout of that level as well, but it is important that we do, because, as the cabinet secretary said, this is a fundamentally important decision. 1975 in that referendum was the last election in which I did not participate. After that, I was old enough to vote, but at 16 I was able to watch with interest the debate that took place. When I hear many of the people who talk about leaving, as if somehow that is going to lead to some sort of economic utopia for Britain, I think back to 1975, an economic and social utopia it was not. It may be that the legacy in the minds of some is the music of Slade and T-Rex and Wizard and Roxy Music and David Bowie, but the top-rated television programmes, just to identify how distant that life was, were till death us do part and the Black and White Minstrel show. That was a very, very different Britain in a very different age. It was a time when our industrial record measured the days lost through dispute in millions. For us, looking back to a vote 40 years ago, it is also important to remember that, for those who did vote, the Second World War was only 30 years earlier than that. For many of my grandparents' generation who had fought and who had raised families during those conflicts, the European Alliance held the prospect of a permanent peace and level of co-operation. Although in 1975 those fears proved to be unrealised, we sat in Europe next to the Soviet Union and there was a perceptible and genuine fear that if we weren't to see further conflict across the European mainland, the European project, being part of the European economic community as it was then, was a decisive step forward for the country. In that we are correct. The battlefields of Europe are now the holiday playgrounds of Europeans. That is a significant change in the step of life across the European continent and one that people too easily dismiss and now set aside as if it was something that was always inevitable and something that is irrelevant. However, it was a broken economy in 1975. I don't remember it prospering. We'd just come from a three-day week where businesses could only work for three days. I remember the power cuts, I remember candles in the home, I remember Edward Heath saying, Britain has reached the end of the road, the rest of the world is very sorry but the rest of the world regrets it can oblige no longer. I remember the Labour Party having to return back from crisis meetings at the IMF and 40 years on our nation is transformed not despite, not because of but within the European community. All the progress that we've made as a nation was made within the European community. Now I'm not arguing that all our success was due to that far from it, but it was born out of exceptional political courage here. The idea that the European community somehow acted as a break on our prosperity, somehow interfered with all our economic taxation and industrial and economic policy is an absolute nonsense. Within the European Union it was the United Kingdom that drove through the single market. The key economic driver of change, again, is easy to forget. The cues of lorries that were at every border post across every European nation having to wait for days sometimes before goods could be transported between the various countries of Europe. All that has been swept aside and Britain has been on the winning side of much of the argument about how we transform and develop Europe and the policy within Europe during that period. Now sometimes I hear colleagues talk about this colossal loss of sovereignty and I don't know sometimes what is defined by sovereignty, is it, that we should seal our borders? Is it that we should stick it to anyone who's got an interest in human rights? I don't know, is that what's meant by sovereignty? For me, the day-to-day existence in my life, whether it be an education policy, whether it be in health policy, whether it be an economic policy, whether it be in taxation, is actually decided here or is decided at Westminster without, as far as I'm concerned, any great interference from Europe. In meaningful terms, the sovereignty of policy in this country rests with people in this country and I think that the interference on the dead hand of Europe is sometimes exaggerated for effect rather than in any respect to its reality. Yes, on issues of justice and on some issues of our rural economy and on some issues of borders, there are fights to be had but they are far better addressed by being in the European community and arguing our case, not biting off our nose-to-spiter face. I wonder what will happen if Sita and T-Tip are passed at the European Union? Again, there are divisions of opinion and I think that the balance and where these arguments will eventually rest are yet to be decided but actually many of these international trade agreements are part of what the blocks of the trading partners in the world now actively participate in and I think that there are huge benefits to accrue from that. I don't in the balance of my time want to repeat what I think is the litany of competing apocalyptic arguments on either side. All of these or any of them may be true but I think that they've become a blizzard and a distraction in this debate. I admit to an error of judgment. I actually thought that the Scottish referendum was a referendum that engaged both the head and the heart of people in this country and that the arguments in this European referendum would be much more nuanced, they would be technical, they would be devoid of emotion and yet as the vote now approaches I find that I care far more about the outcome than I actually ever thought I would. What sort of Britain do I actually want to live in? Do I want to have a sort of internationalist view or an isolationist view of our place in the world? Do I want to see us withdraw from our friends and markets? Do I want to see us unpick relationships which have been developing really very rapidly with the other nations after so short a time within the European community? In that at least I believe that my arguments are consistent in relation to the two referendums. I do think that there is sometimes an inconsistency in the nationalist argument and I regret that we keep coming back to independence. To my astonishment in this week's radio times discover that Nicholas Sturgeon is to star in a science fiction drama on Saturday where she's going to be playing herself in John Windham's The Crack and Wakes. In this drama there has been an apocalypse, the world has been invaded by aliens, the polar ice caps have melted, most of Britain is under water and Nicholas Sturgeon will broadcast to the nation and I've heard what she says, she says that this represents a material change in circumstances and by therefore incentive. No, I came into politics to improve life of the generations that follow me. I do look to one of the architects of all of one of the 11 founding members, Winston Churchill, who in 1942 at the height of the conflict said, hard as it is to say now, I look forward to a Europe in which the barriers between nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible in which Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family. Do I look to Winston Churchill or do I look to Boris Johnson for my inspiration? I think I look to the former and not the latter. I'm going to be voting because I want to vote for a future that I think is the right one for my sons, for the grandchildren I hope yet to see. I realise that in doing that there is a balance. There is a shift between centre-right and centre-left Governments across Europe and both have their part to play in the debate. It's not a case of saying, oh I don't want any lefties having any say over what happens here, any more than it's for others to say I don't want any of these right people having anything to do with it. There will be a balance over history as we move forward. I understand all of that but ultimately I want to be an internationalist, not an isolationist and therefore I want to vote with all those others who wholeheartedly decide on June the 23rd that the right decision for this country is a vote to remain. Thank you Mr Carlaw. I encourage all members to make sure that their cards are inserted and I would ask all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now, please. Can I call on Kezia Dugdale? Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome this chance to set out the positive case for the European Union. Labour is Scotland's internationalist party. We believe in solidarity beyond borders. We believe that sharing sovereignty makes us all stronger, wealthier and safer. We believe in Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. Sovereignty shared is sovereignty gained. Walking alone in the world would not mean freedom, it would mean powerlessness. It is a truth that we understand in our own lives. We need each other because together, with others, life is so much more fulfilling. The vision of nations across the continent coming together has never been an easy one but it has survived economic turmoil, the fall of communism and expansion to welcome nation after nation. The changes we live through together in the first 60 years of our European family in the 43 years since we joined is nothing compared to the upheaval that we are living through now. The shift of power and prosperity to the east, the spread of gihandism, growing inequality, a more confrontational Russia, climate change, conflict within nations, the refugee crisis, dissolution with democratic politics and the rise of the far-right and anti-European parties who fill that void. This is a test for all of Europe but all of Europe's eyes are currently on us. How will we react to the uncertainty of our world? Will we turn our back on our neighbours and turn in on ourselves or will we face the world together? Will we be the outward-looking nation that made us so successful in the world that took us into Europe in the first place or will we retreat? This is a question that all individuals and institutions will have to answer and, like all parties, there is a variety of views on Europe within labour and we will hear a bit of the socialist case for leave from my friend Elaine Smith later this morning but in contrast to the civil war in the Tory cabinet or the confusion of nationalists who argue that we can share sovereignty with every European nation except our nearest neighbours, Labour will campaign enthusiastically for our place in the European Union. This is a decision about where we believe the best future for the United Kingdom lies, in or out of Europe. The leave campaign has attempted to make it a test of whether we believe in our country at all. They question our patriotism. Those of us who believe in sharing sovereignty with our neighbours defeated those arguments two years ago but in doing so we learned a hard lesson that populist arguments cannot be underestimated. So in this debate the remain side must win the arguments that appeal to the head but we have also learned that it has to be combined with a story that reaches people's hearts. So we will make the economic case that the importance of trade within the EU is essential to Scottish jobs, worth nearly £12 billion, second only in value to trade within the rest of the United Kingdom. We will argue the case for workers rights, that Europe guarantees basic standards at work for millions of Scottish workers and workers in other nations, regardless of who is in government. European guarantees, like four weeks paid holiday for all, the equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers, the legal principle of equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, protection from discrimination due to age, race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation. We will argue that in a world of constant change and confusing new threats we are more secure in bigger alliances than standing alone. We will argue that we can only tackle the threats to our environment by working together, that the weight of 28 nations working together enabled us to secure global action on climate change. We will argue this with reason but also with passion. We will make all those arguments but we will also argue that there is something beautiful about being part of this European family. It is not found in the grey offices of officials in Brussels or in the columns of national balance sheets but in the hundreds of millions of lives made more colourful, more fulfilling and exciting in the cities and towns of Scotland, the UK and the 27 other nations. My generation and that of my parents before me have become so used to being part of that Europe that we do not stop to wonder at the achievement that the EU represents. We co-operate across an entire continent sharing freedom and opportunity together. That continent whose history is written in conflict and chaos is now defined by peace and by prosperity. The nations on the shores of the Mediterranean, the Baltic and the Black Sea whose citizens lived under the totalitarian regimes and military dictators now take for granted their human rights, free speech and democracy itself. We have been a part of that. We built that. It is not perfect, of course it isn't, but it is as extraordinary an achievement as any in our history. We are a more European country for having built that union. We are richer for it. Not just the bump in our GDP as important as that is but richer for the shared experiences, the mixing of cultures, the people that we have come to know, the amazing experiences and opportunities that the EU has brought to us. I fear that we may not realise all that until it is gone. I do not listen to those who say that Scotland is going to vote overwhelmingly to remain on 23 June. There is no such thing as a guaranteed win in politics. This is too important an argument to sit it out, too important for half-hearted support, too important not to lead. For my part, I will make the case with everything that I have got, the Labour case for Scotland and the UK in Europe. I begin by congratulating all the party leaders for showing leadership on Scotland and Europe and putting the positive case for remain. I congratulate Fiona Hyslop on her well-deserved reappointment to the cabinet and my other friend and colleague, Alistair Allen, on his new position in the Scottish Government. I am sure that you will both wave the flag for Scotland on the international stage. I look forward to representing my Murray constituents in these benches after a nine-year absence in these benches and contributing to the debates on the issues facing Scotland in the times ahead. Given that 50 per cent of Scotch whisky is producing space-side and much of that goes to EU markets, and given that the water in the water of life is of supreme quality thanks to EU environmental legislation that applies to our rivers and our water courses, and given how much Murray's famous food businesses, such as Walker Shortbread and Baxter's, export to EU markets, are accessed to the single market, and the issues around EU membership is of direct relevance to thousands of families in Murray and the local economy. So we are debating today one of the biggest issues facing Scotland's future, our country's relationship with Europe with the in-out referendum only weeks away, and the Scottish dimension of the EU referendum needs to be debated and broadcast widely, because there are many unique and distinctive issues for people in Scotland to consider before deciding how to vote on the 23rd of June. However, this is about Europe's future, not just Scotland or the UK, and the result of the vote on the 23rd will affect every single person in Scotland and across these islands and potentially also every single one of Europe's 500 million citizens. As someone who believes that Scotland should be a nation state in their own right, I strongly believe that Europe's nation states must work together and share in poor sovereignty where appropriate to meet the economic, social and environmental challenges of the 21st century. Just as many nations did in the 20th century to secure lasting peace and prosperity, it is indeed ironic that the UK, the country now holding this referendum, was instrumental in founding the United Nations in 1945 and then joined the European community in 1973 in the first big expansion in recognition that it can be in the national interest to share sovereignty. It really saddens me that those high ideals have been crowded out in a referendum debate now dominated by immigration, especially when we consider the origins of the EU. Boris Johnson's colleagues want to walk out of Europe, but they should knuckle down and help our fellow human beings in their hour of need. Indeed, another irony is that Boris Johnson recently published a biography of his hero, Winston Churchill, who at one point in 1940 proposed a Franco-British union with shared currency and citizenship and joined economic and financial institutions. Of course, that was an idea that was put to Churchill to help win the war by one Jean Monnet, who went on to be a founding father of the European Union to prevent another European war. Peace in Europe is the biggest dividend, but EU membership has resulted in many benefits for our citizens. When it comes to the workers' rights, consumer protection and welfare, the environment issues mentioned by Fiona Hyslop and Kezia Dugdale, Scotland is much closer to the mainstream European social democracy position than the neo-liberal politics of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage and the kind of Britain they want to see. I have no doubt that most people in Scotland are much more supportive of the policies that are agreed by our progressive European partners and neighbours than some of the more regressive positions that we have often seen adopted by Westminster. The negotiations that compromises the occasional climb downs that being a member of the club necessitates has often prevented UK ministers from posing damaging policies on Scotland. I have come across in my time at European negotiations over nine years of many examples where other EU member states actually shielded Scotland. Whether it was a £500 million for farm payments each year that continues to flow to Scotland because UK chancellers were out-maneuvered and out-voted to EU negotiations or the considerable progressive social and economic legislation that I think we can all agree would never have seen the light of day had it been up to Whitehall. The stark reality for Scotland is that transferring decision making from Brussels to Whitehall, especially the UK Treasury, will often be against Scottish interests. To further quick points, I have heard Brexit spokespeople including the current UK fisheries minister George Eustice claim that Brexit will give Scottish ministers a greater role in issues such as fisheries. The difficulty for me is that they could actually do that at the moment under the current arrangements and they have chosen not to do that and therefore their promises of what will happen post Brexit absolutely ring hollow and should do for all our fishing communities. The final point that I just want to make is that many people in Scotland do genuine concerns about particular EU policies or how the EU institutions work or the direction that Europe is taking. Those are real understandable genuine concerns and I am sure that many people across this chamber share some of those concerns. I know that I do. The case for remaining in the EU is absolutely overwhelming but our support for remaining must not mean that we are unwilling to cast a critical eye towards the EU. I know from my experience in dealing with the EU institutions that it can take ages to fix damaging regulations. There is a need for more decentralisation and we need more of a focus on the issues that matter to ordinary people in Europe. In closing, further reform of the EU is absolutely necessary but the best way for Scotland to reform is not to reject the European Union. EU membership delivers benefits for Scotland and as Fiona Hyslop said, it may be a forlorn hope but in the remaining few weeks I urge the campaigns to cut out the myths, the exaggerations and the scaremongering and instead can we have a debate-based vision on facts and high ideals. Robert Schuman said in 1949 that we are carrying out a great experiment, the fulfilment of the same recurrent dream that, for 10 centuries, has revisited the peoples of Europe, creating between them an organisation putting an end to war and guaranteeing an eternal peace. That is a high ideal. I hope all of us in this chamber will support and I hope that Scotland will support too on the 23rd of June. Thank you, Mr Lockhart. I call Adam Tomkins to be followed by Christina McKelvey, Mr Tomkins. It is a great honour to make my maiden speech in this Parliament as one of Glasgow's two newly elected Conservative MSPs. Given that I have taught European and British constitutional law at the University of Glasgow for the last 13 years, it is apt, I suppose, that I make my first speech in a debate on this United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union and on the subject of the university I refer members to my declaration of interest in the register. The city I represent, the city that is my home where I got married and where my four children were born, has a proud European heritage. It was the first British city to be named European City of Culture in 1990, and a quarter of a century later, Glasgow is still making European waves, being ranked just this year as top-large European City of the future. More than 5,000 EU students come to Glasgow each year to study in the city's three universities, and altogether, Glasgow's 130,000 students come from 135 countries around the world. It's no wonder that we are the rough guides friendlier city on the planet. On 23 June, I shall be voting to remain in the European Union, not with the same passion and pride that I voted on 18 September, 2014, to reject the SNP's proposition that we break up Britain, but with clarity, nonetheless, that it is right to stay is the right course for Glasgow, for Scotland, for the UK and, indeed, for the EU itself. In my judgment, the European Union is broken and needs fixing. With soaring unemployment in southern Europe, with a failed currency union lessons here for Scotland too, emiseryting the lives of millions of Europeans and with a migration crisis, the like of which the continent has not faced since the Second World War, the EU has problems at plenty. But the great failure of the Vote Leave campaign has been its complete inability to explain how our leaving the European Union would help to fix any of those problems. Just as I wanted Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom because that is in the UK's interests as well as in Scotland's, so too do I want the UK to remain in the EU because that is in the European public interest as well as in Britain's. We should remain precisely because the EU needs fixing. We, Britons, can lead the way in fixing it. The Prime Minister's renegotiation of the terms of Britain's membership of the European Union shows how that can be done. That renegotiation secured not only for Britain but for the whole of the European Union that the single market will have conservative values at its core. It will be a more competitive single market, a better regulated single market, with fewer administrative burdens, lower compliance costs for business and unnecessary European legislation repealed. Clipping the wings of the European Court of Justice is another of the Prime Minister's achievements that will certainly benefit Britain and will be to the advantage of the continent as a whole if others follow where British Conservatives have led. That the UK now has a much-needed opt-out from ever closer union will mean that in cases concerning the United Kingdom at least, the European Court of Justice will have to enforce the law as member states have made it rather than the law that the judges would like to see. For one, I fully share the frustration expressed recently by our own Supreme Court at the irresponsible overreach of some of the ECJ's case law. It was a Conservative Government that took us into the European Economic Community in 1972. It has been a Conservative Government that has successfully and against the odds delivered a renegotiation of the UK's constitutional and legal relationship with the European Union now. A generation ago—yes, that is 41 years—the British people decided to remain in the EEC. We should reaffirm that decision next month, not because the European Union is perfect but because its problems, like our own domestic challenges, require British Conservative solutions. Solutions that get government off people's backs and leave them free to pursue their lives. Solutions that encourage free movement, free movement of goods, of services and, yes, of workers too. Solutions designed to ensure not only the redistribution of wealth but the very creation of wealth in the first place. For these are the values of union. Economic prosperity and security for all lay at the heart of our case for a no vote in 2014 as they lie now at the core of the case for a remain vote next month. Those are my values. Those are the values of my party. Those are the values that have brought me into Scottish politics and those are the values of economic prosperity and security for all that I shall seek to promote in the interests of Glasgow and Scotland as a whole every day as a member of this Parliament. Thank you. Thank you Mr Tomkins and thank you too for speaking precisely to time. Just remind members that there is an expectation that every member who wants to speak will be able to get in in this debate. We are aiming for speeches of around five minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I welcome you to your new place in the chair. Presiding Officer, there is much about this EU debate that reminds me of Alice through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll. What's up is down. What's in is out. Two right-win factions of one party fighting over who's more Eurosceptic. So it reminds me a bit of Alice at the crossroads or shall we say Boris at the crossroads? Would you tell me which way I ought to go from here, asked Boris? Well, that depends a great deal on where you want to get, said the cat. The cat's name was Nigel. I really don't care, replied Boris. Then it doesn't much matter which way you go, said Nigel, the cat, but it does matter and it matters a whole lot to all of us here today. Then we have the Prime Minister asking us a question not based on the flimsy deal he secured at the December Council of Ministers. We have a question on the 23rd of June based on a false premise. Do you agree with the reforms? The flimsy reforms that I have secured would be a much more honest question. On the radio this morning, I heard that the children's word of the year is refugee. Imprinted on the mind of our young folk as a humanitarian disaster, not seen since the Second World War and our young people want action. From the mouth of babes, we hear much wisdom. Earlier this year, I hosted an event with the Scottish European Educational Trust. Our European Premier and Awards ceremony took place in this Parliament, and it was a huge success with teams from all over Scotland of young people who made films on what the EU meant from then. I would urge all of my colleagues to take the time to watch those films. Their films were very enlightening indeed, and they spoke of peace, of rights, of rebuilding Europe, of creating opportunity and of democracy. That leads me to think of some of the great things that I think the EU has produced. Worker's rights, Presiding Officer, as you know, is something very, very close to my heart. Here are some, and my thanks to the TUC for such a clear detail that I think we spoke enough last night, Mr Finlay. The UK employees do not have the right to a written contract. Maybe they should learn something, maybe they should sit and learn something. The UK employees do not have the right to a written contract of employment—Rudness does not get you anywhere—but thanks to the EU written statement directive, employees must be given a written statement, settling out those pay and working conditions within 28 days of starting work. What about the working time directive? That was implemented in the UK in 1998. It introduced a maximum of 48-hour week, normally averaged over 17 weeks, a daily rest period and 11 consecutive hours. A weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours and rest breaks during the working day. Those are the regulations that some Tories would like to take away from people. Or let's move on to maternity rights. The EU pregnant workers directive of 1992 led to substantial improvements in the health and safety protections for expecting and new mothers in the workplace. Let's just look at equal pay. There has been a lot of misinformation out there on equal pay. The right to equal pay was indeed formulated in the UK. It was the equal work between men and women, and it made it a fundamental right. That is enshrined in the EU treaty. Now article 157, which is directly enforceable in the UK. It was in the founding treaty of the EU to prevent those member states with equal pay legislation from being undercut by others who underpaid and exploited the weaker labour market positions of women workers. Article 157, together with the equal pay directive and case law of the ECG, led to a significant positive impact on women's pay and pensions rights in the UK. The Equal Pay Act of 1970 predated the UK joint in the EU. I know that, but the original act had a glaring omission because it did not cover equal pay for equal value. That is where the difference lies. Let's just look at discrimination. The UK already had sex and race discrimination laws in place when it joined the EU. Yes, it did introduce a disability discrimination act prior to the EU taking action. However, legislation on age, religion, belief and sexual orientation discrimination was introduced as a direct result of the EU framework and equal treatment directive of 2000. Let's not even start on human rights, because human rights is something that we should all agree on. The European Convention of Human Rights and the charter that reaffirms our collective rights in this place and time. As we have heard, there are a lot of things that we need to be proud of in being a member of the EU. My question to you is, do we vote to leave and give a UK Government carte blanche to withdraw all of those rights? A UK Government unfettered by those regulations, because when they talk about regulations, those are the rights that they mean, or do we vote to remain and fight to reform and create the Europe that our young people want? I say we, tack, yah and see to remain. Thank you, Mr Kelvia. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Ross Greer, Mr Johnson. Can I start by saying what a privilege it is to be called for the first time as the new member for Edinburgh Southern in this Parliament? A privilege that comes with a sense of duty and responsibility to my constituents to make sure that I deliver on their priorities. There can be no better debate than this one to make my maiden speech, because Edinburgh Southern regularly pulls as one of the most pro-EU areas, not just in Scotland, but the whole of the UK. From the many, many, many, many doorstep conversations that I had during the election, I can attest to that. Before I make any further progress, I would like to acknowledge and pay thanks to the work and dedicated service of my predecessor, Jim Eadie. It is a tribute to him, not just the warm words that have been consistently said about him from across the chamber, but that many of those warmest words have come from fellow Labour members. A tribute, indeed, given that this lot has stopped saying nice things about me after about five minutes, let alone five years. Edinburgh Southern is a diverse constituency, a network of communities. It is an area of contrast. On its northern boundary, we have Fountain Bridge, a site that once sustained jobs in the brewing industry, but it is now one of the city's largest gap sites. Edinburgh Southern is also an area of leafy suburbs that is sustained by high-quality, professional and high-productivity jobs. Europe matters to my constituency, because whether it is investing for future jobs or sustaining existing strengths, our membership of the European Union is vital. For the avoidance of doubt, this Johnson is definitely more Allen than Boris. We need to change the terms and tenor of the debate on Europe. To date, the focus has been on personality and overblown rhetoric, both sides talk in telephone number statistics and a race to who can claim the biggest financial calamity if the other sides win. It is not good enough. There is a reason why my constituency is one of the most pro-Europe, because it is real. We have the king's buildings in the middle of Edinburgh Southern, a hub for science in Edinburgh University. It alone provides a multitude of reasons why Europe is a positive force. Universities are institutions with a global perspective. In academia, collaboration is what builds better learning and better research. Edinburgh University alone receives £45 million a year in research funding from the EU. Universities gain strength from their diverse student communities. At Edinburgh, there are 4,500 non-UK EU students, and more than 1,000 Edinburgh students participate in the Erasmus programme every year. For them, the opportunities of Europe are clear and concrete. That is our responsibility in the debate, to make it real, to point out the benefits of European co-operation and integration. It is too easy for those benefits to be taken for granted and dismissed. The benefits and opportunities are not confined to academia. Representing an Edinburgh constituency, I am all too aware of the importance of the financial services sector. We have 100,000 people employed directly by financial services in Scotland, with another 100,000 in supporting roles, and we are at a major centre of asset management in Europe. Those jobs rely on Europe. Passboarding enables our skills and our expertise to be plied across the borders of Europe. Our service sector has become fundamental to our export drive and our financial services expertise is at the core of that. On top of trade, Brexiteers snort that the Germans will still want to buy VWs and they will sell us VWs and continue to buy Dyson vacuum cunas, but in reality the export of services is far more important. They are far more liable to get snarled up in cross-border regulation. With justification, it is important that cross-border financial activity is controlled and regulated. By ripping us out of Europe, we are putting thousands of jobs at risk in what is indisputably one of Scotland's vital industries. In Europe, we enjoy better working conditions and better public services. We are more productive and have higher standards of living than anywhere else in the world. Through the European Work Time Directive and the standard set out in the social chapter, we enhance and guarantee working conditions. It is not just that they create those standards here, but they are strengthened by being consistent across the continent, by acting collectively. While we need to make Europe real, we also need to make the debate bigger. We are living in an increasingly globalised world. The ability to move products across the world puts huge pressure on wages and working conditions. The argument from those Labour benches for Europe, I think, is obvious. By working together, we achieve more. Through co-operation and collective interest, we are stronger. Those are ideas embedded in the Labour movement. They are also the ideas that underpin Europe. In a time of ever-incleasing globalisation, we have a choice to try to compete in an unwinnable race to the bottom or to work with others for mutual benefit. Today, we are faced with issues that are truly global in scale. Climate change poses a massive threat to our way of life. The global financial crash is still with us almost 10 years on. The Middle East crisis has triggered the biggest movement of refugees since World War II. Those are the issues of our time. The only way to tackle them is to gather, to contemplate with drawing from the EU, the most effective supranational institution that we have. It is quite simply a move in the wrong direction. Isolation makes it harder to deal with those issues. We achieve more by removing borders and frontiers than we ever can by putting them in place. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I call Ross Greer to be followed by Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is my first speech as a member of this Parliament, but it is not my first speech in this chamber, uniquely among the parliaments and assemblies in the islands. The Parliament regularly opens itself up to wider Scottish society, an opportunity that I had as a school student a few years ago. Members will be reassured, though, that I will not be passing judgment on where the standard of debate was hired with 16-year-old school students and those present in the chamber today. Although my time at school was not too many years ago, and to many I seem to be known only as the youngest member of this Parliament, the other record that I broke is the one that I am prouder of. I am the first green MSP for the west of Scotland, and I cannot thank enough the volunteers and voters who made that possible. We promised to make this Parliament bolder, and that is exactly what the green MSP is intended on doing. More pressing, though, is the referendum, not one of our choosing, but whose result will have a profound effect on Scotland. At UK level, this referendum debate has been nothing more than a contest between two different wings of the Conservative Party, two different flavours of a failed economic model, two different kinds of hostility to immigrants and refugees. They expect us to choose between an isolated, inward-looking UK or a Europe of the corporations and the bankers. In that debate, it is no surprise that many progressives are tempted to vote to leave, even if I respectfully disagree with those on the left who will ultimately decide to do so. Those of us who believe in a progressive Europe—a people's Europe—must stand up for everything that we have already won. We must explain what this is truly a choice between. Europe has strengthened workers' rights, as Fiona Hyslop mentioned in her opening remarks. The working time directive means that workers across the continent are protected from overwork and guaranteed adequate time off. When you look at those weeding the leave campaign, you can understand why the trade union movement is on the whole campaigning so vigorously to stay in. As a trade unionist myself, I have no desire to give Westminster unrestricted ability to decimate our workers' rights. Europe has brought limited but welcome regulations in the financial sector as well. Green MEP Philippe Lambert is known by the Financial Times as the man who beat the banks for successfully introducing a cap on bankers' bonuses. This is just one of the small efforts that have been made to rein in the financial sector at European level. It is the kind of progress that can only be made at European level and not by the individual action of member states. Europe has brought huge benefit to our environment. It was European regulation that forced the UK Government to eliminate acid rain and smog. It was European regulation that stopped the dumping of raw sewage into our oceans and made our beaches cleaner, safer and more attractive. It is European regulation that makes our air more breathable and less polluted. What is the red tape that opponents of the European Union talk of? Is it all of the above? Is it the health and safety legislation that has seen workplace deaths reduced by two-thirds in two decades? Is it the limited attempts to bring the bankers to heel? Is it the legislation that has made our air breathable, protects our wildlife and keeps our beaches clean? That is exactly the kind of red tape that they are talking about, and it is only a fraction of what the EU has brought us. However, the hardest argument to explain in this debate is the one that is probably the most important, as has been brought up already. European co-operation has brought us decades of uninterrupted priests, unprecedented in Western Europe, and it is exactly why only this week the Church of Scotland reaffirmed its commitment to Scotland and the United Kingdom staying in the European Union. Members may have noticed that I am a bit younger than the average MSP. Given that reputation and that it will not be leaving me for some time, I asked a number of other young people what they would contribute to the debate if given the chance, and there was one response that really stuck out. Europe provides young people with endless opportunities to connect with and learn from others. Its diversity and co-operation is something that we need to celebrate. Everything from Erasmus to the freedom of movement means that Europe is somewhere for young people to explore, learn and find employment, leaving with the limiters politically and economically, but it would limit us socially as well. It is worth noting that the Scottish youth Parliament found an overwhelming majority of young people in favour of remaining in the European Union, and I should declare an interest as a former member of that youth Parliament, but this is a generation with no interest in isolating themselves. Although it is deeply flawed, although it requires major reforms, both democratic and economic, it is our European Union, and reform can and does happen. The Greens are under no illusions about the lack of reforms that we have demanded, but we have made progress. The European Parliament is more powerful than it ever has been before, and there is so much more still to come. It is green MEPs who have led the fight against secretive and dangerous trade deals such as TTIP, but I would be interested to hear from members intending on voting to leave how they think that the UK's unilateral trade deals would be any different. That is the debate that we should be having, not between the Conservatives' vision for Europe and the Conservatives' vision for Britain, but between their vision and the vision of a people's Europe that we can build together by staying in. Thank you, Mr Greer. I call Michael Russell to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. I say what a pleasure and an honour it is to speak after the first speech of Ross Greer. I am not the oldest member, fortuitously, but all older members will be stretched and tested by the changed nature of this chamber. I would say to Ross Greer, however, that 40 years ago I voted in the first European referendum at almost exactly his age and I rebelled against my party. I voted yes when the SNP leadership voted no. I am relieved to be more in tune with the mainstream of my party now after 40 years, because I wholeheartedly support the remain campaign. However, there was consistency in my and the SNP's inconsistency. The decision to recommend a no vote in 1975 was based upon an assertion of Scottish sovereignty, which in that case refused to accept terms negotiated by a UK Government without reference to Scotland. Among those terms was the abandonment of the Scottish fishing industry, which was seen as expendable, and communities that I represent have paid a price for that every single year since. Once again, the SNP is asserting our sovereignty, this time by making a positive case for Europe, a case rooted in our desire to be an independent member as befits an ancient nation. We assert our sovereignty not only by making that case, but also by refusing to be dragged out on the coattails of an increasingly raucous and isolationist campaign against membership. Our case is rooted in Scotland's positive pro-European history, joint citizenship with France in the 16th century, attendance of Scottish students at universities across the continent, something that I was very pleased to encourage when I was education secretary, and even earlier an appeal for nationhood being made and heated in Rome. Our attitude is also rooted in the present. In the work of people like a former member of the chamber, Mada Mikos herself, Scotland's longest-serving European MP and a passionate advocate of the European Union. Her belief in Europe first of all was born out of her circumstances as a woman born in 1929, only a decade after the end of a world war that had its origins on the continent. Living through another as a young woman, she knew that a legally based, inclusive, irreversible collaborative structure was the thing that would guarantee peace in Europe. It was essential. It was essential to hers, it was essential to my own father, who carried shrapnel in his leg from the beach at Dunkirk. That is not an aspect of Europe to be sneered at or ignored. It has saved lives. It has stopped lives and families being ruined, and it has saved humans from suffering too. The underpinning principles of European collaboration are designed to protect the rights of citizens fundamentally from attack upon them, which was genocide. I find it astonishing that anybody could argue to remove the European Convention of Human Rights given its origins. The European Union is not, however, like the Union that we live in on this island, an incorporating Union. We cannot express our sovereignty within this Union because it has been removed. Indeed, our very view of sovereignty, lying with the people not in the Parliament, has been usurped. In the EU, sovereignty is freely pulled for shared advantage. There is participation as equals in decision making. That is the type of Union that benefits independent states and benefits all those who live in them. The EU also invites others to share and benefit from its existence. Although Winnie Ewing is mostly remembered in the Highlands and Islands for speaking up for the area and introducing objective one assistance that resulted in a great boost to the infrastructure, it is her achievement in securing the hosting of the Lomay Convention in Inverness in 1985 that is best remembered outwith Europe. She still believes, I know, that encouraging other states to recognise that Scotland still aspires to full statehood wants to enter into the family of nations, positively enhances our prospects and our successes in nation. She famously wanted the slogan from her Hamilton by-election in 1967 to stop the world because Scotland wants to get on. We still want to get on. We need to aspire to be co-decision makers. It is Europe that provides the context for that. Indeed, there can be no other relevant context that Jim Sillers eloquently showed a generation ago with his enthusiasm for independence in Europe, which I, at least, still espouse. Where Europe falls short, it is the open democratic nature of Europe that can pick up, criticise and analyse those faults and find ways to do better. Isolationism can never do that. I rejoice in the fact that our European co-operation is founded on a shared history. It is grounded in the desire for peace and justice. It is surrounded by cultural, environmental, social and economic ambition. It is rounded off by a generous vision of our obligations to fellow human beings and to the world. I rejoice that that co-operation reflects my own and, I believe, my party's vision of how an independent Scotland would and will work with others when that time comes. To choose to remain is to choose the positive, to choose to carry on investing with our resources and hard work in a better future. It is a clear and easy choice. In fact, for those who want to see an independent Scotland emerge into the family of nations, there is no choice at all. Mr Russell, I call Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Alec Cole. Hamilton, Mrs Mitchell. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland elects four tiers of government. The one that the public knows least about is at the European level, with most people struggling to name how many MEPs are returned from Scotland, let alone the names of those MEPs or what they actually do in Brussels. Surprisingly, so many people could not care less about the referendum or consider that the issues at stake are ones that they know little about. In this debate of two and a half hours, we have leaf speeches, which are 10 minutes, and with the grace of the Deputy Presiding Officer, perhaps 12, the member will forgive me in this occasion if I do not take an intervention. Adding to the confusion, and despite her vow that the 2014 separation referendum would be a once-in-a-lifetime event, the First Minister, asserting as usual, that she speaks for all of Scotland, assumes that Scotland will vote remain, and if the rest of the UK votes leave, this, she says, will justify another separation referendum. Ironically, therefore, she is sending out a clear and unambiguous message to all those in Scotland who voted against separation, or who are sick to death of talk of a second referendum, to avoid this, they should vote leave. However, each individual will make up their own mind how to vote, for my part I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor am I a member of any official leave campaign, but having looked at the arguments, my reasons to vote leave are as follows. Starting with the economic argument and the EU itself, from 1980 to 2015, the EU's share of world economic output has dropped from 30 per cent to 17 per cent. At the end of 2015, the EU's share of world trade was the same as it was in 2006. In the meantime, every other continent in the world has grown over the past 10 years. Only 5 per cent of British business and less than 10 per cent of Scottish business export to the EU, but family and small, medium-sized enterprises and other businesses are stifled by the burden of EU regulation. That, in turn, damages our economy, costing small businesses millions every week. Still, despite being the world's fifth largest economy, as a member of the EU club, Britain cannot sign independent trade deals with emerging markets. Given that, it is impossible not to conclude—and remember that Britain joined a European economic community for trading reasons—that the EU is a failing and outdated institution, a vote to leave restores the freedom to trade with the rest of the world. Logically, as the EU exports more to the UK than we do to the EU, there are tremendous advantages for the EU still continuing to trade with the UK. However, the key argument for voting to leave goes far beyond the economic one and centres around the free movement of people. The European Union's other 27 member states together have a population of 500 million. The UK has a population of 65 million. With an ageing population, we need more migration, but the free movement of people means that we cannot choose those with the skills that we need to grow our economy. Instead, anyone from this 500 million population can come and live in the UK. Although I understand why people from other parts of the EU would want to come here to improve their standard of living, that has the potential to put unsustainable pressure on our schools, health service, housing and so on, with translation costs alone already impacting on public services. The access that those economic migrants gain to our benefit system in turn impacts adversely on pensions and other benefits that UK citizens have worked in some cases a lifetime to secure. Furthermore, the UK pays more into the EU than we get out, including our rebate. That equates to a net £24 million per day. As a sovereign Parliament, that amount could and should be used to determine our own policies, including policies that affect our fishing industry and the communities that support them right across Scotland and beyond, where those communities will continue to suffer economic hardship as long as we are under the control of the EU's common fisheries policy. The EU's common agricultural policy short changes UK farmers compared to their competitors in 2014. We gave £4.6 billion to CAP, yet our farmers received £2.9 billion back. Additionally, the PM has confirmed that, if we vote leave, the UK Government will ensure that farmers continue to receive as much support as they do now. Finally, it is not the EU that has kept the peace for the last vote years, but NATO sorted out Bosnia. Bilateral treaties and agreements already exist with countries that are not part of the EU for justice and defence. Quite simply, it is in the interests of the EU countries to co-operate and share information, to combat terrorism and to extradite criminals. In conclusion, it is impossible for anyone to predict with any certainty what the future will hold when they are aware in and out of the EU. However, we are a talented and innovative people with financial institutions that are respected worldwide. As a United Kingdom, we are a force to be reckoned with. We should grasp the opportunity to realise the potential and vote leave. Thank you very much. I will give you a little longer, because there are so few speaking against a call. I rise to deliver my first speech to the Scottish Parliament, and I feel that sense of awe that I have seen on the faces of my fellow newcomers to this place, who have given excellent speeches both yesterday and this morning. My journey to this chamber has been a very long one, and I am very grateful for the kindness of parliamentary staff, journalists and members of all parties for their goodwill that they have shown me in the first weeks. Goodwill tinged with surprise—I might have had my appearance here—but that surprise eclipsed by my own when I was plucked from the ranks of new Liberal Democrat MSPs and immediately promoted to the front bench. That was something of a shock. Before I address the substance of this debate, I would like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Colin Keir, who is a kind and generous man, and I wish him every success in his future. I would also like to pay tribute to the last Liberal Parliamentarian to represent Edinburgh Weston, Margaret Smith, Margaret served this chamber for 12 years and delivered many of the changes that brought about free personal care for the elderly. All of us can attest to the honoretys to represent the great communities of West Edinburgh, steeped in history that goes back to Roman times and flanking the beautiful fringes of the fourth estuary in the shadow of our own World Heritage Site, the fourth rail bridge. I am sorry to say that following my election, an area that is no longer available to the SNP for parliamentary group photographs, I am sorry about that. My first act as a parliamentarian for Edinburgh Weston is to make the case why my constituents and your constituents are demonstrably better off as part of the European Union. 100 years ago, almost to the day, my great-granduncle, a private in the first Canadian mounted rifles out of Saskatchewan, at the age of 23, was killed along with 80 per cent of his battalion on the first day of the battle of Montserrell on the Y Prasailians. His name was Alexander Bennett and I am named for him. Just a generation later, his sacrifice was met by that of two of my grandfather's four siblings, killed on active service this time in World War 2. I think that it is a measure of the success of this European project that I am only the second generation in the recorded history of my entire family to never have to contemplate taking up arms against our nearest European neighbours. It is a comfort that I would extend to my three children, Finn, Kit and Darcy and theirs to come, because it is from that shared desire for a continued and lasting peace that the originating treaties of European Union first emerged from the coal and steel community in 51, so that no country could ever again build a war machine. The treaty of Rome, which led to a single market in which the free movement of goods, people, capital and services have come to represent the most important charter for freedom that this world has ever seen. It is a solidarity of nations that has become a family. The Brexiteers and Margaret Mitchell and her colleagues would have you paint a very nice picture of what it would be to reclaim all of our sovereignty, but it is a doctrine of isolationism, pure and simple. I would put it to you in this increasingly globalised world that human traffickers will never recognise that isolation, climate change will never recognise that isolation, nor will terrorists never recognise that isolation. If we were to leave, we would be a tiny archipelago of islands adrift in a sea of economic uncertainty. That is why the Liberal Democrat benches are so proudly, full-throtedly backing the Remain campaign. I am delighted and heartily glad that my first speech in this place is one of such consensus, where I find myself on common ground not just with opposition parties but with the Government benches as well. I hope that there are many days like this to come in my parliamentary service. With consensus, this place can move mountains, and it has done. Working in the children's sector from outside this chamber, I helped to broker a consensus, which changed the age of leaving care and will change lives as a result of it. However, there will be days of discord as well. That is good, that is right, because John F. Kennedy said that without criticism and without debate, no administration can succeed and no republic can survive. It is incumbent upon opposition parties, particularly in a minority government situation, to challenge and to scrutinise. I will offer that debate, I will offer that scrutiny. It will at times be fierce, it will always be reasoned and it will always be liberal. However, today, let us put aside those differences and embrace that common ground on which we find ourselves. That sense of real optimism is currently sweeping the Liberal Democrats and I know sweeping other parties as well, because we have so much to gain by remaining as members of this European Union and we must gather together and vigorously campaign for a remain vote on 23 June. Thank you very much. I call Thair Adamson, who is followed by Mary Fee, Ms Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is by no means my first speech in the chamber, but it is my debut speech as a constituency member for Motherwall and Wishaw. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor John Pentland, who served as an MSP in session 4. I have known Mr Pentland for many years having shared a council ward with him before we were both elected to the Parliament in 2011. Although political sparing partners in that time, we have always had a very amiable relationship. In a ways, he still is a passionate campaigner for his community and I wish him well in the future and for his family. I would also like to thank the constituents of Motherwall and Wishaw for putting their faith in me to be a strong voice for them in this Parliament. I am very honoured to speak today when so many new members of the Parliament have made their maiden speeches, Mr Cole-Hamilton, Mr Tomkins, Mr Johnson, Mr Greer and more to come today. There are many elements, and some of them have been discussed today already about the European Union. Many of them are about the big issues, the big idea of Europe, about that collaboration, that movement for peace and for unity across Europe. However, I would like to highlight, if possible, the minutiae of one benefit that the EU brings to us today in Scotland. That is to highlight the horizon 2020 innovation programme within Europe. That makes available £80 billion of euros to fund research and innovation across the European Union. It encourages breakthroughs, discoveries, first-class scientific developments and laboratory innovations and, more importantly, it encourages collaboration across the whole of Europe. That is about global competitiveness. It is about making the European Union a driving force for economic growth, one that creates jobs. That project has a political backing from across Europe and all members of the European Parliament. It is a blueprint for Europe. It puts sustainable and inclusive growth for jobs at the heart of where we put our research and investment in that area. We want world-class science. We want to remove barriers for innovation and make it easier for public and private sectors to work together and deliver innovation and growth. The EU framework programme for research and innovation is also complemented by collaboration across those areas, breaking down barriers and creating a genuine market for knowledge, research and innovation. There are key areas in which that focus excellence in science, industrial leadership and societal challenges. If I could concentrate slightly on societal challenges, that is about helping to tackle the major issues that all European nations face—climate change, sustainable transport, mobility, making renewable energies more affordable, ensuring food safety and security, and coping with the challenge of an ageing population. I think that all those issues were raised in the debate yesterday about what is the heart across the chamber of putting Scotland forward, because Scotland's priorities are Europe's priorities and we can only achieve those priorities by continuing to work together in the European context. Health and demographic change was mentioned by Nicholas Sturgeon. Food security has been mentioned today. Secure, clean and efficient energy, mentioned by Ruth Davidson and Graham Day yesterday. Smart, green, integrated transport, key to Patrick Harvie's speech. It is excellent made in speech, more than golden, concentrated on climate change. Those are at the very heart of where we want to be as a nation. Importantly, as well, secure societies, protecting freedoms and the security of European citizens. As Kezia Dugdale mentioned today, it is about human rights, it is about trade union rights, those rights that Westminster would seek to take away from us. I would like to finish by a very tangible example of what Horizon 2020 brings to Scotland. Last October, the Centre for Research and Education, Inclusion and Diversity was awarded a grant on the Horizon 2020 programme that will allow a three-year project encouraging lifelong learning for inclusive and vibrant Europe. It is part of a European consortium that involves England, Flanders, Austria, Denmark, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia and Spain. It will explore policy interventions in adult education with a focus on training young adults. That is at the heart of what this Government wants to do in education. We are at the heart of Europe and should stay there. We have heard some interesting and insightful contributions so far this morning from across the chamber in relation to the upcoming referendum on Britain's membership within the EU. I would particularly like to welcome the excellent contributions from our new members today. I am unambiguous and unapologetic in my support of Britain's continued membership of the EU. For me, the argument in favour of Britain staying as a member of the EU is rooted in my personal beliefs and values, which are beliefs and values that are shared by the Scottish Labour Party of co-operation, solidarity and equality. Fundamentally, I believe in the maxim that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. My first substantive argument is that working women in Scotland and across the UK are better off with Britain remaining in the EU. The facts are clear and the arguments are compelling. The TUC produced a comprehensive report this year that spotlighted 20 ways in which women workers have explicitly benefited from Britain's membership of the EU. For example, the report highlights that, although the British Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970 in response to the action taken by women working at the Ford factory in Dagonham in their fight for equal pay, the act did not actually give women the right to equal pay for work of equal value. It was in fact EU law that ensured that working women in Britain received the right to equal pay for work of equal value. The Equal Pay Directive, adopted by the EU in 1975, made clear that the right to equal pay meant that women would receive equal pay for work of equal value. The European Union has delivered for women in the past and continues to promote co-operation, solidarity and equality for working women all across Europe. For women in Scotland and across the UK, the EU has secured equal pensions for part-time women workers, better protection from sexual harassment, paid time off for antenatal care, better health and safety protection for pregnant workers and better protection from unfair dismissal because of pregnancy. Britain's continued membership of the EU is in the interests of working women across Scotland and the UK, and I would urge all working women in Scotland to make a passionate, positive and progressive case for remaining within the EU in order to defend the protections that our membership of the EU has given us. The second substantive argument that I would like to develop is that, whether people like it or not, there is an inherent risk to leaving the EU. The evidence has shown that one of the main risks of leaving is more austerity, and as members across this chamber will be aware, austerity disproportionately affects women, and this is not a risk that I am willing to take. This week, the IFS has warned that if Britain votes to leave the EU, it could result in public finances being reduced by around £20 billion. Last year, a fair deal for women, an umbrella group consisting of 11 women's rights charities such as Women's Aid, the Faucit Society and Rape Crisis, highlighted that, in 2015, Britain fell to 26th place on the World Economic Forum's gender gap index, lower than almost all of its European neighbours. A fair deal for women was clear in its assertion that women have been disproportionately affected by the austerity agenda. The group spokesperson, Florence Burton, stated that austerity further cements women's poverty. Women simply cannot afford for austerity cuts to get any deeper or to continue any longer. There is nothing progressive—I apologise, but my time has been cut today, so I am really sorry. There is nothing progressive about continuing austerity. If we wish to tackle gender inequality and have a progressive economy that invests in people and invests in our public services, then it is vital that we stay within the EU. I would also briefly like to touch on the European Convention of Human Rights before coming to a close. The ECHR was drafted in the aftermath of World War 2 and is symbolic of the visionary and progressive ideals of progressive post-war Europe. The ECHR protects everyone's human rights—young and old, rich and poor, male and female. The ECHR is at the progressive core of what makes Europe a force for positive change in the world and its importance should never be underestimated. We as women have to start making the passionate, positive and progressive case for Britain's continued membership of the EU through promoting the shared values of the Labour Party, the EU of co-operation of solidarity and of equality. It is now time for women in Scotland to take centre stage in this debate. It is time to put women's issues and women's voices at the forefront of this debate. Thank you very much. Tom Arthur, to be followed by Graham Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First, may I offer my congratulations to both you and your fellow Presiding Officers on your election to your new positions, and may I wish you all the very best in your new roles? You've made a brilliant start. I listen and learn. For me, as the newly elected member of Renfrewshire South, it is an honour and a privilege to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate in our national Parliament. Before addressing the signal question of Scotland and the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union, I would like to say a few words about my predecessor, Hugh Henry, and the constituency that I am now proud to represent. In a career spanning over three decades, Hugh served his party, his community, his constituency and his country with distinction. As a councillor, council leader, MSP, minister, shadow minister, committee convener and former politician of the year, Hugh Henry leaves a formidable legacy, and I wish Hugh and his family the very best for a long and healthy retirement. The constituency of Renfrewshire South encompasses the proud and diverse communities of southern and western Renfrewshire. Several of the east towns and villages are of some renown and fame. Cobarkon, well known today for its restored Weaver's Cottage, was in 1875 the birthplace of Mary Ruff. From Cobarkon, the Ruff family moved to Eldersley, also in my constituency, where Mary at Wallace Place would marry David Barber of Johnston, assuming the name that we all know her by today. Over a century later, the ideals of two of Renfrewshire's most famous children would be as one in a union of progressive politics and the idea of an independent Scotland. My constituency is also home to Llinwood, in which, from the ashes of a de-industrialisation inflicted from afar, is emerging a centre of community-led regeneration. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Llinwood community development trust, brought into being and driven forward by a group of local women whose drive and determination is only matched by their ambition for their community. Llinwood is, in some respects, a mythic organism of Scotland, an empowered and engaged community coming together to shape their collective future. In the months and years ahead, I look forward to sharing with the chamber the many stories from the many communities of Renfrewshire South. I look forward to working towards creating a fairer and more prosperous Renfrewshire South, just as we are all united in this place and working together to create a fairer and more prosperous Scotland. However, for a fair and prosperous Scotland, indeed, for a fair and prosperous United Kingdom, we must not turn our backs on our European partners. They have been, and I am sure there will be further, erudite and considered contributions to this debate that will present and articulate many economic, fiscal and social justifications for remaining in the European Union. However, with the time that I have remaining and speaking as a new and young—he is left his place now, not that young—MSP, I would like to convey a sense of what European means to me personally, and I think also to many people of my generation. My earliest memory of any political event is of the TV news reports from Berlin in November 1989. As a wee boy watching the television, I did not, of course, understand the context or historical significance of what I was saying. What I do remember is the sense that the events unfolding were important, and I recall recognising in a sense of shared humanity the hope and joy etched on the faces of those who are mounting and tearing down that wall. I share that experience with the chamber because, in its simplicity, innocence and humanity, it recognises what I think is most fundamental in this debate. The European Union cannot be reduced to a set of trade deals and diplomatic arrangements. What we can is a means to ensure that French and German coal reserves can never again be used as capital in war-making, and it is now the most successful community of independent nation states ever to be assembled. It is testimony to the success that so many nations have aspired and continue to aspire to membership. To be a citizen of the European Union is to be one of 500 million people who each have a stake in this great project that gives expression to our ancient shared identity as Europeans. It is now for us, with our multi-layered identities as Scots, Brits, Europeans and as citizens of the EU, that we must make a choice. Will we recommit to that shared project of peace, prosperity and social justice, or will we allow ourselves to be seduced by the siren calls of isolationism and division? Are we prepared to work in partnership to confront the challenges of this century and together embrace opportunity, or will we indulge in the myopia of some imagined mid-Atlantic future? A month after the collapse of the wall, Leonard Bernstein famously conducted an international orchestra in two performances of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in East Berlin, notably transforming shillers, ode to joy and ode to freedom. The symbolism of that speaks to us now as clearly as it did then. Generations past and present have seen the bloody consequences of a Europe divided, but we have all lived and shared in the prosperity of a Europe united. As citizens of this great community of independent nations, let us stay together and work together for the prosperous and peaceful future. Thank you. I call Graham Simpson to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is the first time that I have addressed Parliament in my role as one of the three Scottish Conservative MSPs for central Scotland, and how good does that sound? I fear, though, that maybe not for the last time I could be severely outnumbered today, that there are so few MSPs on the side of the leave campaign demonstrates that Parliament on this issue at least is not reflective of Scotland at large. I'm 52. That may surprise you. It surprises me sometimes, and in my heart I'm still the disco dancing cool dude of my 20s. Indeed, though my head tells me otherwise, I'll be going with my head at any MSPs parties. My age puts me in the bracket of the majority in this chamber who've never had the opportunity to vote on the UK's membership of what is now the EU. My parents did, my grandparents did, but they were sold a pop. No one asked the British people if they wanted to join the common market as it was then. They were asked what we are now being asked do you want to remain. They were asked if they want to stay in the common market. If I was asked that today, I would say yes, but that isn't what was on offer then, and it certainly isn't what is on offer now. Our leaders knew then that this wasn't merely a trade organisation. They knew it was a full blown political project and they deliberately didn't let on. So it's right that we are now, thanks to a Conservative government, getting the choice. The choice to accept or reject what Britain didn't vote for. And we must accept the result whatever the outcome. This must be a once in a generation vote, just as the Scottish referendum should have been a once in a generation vote. On this issue, it's the Scottish Conservatives that most reflect public opinion in Scotland. More so than any of the other groups in this Parliament. Scottish Labour used to have a strong Eurosceptic element. It now seems to have abandoned its past. You would have thought SNP members would accept the unarguable logic of Jim Sillers. He says it makes no sense to suggest we should leave a union with our closest neighbours only to jump into an even larger and more remote one elsewhere, giving away the powers you've just asked for back. But SNP parliamentarians, even if they agree with their former deputy leader, are not allowed to say so. Though I did read in the Scottish Sun this week that there is apparently one of them, will they break cover today? The choice on June 23 is to stay or leave. The question voters must ask themselves is really very simple. How do I want to be governed? That's what it comes down to in the end. We can argue about prices, the economy, immigration, security and there are valid arguments on both sides in all these areas but ultimately it comes down to this. Do I want decisions affecting my country to be taken by people out with these borders? Do I think that it's right that unelected and unaccountable European judges can overturn decisions of democratically elected politicians? Do I think that it's right that policies can be decided by unelected bureaucrats and imposed on this country? When the Scottish Government put forward its proposals for minimal alcohol pricing, I saw it as more nanny state politics from the SNP but I absolutely thought they had the right to do it having been elected by the people of Scotland for that measure to be effectively blocked by European Court of Justice was a disgrace. Why is it that so many in the political class want to remain? It could be that the EU serves them and their armies of bureaucrats very well. Those in the bubble are hardly likely to want to burst it. The EU is nothing but a political project. It's a first class only gravy train with no stops where the buffet car serves only the finest food and never mind the cost and it's one way to ever close a union. We have the chance to pull the emergency cord and jump off to set ourselves on another freer course able to spend the fair money £350 million a week on whatever we like. Leaving would hand powers to this parliament over for example agriculture and fisheries. Why would anyone in this chamber not want that? There is a sign in the European Commission building in Brussels which reads Europe, your country. That's what they believe. It's not what I believe and anyone who agrees with me should be voting to leave on 23 June. Every country in the European Union and the global communities tries to achieve a combination of national autonomy and international collaboration. This referendum must be framed both inwardly and outwardly facing, considering the impact of EU membership has in Scotland, the UK and the impact we have on other EU members. A progressive union is built on the principles of co-operation and solidarity and those indeed lie at the heart of my decision to vote to remain a member. Membership has provided the opportunity for continent-wide collaboration on an improved trade market, better jobs, progress on women's and LGBT rights and sustainable development. Over 3 million jobs in the UK are linked to our trade with the EU and the EU market buys half of Britain's exports. Millions of livelihoods are interlinked with EU membership and we must continue to pioneer this world-leading trade system. Not perfect and I disagree with T-Tip but to be out would make it increasingly difficult. Beyond providing jobs, the EU social chapter means that those jobs come with workers' rights, as has been described by many other members. Paternity leave, paid now as well as maternity leave and also part-time workers' rights and anti-discrimination laws. Where people argue that we could have these things in a separate UK, I would point out that in other countries workers may not be so lucky. Our voice is louder in chorus. With regard to environmental policy, the EU has been a driving force for progress. The environment does not have a public infrastructure to be monitored, which goes to heighten the importance of EU-regulated targets and deadlines. Those issues are not confined to lines on a map and neither should their regulation be. Our membership of the EU means influence and accountability. Scotland and the UK shaped EU emissions targets by advocating more ambitious policy and, at the Paris climate conference, our voice was louder as part of the union. Credit goes to on-going EU regulation for tackling pollution levels and chemical manufacture and use. Fifty years ago, our air had the highest level of sulphur dioxide emissions, as the cabinet secretary highlighted. We were surrounded in some places, frankly, by sewer-like inshore waters, and those issues were stressed by Ross Greer. Policymakers reacted to problems after the damage was done and regulation took on a more voluntary approach. Today, citizens of the EU are protected from these health and environmental risks. The ambient air quality directive sets legal limits on air pollution concentrations, and it is an important incentive to action to protect public health and the environment. The Scottish Government, at present, is breaking these legal requirements in several areas of Scotland and is currently in excess of the legal limits of nitrogen oxide, which have been set out in the directive, a serious environmental and social justice issue. Our EU membership ensures that the Scottish Government is accountable for this failure and forces us to address improvement rapidly. The EU has also played a significant part in slowing and reversing biodiversity and habitat loss. The biodiversity strategy to 2020 and the EU habitats and birds directives have played a vital role in collective management of land, sea and air. Nature knows no boundaries, and it is completely logical that we make collective arrangements for its protection and for the health management of our natural resources. Ash Diback is an example of how quickly we can act on this sort of an issue as an EU member. For many in South Scotland and other coastal and rural communities, the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy will be important in their decision. I am sure that Richard Lochhead's experience as a Cabinet Secretary previously will put those cases well. For reasons of production in the aftermath of World War 2, as we know, farmers were given subsidies and today these payments retain their importance. We must ask if repatriated, will our farmers receive such a payment? Today, cap payments go beyond supporting production, now including environmental incentives, which is of course of benefit to us all. I have serious concerns that without the EU our farmers and fishing industries would suffer. This is about who we want to be, an outward-looking country, ready to pull a small amount of our sovereignty to work with other countries to tackle the big questions, which always remembering that significant word, subsidiarity, which I took some time to learn but now know what it means, or are we to be inward-looking, focusing on the past and trying to hide from the big questions of tomorrow? We should not give up our influence over the character of Europe, a union born from the ideals of peace and democracy, with a significant role to play and fight for a fair, sustainable and secure future. Let's stay. I congratulate the two most recent members who made their first speeches, Tom Arthur and Graham Simpson, although I would have to say that my views are slightly closer to Tom Arthur's. We have a referendum in four weeks, and clearly I do think that the choice of date was extremely poor all over many parts of the UK. We have just come through major elections in London, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in Scotland, but we are where we are. Just this morning, I was checking out of the hotel and the receptionist asked what I thought of the EU and the referendum. She said that she could see reasons for voting to stay in, but she also had reasons for voting to leave, so she was undecided and a bit confused about which way to go. I have to say that her position is not unusual among many members of the public. My very first vote, as an 18-year-old, was in 1975 in the last referendum, so it does have special meaning for me to be voting again in a similar referendum 41 years later. I just hope that it does not set a precedent that 41 years should be the period between the referendum. Why am I enthusiastic about the EU? A number of reasons. One, I feel European. It makes a difference to have lived and worked outside of the UK, and in my case that was for three years in Nepal in the 1980s. I was part of an international non-government organisation with folk from all over the world working together. In that situation, you realise how much Europeans have in common. I accept that we should not stereotype people, but for me, the Dutch are generally the group that I have felt closest to. They are also a small country, they share many words with us and have a very similar sense of humour, I think. Their religious history and mix is very similar with a strong reform tradition and also a Catholic tradition. We will all probably have European countries that we feel close to, and the fact that there are 2 million UK citizens living in Europe and some 2 million from other European countries living in the UK does say a lot about mobility in Europe these days. Secondly, history, Mike Russell has been much more eloquent on that than I could be, but when you read the stories of Montrose, Mary Queen of Scots, David Hume and figures in church history like John Knox and John Ogilvie, it's very clear that they all operated at a European level. Thirdly, as has been mentioned, peace since the Second World War. I was born 12 years after World War 2, but it seemed like ancient history to me when I was younger. But when you read European history, it is like story after war, after war, after war. The EU in its various forms has been a major part of changing this, and I think that the danger from my age group and younger is that we forget how torn apart Europe has traditionally been and we downplay that success at our peril. Fourthly, I feel safer in the EU than I do in the UK. Now, I accept that EU institutions are not perfect and I would strongly support improvements, for example, more power for the Parliament, but at least the EU is attempting to be democratic. Whereas here in the UK, we do not even have an elected head of state and one of the two chambers at Westminster is not elected, so I would rather be in a more democratic system like the EU than in a less democratic one like the UK. Okay, briefly. Can I ask who elects the European Central Bank? Who elects the commission? Can you answer those questions? Civil servants like the European Commission are appointed in every country, including in the EU, by elected members, by government, so that is quite normal. There is no difference from that point of view. In the same theme, the EU favours smaller nations unlike the UK. At the Council of Ministers, for example, each country gets one seat. In the European Parliament, they use degressive proportionality, if I have the term right, which means that voters in countries like Malta and Luxembourg have considerably more influence than citizens of the six largest countries. We do something similar with the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, but it is not generally the way that the UK operates. Of the 28 countries in Europe, only 12 of populations over 10 million and a further four that are significantly larger than Scotland. Scotland is very much a normal type of country in Europe, whereas the UK is clearly hopelessly imbalanced in favour of England. Fifthly, the concept of confederation as against federation—I am not sure that confederation is a word that we are using quite so much of these days—is the meaning being that the real power in Europe sits with the member states. Relatively few subjects where the EU has exclusive competence and its member states who agree what is to be exclusive, what is to be shared and what is to be supporting confidence. I am running out of time, but as mentioned by Fiona Hyslop, Christina McKelvie and Mary Fee, the EU is proven to be fairer for workers than the UK has, and the UK is too small in a world of big players. I very much support Scotland and the UK remaining in the EU. John Scott, to be followed by Elaine Smith, Mr Scott. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as a farmer and food producer, and I also say that it is great to be back in the chamber and able to take part in debates again. To turn now to the subject in hand, I want to say that I am very much in the remain camp in the European debate, but it is my own experience that places me there, apart from other reasons that I will deal with later. In my own business life before politics, I have been involved in the creation of three working co-operatives among the farmer's markets. To my surprise and delight when working with farmers who are people who do not naturally work collaboratively, I have found to my surprise and proved to my satisfaction that, when one works together, the total is greater than the sum of the parts. It is the same in politics, it is the same in business and it is the same with countries. That is why I was and remain totally opposed to Scotland breaking away from the United Kingdom, because Scotland working in union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland has achieved so much in the past and will do so in the future working cooperatively and collaboratively with our neighbours the total being greater than the sum of the parts. That is why I similarly believe that the United Kingdom should be part of the EU, because working within the EU has helped the UK to become the fifth wealthiest country in the world and again working together has created a total for the EU and the UK greater than the sum of its parts. We can all see the problems of working together at whatever level, local, national or international and any co-operative or union, be it the UK or the EU, is always a work in progress. It is never the finished article because new obstacles and challenges come along challenges that have to be overcome. However, those are problems to be solved, not given up on. Throwing the baby out with a bath water is not a solution because the problem appears too difficult to resolve. Instead, we in the United Kingdom need to play a positive and active role in the EU where we have so much to bring to the top table. If reform is needed, then propose solutions rather than exit strategies. If challenges exist, then face up to them together rather than run away from them. Create the political will to lead the 500 million people politicians across Europe represent to deal with what are the current problems and making the case to remain straightforward. By remaining in the EU, we will continue to develop trade with the EU and grow our economy, providing jobs and a secure future for our children and grandchildren. We will continue to develop our relationship with America and other English-speaking countries as one of their gateways and access points to Europe. We will continue to develop and grow our financial products and services market so vital to employment in Scotland and England. As Richard Lochhead said, we will continue to export our Scottish food and drink to Europe, our biggest market by far, protecting and enhancing our precious jobs in urban and rural Scotland. We can bring UK help and expertise to bear and help to solve the problems of the euro of a bankrupt Greece of the refugee crisis. Everything is doable with the right mindset and, in my view, it is time to get on with solving the problems of Europe rather than adding to them by leaving. In less than one month's time, we will have to make our choice to leave or remain within the EU. The decision will boil down to who has made the most credible argument. For my part, I believe that David Cameron and George Osborne, when they say that it is the best interest of our economy, our country and our future to remain part of the EU and not just because they are Conservatives but because they now have a six-year track record of delivering for and restoring the fortunes of the United Kingdom of which Scotland is such a vital part. I believe that the many others who have the best interests of Scotland and the UK at heart are friends—our friends President Obama, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. I believe that our senior military and defence staff, too, who believe that our security is enhanced by being part of the EU. I believe that Christian Lagarde of the IMF and our many distinguished business leaders who support remaining part of the EU. Indeed, as the rest of the world is coalescing into larger and larger trading blocks with an ever-increasing number of bilateral agreements, why would we willingly be erecting barriers to trade and risking our security at the same time? The leave campaign simply has not demonstrated any reasonable case in strategic terms for breaking away from the EU. Therefore, I urge the people of Scotland and the UK to vote to remain in the EU for the benefit of all UK citizens, our children and grandchildren. Elaine Smith, to be followed by Stewart Stevenson. Many thanks, Presiding Officer, for giving me the opportunity to put a different perspective in this debate. Like my colleague John Scott, it's good to be back in the chamber making a contribution to a substantial debate. So far, I've been listening to the wider EU debate, and I think that one of the worst aspects is the extent to which it's been dominated by the right and quite often with racist undertones. It's important that a legitimate left-wing case for leaving is voiced in the debate. The key argument of the official stay campaign seems to be that things can only get worse if we leave, but that ignores the role that the EU has played in intensifying austerity and reactionary politics. I appreciate that colleagues on the Labour benches are enthusiastic about staying as outlined by Kezia Dugdale, but, from a left perspective, I think that there is a need to assess what the EU is and, based on that, what route is most likely to offer the best prospects for the working class and employment rights. Personally, I'm not convinced that it is part of an undemocratic superstate with mass unemployment following living standards and growing inequality. We only have to look to the Greek tragedy and 50 per cent of youth unemployment in Spain to see that. Presiding Officer, there are undoubtedly many on the left who are going to hold their noses and vote to remain in the hope that reforms will come. I understand that, but I think that with an unelected bureaucracy at its core and a largely decorative Parliament, that avoids the reality that the EU structures are so closely bound to capitalism. In fact, the original title of the EU, The Common Market, told socialists then that it was essentially capitalist and designed to reverse the socialist advances that were made in Western Europe after World War 2. Those advances were built on issues such as ownership of key utilities and industries, the creation of welfare states, redistributive taxation and management by the state of the economy to ensure full employment. Of course, Britain was originally locked out of the EEC club by French vetoes because it believed correctly that it would use its influence to advance the interests of US capital. The interests of workers, by contrast, are important only in so far as their consent or the absence of organised opposition can be achieved. Of course, at this point, someone no doubt mentions the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. However, that treaty was introduced to develop a single market in the monetary union and the social chapter was included because it was recognised that increased labour movement resistance to worsening economic conditions could derail the whole EU project. In Britain, equality, health and safety laws, the working time directive and other benefits included in the social chapter of course seemed very attractive due to the aggressive market-led capitalist approach of Tory Governments. However, it is also important to note the limited nature of the social chapter, so key areas in relation to the class struggle, such as pay and the right to strike, were not included. The reality is that most of the key rights that we still enjoy do not stem from the EU, but stem from struggles undertaken collectively by trade unions in this country, for example paid holidays and equal pay. The EU of course has provided some individual as opposed to collective rights like to pay, but that was only to limit resistance to EU-imposed privatisation and competitive tendering. Individual rights for agency workers were introduced to mitigate the effects of casualisation, which the EU in itself helped to create. The EU works on the basis of the primacy of the market and collective labour organisation is seen as an impediment to effective markets. Of course, what we have seen is endless pro-business directives, ending public ownership of rail and utilities, introducing CCT in the public sector, allowing companies to pay workers from other states at rates lower than the locally agreed rates. That agenda has impacted directly on Scotland. We have heard some of this in other speeches, but the Scottish Government claims—I want to make this point—that it was the EU that enforced the re-tendering of CalMac with the threat of privatisation, and that is one of the reasons why the RMT union is so keen for its members to vote leave. Currently, both CETA and TTIP are being negotiated secretly by the Unelected Commission and, if agreed, there will be a huge threat to our public services here in Scotland. The treaties are a corporate power grab, and they will undermine our democracy. What they will do is give businesses a right to sue Governments. That is absolutely terrifying. The EU is not Europe. It is a political construct imposed upon the people of Europe to undermine democratic national governments. It seeks the effective elimination of any genuine elective democracy, and I would say very strongly that that runs contrary to the true definition of internationalism. Since its foundation, the EU has had a clear direction of travel, opening up public services to privatisation, eroding collective bargaining and centralising power. Unfortunately, I do not see enough of the debate on this EU referendum on either side, addressing those fundamental points. Voting to remain will inevitably allow this agenda to continue in the face of minimum opposition. With little hope, I have to say, of any real reform, voting leave could help to reassert the power of working people over that of big business. Politically, of course, that would be much more likely if we elect a Labour Government in 2020. John Foster, in his case for leave, says that it is essential to put forward and win a positive progressive case against Cameron's EU, a vision of renewed democracy, a restored welfare state and a redevelopment of public control over the economy, a vision that can combat racism, cynicism and division and unite all working people. I believe that whatever way people vote, they should be aware of the true nature of the EU, and personally, I intend to vote leave and I will not be supporting the motion tonight. We are now moving to the last speaker in the open session, so all those who have taken part in the debate should make sure that they are back in the chamber for the closing speeches. Mr Stevenson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me congratulate you on your elevation to your position. I will crave a boon from you at some point in the future. Let's get in credit at the outset. I am happy to join our fellow rebel, Mike Russell, someone who, like him, voted yes in 1975. Not because the arguments were absolutely decisive and compelling, but because, as a child born in the immediate aftermath of the war that ended in 1945, the value that I placed on international collaboration and the cause of peace overrode other considerations. John Mason talked about 41 years and, interestingly enough, 41 years before the 1975 referendum, there was another referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the League of Nations. It was not organised by the Government, but it was a mass franchise open to the voting of everyone in the United Kingdom. 38 per cent of the electorate chose to vote, and 96 per cent of them said that we want to remain part of that international organisation. I crave that we achieve such an overwhelming result on the 23rd of June, but I am not holding my breath. For Elaine Smith, I say a further 41 years back, the inaugural meeting of the independent Labour Party took place in Bradford, chaired by Keir Hardy. There must be something about 41 years in politics. It is also the case that the debate about how we should engage with each other is not particularly new. In 1606, in the Westminster Parliament, it was said, if we admit them into our liberties, we shall be overrun with them. There was a fear that if Scotland and England joined together, the English would be overrun with the Scots. In that debate in 1606, it went on to say, witness the multiplicities of the Scots in Poland. Today, part of the debate is the number of people who are using the free movement of peoples across Europe. To come to our shores, there are 2 million of UK citizens who have moved elsewhere, including substantial numbers of my family, but in the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century and the early 20th century, there were substantial migrations of Scots that went to many of those countries, in particular to Poland. To the extent that there are areas in Warsaw and Cracow called New Scots, New Scotland and in a city that is now part of Poland, Dunzig, there is also an area called New Scotland. The Scots are, if we are anything, people of international interest. I am very happy to recruit Margaret Mitchell and Graham Simpson to the campaign to abolish the House of Lords. Margaret said that an argument against the EU is that nobody knows who the MEPs are. I will bet that you will not get many people knowing the names of people in the House of Lords. I do not even know those who might claim Scottish connection. I am involved in politics, and Graham Simpson made remarks that would support that as well. Let me conclude by saying that when I made my first speech on 14 June 2001, I referred to Fisheries policy bringing zonal management. We have seen some progress in the common fisheries policy, but it would be fair to say that the overwhelming majority of my skippers who catch fish in the North Sea and elsewhere are likely to be voting no. The common fisheries policy is one of the great failures of the EU. We have been making progress, and I think that we will continue to make progress. On the other hand, for those who produce fish products and do export fish, the free movement of goods across borders allows fresh products that will perish very rapidly to make it to the markets of the EU and to generate huge economic benefit. The fishing industry is deeply divided between those who produce their products and rely on access to the wider market and those who are sharing the bounty of the seas in a very unfair way. Reform is needed, reform is probably coming. I encourage the UK, who will have the European presidency in the second half of next year, to take a much more proactive role in promoting the interests of those who catch fish in our seas. We now move to closing speeches, and I call Lewis MacDonald up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and welcome to you to the chair this afternoon. The formal record of today's debate will appear to show a high degree of consensus on a hugely important issue—a brief and uncontroversial Government motion, no amendments from Opposition parties, and overwhelming vote in favour with every party leader voting the same way. Not much, perhaps, to suggest that this is one of the most critical decisions that our generation will face or that many people here in Scotland still have to make up their minds. As Fiona Hyslop said, and I thank her for her welcome, referendums reduced debates to a binary choice for it against in or out when, on this, as on other issues, many people can see arguments both ways. Those who vote in favour of continued membership of the European Union will do so on the basis of quite different visions for the future of Scotland and of Britain and of Europe, as will those who vote to leave. Labour's support for remaining in the EU is firmly based on the collective view of our party conference and based, as Kezia Dugdale said this morning, on the proposition that sovereignty shared is sovereignty gained. As Mary Fee said, we believe that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone. That ambition for achieving more together is not limited to the people of Scotland or to the United Kingdom or, indeed, to the European Union. Our common endeavour is a universal principle and applies to all. Gordon Brown recently wrote, for example, of the vital role that the European Union can play in working for stability and hope in the Middle East and in Africa. Those are vital objectives both for those regions and for Europe. Those, too, speak to our common humanity. In today's debate, Daniel Johnson laid out the benefits of membership of the European Union for his constituents in terms of investment, education and jobs, and what is true of Edinburgh Southern is also true of Scotland as a whole. I congratulate him and all those other new members who spoke in this debate and all made very strong contributions from their different points of view. I welcome those from different parties who have stressed the need for reform of the European Union to support people here and across Europe to support them against the damage done by austerity policies from national governments. We want a European Union that builds on Europe's best democratic traditions, not simply a common market for the free movement of capital. Of course, the socialist case to remain is the polar opposite of the conservative case to leave, which was put today by Margaret Mitchell and Graham Simpson. We reject the idea that free movement of people is a one-way deal or a burden on public services. We believe that we recognise that the free movement of workers must instead go hand in hand with shared high standards of workers' rights and we believe that government must invest in public services, not simply let market forces take their course. Our aspiration is to widen the circle of shared values of common endeavour and of equal rights as far as is practically possible. We want, for example, as a number of speakers have said, to protect the rights of people at work, rights to paid holiday, rights to parental leave, rights to equal treatment and to safe working environments. We will as a party use the powers of the Scottish Parliament where we can, and we will work with other parties here who share that agenda. However, whenever we get the opportunity to legislate on these matters for the whole of the United Kingdom, we will do that as well, because that way, 10 times as many working people will benefit from those laws. We will embed those rights in European law when that opportunity arises, because then they will benefit 100 times more people than live in Scotland alone. The rights of people at work in Scotland are enhanced every time we succeed in winning the same rights for people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and every time we succeed in winning those same rights across the EU, because the wider the reach of progressive legislation, the harder it is for unscrupulous employers or Governments to promote a race to the bottom at working people's expense, and the harder it then becomes to impose policies of austerity, which are at the expense of working people. It is for those same reasons that trade unions, like the Labour Party, not only share our values but also in the main—and Elaine Smith has mentioned some exceptions—but in the main, share our views on the European Union, including what needs to be done to make it work better. A socialist case, as Jeremy Corbyn has said, for the European Union but also for reform and progressive policies within the European Union. As David Ward of the Communication Workers Union said last month, the EU is far from perfect, but it is necessary for tackling inequality, tax avoidance, climate change and preventing workers being exploited across Europe. Those points have been made in the debate today. They are points that unite many in this chamber, but it is not for its own sake that we in this party back any state or any union European or otherwise. It is for the good it can do and the difference it can make, and that for Labour is what this debate is all about. I call John Lamont up to eight minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I add my words of welcome to yourself and your new role as Deputy Presiding Officer. With less than a month to go, we are coming into the home straight of the debate to decide our future in Europe. The debate this morning has been an incredibly useful opportunity for this newly elected Scottish Parliament to discuss the issues at stake ahead of this important decision. I congratulate all those members who have delivered their maiden speeches during the course of this morning's debate. There is clearly some divergence of opinion across the chamber, just as there is some divergence of opinion across Scotland. Like many others in the Remain camp, I do not pretend that the European Union is perfect. That is a point well made by my colleague Adam Tomkins in his excellent maiden speech. However, on balance, I believe that the Prime Minister has negotiated a better deal for the United Kingdom in the European Union, which allows Britain to continue to play a leading role in one of the world's largest international organisations with a special status within that EU framework. The Prime Minister has stressed that there is need for further and continuing reform, but there is little doubt that Britain is the best place to do that from a position of influence inside the EU fold. If it were to leave the EU but still have access to the single market, then that level of access would likely not be the same as it is now. We only need to look at Norway and Switzerland as examples of that. We would still have to pay into the EU budget and accept the free movement of people as the price of that access. We would still be the subject to all the EU rules, but we would have no say over the creation of those rules. I will give way to Mr Finlay. I am seriously pointing to the impoverished Norwegians and Swiss as an example of what not to do. I think that on balance, the overall package of the European Union is better able to address those challenges in those countries than what we would be individually as separate nations. I understand that, for some, the UK's on-going participation in the European project is an emotive matter with questions of sovereignty and control at its core. My colleague Margaret Mitchell highlighted her concerns and her contribution, as did Graham Simpson in his maiden speech. It seems to me that, far from halting the constitutional creep of the EU and restoring the UK's sovereignty over its decision-making, we would find ourselves more constrained than we are with the status quo. Mr Finlay rightly highlighted the SNP's hypocrisy over the EU referendum. It is odd to say the least that the SNP is now strongly promoting one union when they passionately argued against another one that more clearly benefits Scotland, that one union that Scotland has 10 per cent of elected representatives is somehow undemocratic, yet another union where we have less than 2 per cent of MEPs is acceptable, and that one union that represents £46 billion worth of Scotland's trade is worth leaving, but we should risk leaving another union that represents £13 billion of trade. However, the SNP has not stopped its Deputy Presiding Officer publicly pinning Scotland's constitutional future on the outcome of the EU referendum. Mr Russell highlighted the SNP's continuing desire to break up yet again during his contribution this morning. For many people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, I believe that the case for remaining in the EU is not so much an emotive one but a practical one. It certainly is for me. Instead of abstract ideas, let's look at concrete benefits. As the UK's major trading partner, the EU accounts for 44 per cent of UK exports. More than three million jobs in Britain are linked to our trade with other EU countries. Overall, the independent CBI estimates that, through lower prices and increased trade and investment, each household across the country on average benefits by £3,000 a year from EU membership. Daniel Johnson highlighted the economic benefits in his maiden speech for his constituency, but the same arguments apply across the whole of Scotland. The Prime Minister has consistently argued that the main overriding purpose of European Union membership is to secure prosperity. Since the eurozone crisis boiled over in 2009, the EU has perhaps become more connected with financial instability rather than economic prosperity. However, those figures show that, despite the widespread economic turmoil that has defined the past few years, EU membership still benefits us not just at a national level but in people's pockets too. For many of my constituents in the borders with farm businesses, the EU also offers a critical level of support through the common agricultural policy. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of the European budget is dedicated to the agriculture sector. EU membership also offers tariff-free market access for Scottish produce, which is an export value of £5.1 billion in 2014, a fact that every business across the country should and will be aware of. The NFUS rightly argues that the European negotiating position has allowed international trade agreements to be opened with around 50 partners in recent years opening up new markets for Scottish produce. We do not know what the alternative would be if the UK voted to leave. What trade barriers would be imposed? The future is extremely uncertain and that is bad for the agricultural sector and bad for our economy as a whole. So much of the leave rhetoric surrounding the UK membership of the EU has focused on the constraints that it supposedly places on our sovereignty. Our freedom to exercise autonomy and independence on issues affecting our laws, our borders and our global trade. However, to my mind, the costs, the benefits of staying in the EU are clear. Together with many of my Conservative colleagues, I will continue to make a strong and convincing case to remain in the EU. I now call Fiona Hyslop to close this debate. Cabinet Secretary, you have around 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to members for the contributions that we have made in the chamber. Is it not the case that the chamber rises to occasion when we are addressing the big issues that are facing our people and communities? I hope that the new members who have spoken extremely well today can see that as a prospect for the way forward. There clearly is an overwhelming enthusiasm, no absolute enthusiasm, no doubt from the chamber for continued membership of the EU, and many cases and very good points that have been made during the debate. It is incumbent on those of us who can contribute during the next month to make sure that our voices are heard loudly and clearly in the short time that is left ahead of the vote on 23 June. First speakers today, we heard from Adam Tomkins. I think that the best bit of his speech was his reference to Glasgow as the first European city of culture. Daniel Johnson, as many others did, paid tribute to the predecessor, was very much appreciated by members across the chamber. However, he spoke specifically about the role of universities and the financial sector in this city in particular. Ross Greer, I thought, made an excellent speech, and again, welcome to your post in that regard for the Green Party. Again, it is very eloquent about what young people want, is to reach out, communicate and connect in the world, and that part of the debate must not be lost. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I thought, made a very articulate contribution in terms of his own constituency, but also looking at the opportunities and thinking about things from a very personal perspective. How powerful was Tom Arthur's reflection on a reminder of what it felt like at the time of the Berlin Wall and the desire of young people, particularly again, to contribute and connect, and that personal reflection that many people have in this debate. Graham Simpson, although he was on the other side of the debate, set out his case. I think that it is always important that, in this chamber, if we do disagree, we listen with respect and we argue those points. In terms of some of the aspects in the debate itself, some outstanding speeches, particularly from Richard Lochhead, a very close colleague who has, for a long time, been a strong champion for Scotland in the EU. He spoke about his own constituency, Murray. I also talked about the exports in his constituency, Walkers, Baxter, the whisky industry, which is so important to Scotland and our exports. He also talked about that historical reflection, as did Mike Russell. It is very important that we think about the debate about what the EU has achieved and why its existence is there from a historical perspective but also of the present and the future as well. In terms of other points, I brought a debate to a reflective perspective, thinking about the beauty and the importance of articulating the mix of cultures that is alive in this city and in others, and how the EU has brought from a conflict and chaos situation peace and prosperity. However, there were also some hard points made in the debate and some concerns raised. I think that, particularly from Margaret Mitchell, who seemed rather confused about saying that she wanted to complain and blame the EU for the UK's trade figures without acknowledging the importance of the growth of emerging markets and then basing her argument on the need to have unilateral trade agreements with those new and emerging markets. From the other spectrum of the side, how often do the right and left meet Elaine Smith, concerned and setting out a case about what would happen with future trade agreements within the EU, but the question is what would happen out with the EU and an unfettered free market Conservative Government in terms of any relations and trade deal that it had with the US? Do we really think that some of the protections that we are seeking for the NHS and other services would be part of any revised agreement? I want to move on to the points that were made by Graham Smith reflected by others in relation to the issue on minimum unit pricing. Minimum unit pricing has not been blocked. The preliminary ruling of the ECG indicates that it will be for member states domestic courts to make a final decision on minimum unit pricing. However, the desire to connect, the desire to make sure that we can build, as Ross Greer said, are people's Europe. Those are aspirations and that is the type of arguments that we have. What type of country do we want to be part of? What type of country do we want to provide leadership for and what type of country do we want to see shaping the world around us? When we took this debate from the Prism of Scotland, there is a strong civic case for the EU membership as reflected by a number of our organisations. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry has said that the CDI is entirely confident in stating that if the UK remains in the EU, it would be better for the Scottish economy if it represents the position of our majority of our members. In STDI's view, the EU is an essential foundation for Scotland's international trade and investment, because given the importance of the issue that we took a paper on the EU referendum to our full convention, David O'Neill said that I am pleased to say that there was agreement from the political groups within COSLA that it would campaign to remain within the European Union. The Scottish Trade Union's Congress, the General Council believes that the option that aligns best with the STUC's economic and social justice objectives is for the UK to remain a member of the EU. The Church of Scotland, 24 May, reverend Sally Foster-Fulton, for the last 20 years has recognised the European Union's achievements in promoting peace and security, and we are reaffirmed to that position today. NFU Scotland, President Allen Bowie, has said that a robust debate among our board of directors and wider membership looking at the economic arguments around the EU has seen NFU Scotland come off the fence in favour of remaining in the EU at the current time, and that is a position that is shared among other UK farming unions. We heard from Clare Adamson about the university, the important of horizon 2020. It is not about just about the history and the present benefits of the EU, it is what we can do in shaping the future, challenging and taking on the big issues and the big economic opportunities for the future, but also the invention, the research, the leading lights of democracy, debate and innovation and invention. Those things are all capable and capable, yes, outside the EU, but how much better is it in the ability to connect with so many of the cities, the institutions, the creative economies that are broad in the EU? In terms of some of those areas and those arguments, Claudia Beamish, I thought, made a very informed debate point about natural resources and the importance to our environment. John Mason, I thought, touched on one of the points, as we talk about the EU and the abstract. We are actually talking about collaboration with our friends in the Netherlands, with Dutch people, with Germans, with French, with people who make out those connections and help shape what we do going forward. In terms of some of the other contributions in particular, I want to reflect on Mary Fee's point. She made a very passionate case about working women and what the EU meant for working women. We have to take the abstract from the institutional and make it personal and make it real, and she did that in an excellent contribution. It is very rare, perhaps, that we have those debates in which we can get consensus across the chamber. I am very pleased that we can do that. In terms of summing up in conclusion, not just as we are responsible for articulating the case, we bring the voices of Scotland into the chamber. We have all spent a number of weeks on the doorsteps. I talked about the civic institutions and their voices. We can argue our party's position, we can argue our personal position, but our former responsibility is to reflect wider Scotland and bring its voices into the chamber. I think that that has been done in the debate today. I want to look at the task ahead about how, from our different perspectives, we can agree on the importance of Scotland's European membership. If, like me, you support Scotland and the UK remaining in the European Union, we must take that case enthusiastically with passion, but with reason and the rational case that the Scottish voters expect from the politics and debates that we have from the chamber, but out more important in society and the economy at large. Through our EU membership, the people of Scotland have enjoyed many opportunities, the right to live, work and study abroad, that chance to co-operate with like-minded people across Europe. That opportunity must be there for future generations, but we should never, ever forget the birthplace of that co-operation across Europe. I think that, with the Mike Russell's contribution and indeed others, remaining grounded in that perspective and the importance of a union of 28 members that has sustained that period in peace and prosperity is very important. It is important that future generations can enjoy those same benefits and assume a leading role in the EU. I want to finish, perhaps unusually, on a Conservative member's contribution. I thought that John Scott, an excellent contribution, said that it was important to help to solve the problems of Europe rather than add to them. I think that the voice of Scotland is not just about what we get from Europe in material terms, it is what we can contribute, it is a case of arguing what we can give in the wider world, not just what we can get. I think that, ultimately, is the big argument of the big picture of why we should co-operate with our colleagues across Europe and remain in the European Union. That concludes the debate on Scotland in the European Union. I now suspend this meeting until 2 o'clock.