 Rhaid fawr yn fawr i chi'w gweithio ar y 16 yma o'r Ysgrifennu Llywodraeth i'r Ysgrifennu Llywodraeth i'r Gweithio a'r Fawr? Rydw i'n ddeg, mae'n ddim gwybod ychydig yn gwych iawn ar gyfer oedd, mae hi'n ddeg. Rydym ni'n nhw'n gwybod gyda Hanzala, rydym yn fawr i'r ysgrifennu Llywodraeth i'r gwybod gyda Hanzala a fawr i'r ddeg, rydym yn ei ddeg i chi'n gwybod cyntaf yn ddolwg gyda Rodd Campbell, who has had a bereavement, and substituting for Rodd today. I am delighted to welcome David Torrance, MSP. Before we kick off into the agenda, Mr Torrance, have you any interest to declare in relation to this committee? Nothing to declare, Chair. Thank you very much. That allows us to move on to agenda item 1, which is a report from the Committee of the Regions, put together by Stuart Maxwell MSP. Felly, mae'n gwneud o gyflawni'r gweithio'r cymdeithasol a'r cyllidio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Willie Rathbone. Thank you. She is quite an extensive reporter there from Stuart Maxwell, and I have taken her back to the breadth and depth subjects that are covered there. Of course, I was looking through it for any inclusion of the issues that are feature regularly at this committee. That andонец on the broadband infrastructure and that kind of stuff. I'm wondering if the Committee of Regions gets an opportunity to engage with that particular subject and if they do what their deliberations might have been on that, as we've asked before about this issue, and on a number of occasions. I'm sure that's something that we could definitely pick up. Margaret dever platforms can do that. Any other comments? Mae'r report, ond go ty, yn ddylched arbenig ac yn achos i chi'n ty, rwy'n mynd i'n credu gwybod i'w ynghylch ag y mynd i'w gwsiannol yr oedwnaeth a ddiddoriaeth a ni'n ddiddoriaeth. Rwy'n gweithio i chi'n gweithu'r report i gyd, ond rydych yn gwneud hynny, ond rydych chi'n gweithio'r Dyfynigau Dysg formulas yna ac y mynd i chi'n gweithio'r y dyfodd arweithio fod yn cael ei bobl ac rydyn ni'r lleiwyr y byddurol. Mae, ond, mae gennym ddigon rhaid i ddyn nhw, rhai gynllen yw'r reisgwyrdd ar y crosesu. Rydyn ni'n gweld ar gyfer gwithiau diwrnodau i'r gwasanaeth, os yw'r rhenni gyflym, os yw'r rhai gwym esfforol a'r gwaith, fy mwy ffordd, y blynyddol, dych yn ymgyrchu'r ffordd ac oedd yw eich bryd yw arddangos? Ond ydych chi'n gwybod o'i cyfnod o'r oddymau sy'n gallu fod yn ôl a roedden ni nhw'n gwneud eich bod yn ymddangosu a'r odau, i wneud? Rwy'n meddwl am gyfnodol, cyhoeddiol. Felly ikr y gallwn eu gallwch chi fy ymddynu ymddynu Ymddindig? Ymddyno i'r cwmwythgawyd yng nghymru o'r diolch ddweud y lleth yw'n gweithio, a'r newid i'r bandhaorell i ganwethaeth iddo. Mae'r petisiwn diddyn nhw'n rhan o'r lludio hwn. Mae rosell rhan o'r petisiwn a'r lathodd ddwy. Felly hynny ychydiggymwyr y gallwch chi'n gwneud y byddwch'r bandhaorell i'r byddwch'r raddwch a'r bandhaorell i'r pandhaorell i'r byddwch, ac yn gorch gwybod i'n ddoch yn cefnodol â tŷn a'r rharol, i'n ddwy o'r viwgig i'r penderfyn yn llehau i'r ddwy o'r gweithio'r parsleyn, Again, another very detailed and hefty document from a number of cabinet secretaries on EU structural funds arising 2020 for online learning and primary skills and transposition of EU directives. Again, any comments, questions, clarifications? Jimmy? No, it's the reports from the Scottish Government. Oh, sorry. It's paper two. Willie Coffey. Thanks, convener, on the first item that's noted there on the structural and investment funds. Members will recall and see on page five the item relating to youth employment initiative that will hopefully particularly make an impact in south west Scotland in Ershire where I represent. I was just hoping that we'd be able to keep a close eye on developments there if it's appropriate for that to come to this committee because I know members were interested in what the work might entail. I'd certainly be interested from a constituency point of view just exactly what happens to tackle youth employment from a European perspective in my constituency. So I'd appreciate any kind of update in progress with this work, convener, if we can get that brought to the committee. Busy autumn schedule, shaping up already. Alec? Yeah, I mean, I would agree entirely with Willie on that, but I think the other point is that often you get employers and third sector organisations talking about the bureaucracy that can be involved with most European initiatives. And certainly talking to employers in my constituency 5 council, for example, of a scheme, a youth contract scheme up and running. And one of the strengths that they talk about that scheme is the lack of bureaucracy where employers can get on with it. And a lot of employers as I understand that are put off by some of these schemes because you've got some involved in it. So it would be good, I think, to actually get a better understanding of how this operates and what it means and what kind of bureaucracies attached to it. Yeah. No, I absolutely agree with you and it is. I used to run a European social funded project myself many years ago and it was before computers, before we did. So it was all paperwork. But you're absolutely right and we've sort of leaned on the wise council of five enterprise and the past, Helen Eadie, was a great champion of them and they were always very good at consulting and giving very good resolutions to problems for this committee. So not again another aspect we should follow, definitely. Jimmy. On point at number 11 and the recommendations, the committee may also wish to suggest to the Scottish Government that all further updates are sent directly to the education and culture committee rather than ourselves. I would, because we spent so much time on that, that the foreign languages in primary schools thing and because I think foreign languages are important to this committee, that I think we should still get an update on what's happening there. That's my opinion anyway. Yeah. Rather than send it straight to it because it is something we did a big, you know, it was very much our, what was it called, the Barcelona? Yeah, the one plus two model. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean I think it's something that needs watching because we don't know if it's working or not. You know it was an experimental thing and I think the committee should keep an eye on it. Keep an eye on it. I think maybe if we can ask our colleague Claire Adamson, she's a rapporteur to the education committee for Europe, just maybe what the education committee is doing with this and then we can see where we go from there. Yeah, Claire. Yeah, certainly happy to do that. I think it was always a bit of an anomaly that this came to this committee, even though it's European languages, because it does sit very much within education and within delivery in the schools, but I'm sure we can ensure that the committee's kept fully up to date on the progress. I think that's a sensible suggestion and I think we should follow that. I think you're right, this is basically our baby, isn't it? I want to keep an eye on it growing up. Yeah, I think we should do that as well. Okay, there's a number of recommendations on page one and two. I don't know if anybody's got any comments they want to make. They're basically just about the committee considering, you know, to follow up the reports or follow up. Yeah, the horizon 2020 is one that I've kept a close eye on as well. So on EU structural funds, structural investment funds, Willie's made the recommendation that we have a detailed look at the broadband issue and maybe get some information on that, but our committee members content to keep an eye on that and keep the focus that we've had on ensuring, you know, how the funding streams are operating and the success of them. Yeah, happy to do that. And it would be the same for horizon 2020. I think we'd be keen to have regular updates on that and how that's operating as well, given it's new. And it has that link with small business that you were very keen on, Jamie. Again, with the foreign languages and primary skills, we will keep an eye on that. And the last section is about transposition of EU directives and the youth employment thingy, of course, of course. I think Alex's point of bureaucracy was very well made in one of the aspects of the horizon 2020, especially the conference that we held was about streamlining that bureaucracy and it would be really good to get some proper feedback as to whether or not the aims of reducing the bureaucracy around horizon 2020 have actually been made. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I'm happy to note all of these reports and share and follow up, as suggested, and forward to the relevant subject committees for the bruiso. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. And that moves us on swiftly to agenda item three, which is our Brussels Billetin. Jamie. Am I right in thinking we've got the Italian ambassador coming at some point? We have. The 30s of October, the 9th? Well, it struck me that because the Italian president is the council of the EU is obviously taking over from Greece. And the priorities are economic growth, citizenship, justice, tourism and global engagement. And I thought these were all issues that we should prepare to question him on maybe when he comes on the 30th of October. That's the end thing. I sort of drew out of it. Yeah. We'll have a business planning day in September as well, where we'll be planning out the rest of the business for the rest of the year, so we can have a more detailed conversation about what, how we want to formulate that session. Yeah. Lening. Sorry. I've just been reminded the business planning day is in October, because it usually is September, but we'll forget a slight change of business in September this year. Alex. I don't want to create more work for the committee, so I'm not quite sure how best to try and achieve this, but it's really the question on ports and the links with Europe and Scotland. And I'm just wondering whether it would be a briefing or what we would do. I mean, in my constituency we have the port of Versailles, and there was a ferry, a regular ferry, a daily ferry running to one of the European ports, and that's now ceased. And it would be good to get a better understanding, I think, of what the ports are operating in Scotland, what the links are with Europe, both in terms of car going and in terms of passengers. And I just wonder if that's something we can look at. I'm sure we need the committee to do it or whether it's a piece of work that could be done for us. What we can do is, I know that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee has been looking at this issue in detail. So what we can do is ask the clerks to coordinate with those clerks to see if we can get some sort of a briefing and then we can decide where to go from there, because if they've already done a big piece of work then it would be, you know, we shouldn't maybe cross over that, but there's maybe areas of it from the EU point of view that we can pick up on. Billy Coffey. Thanks again, convener. It's in page nine of the bulletin there, and it's the item about access to finance for research and innovation. Members will see that through the commission and the European investment bank there's a potential pot of 24 billion euros for research and innovation for small SMEs. And the question, I suppose, is how do we make sure that companies in Scotland get cited on this, because you'll notice again, convener, that this money is demand-driven, so if you don't ask, you don't get it. So I think it's important that when we see information like this, which looks fantastic, great opportunities there for Scottish companies, how do they then get made aware of this? I know it's coming under rise in 2020, I think. But it would be great if there's some other mechanism here to alert companies in Scotland to the potential for this kind of thing, because if they don't make any application for any of the funding, they don't get any. There's no prior allocations regionally or geographically or anything like that. So it's quite an important pot of research money there that I think Scottish companies would love to hear about and find a little bit more about. No, I think it's a point we all made in something we should look at when we are looking at the structural funds in its entirety. The other point I wanted to make on that is in the report from the Government, they're suggesting that we did very, very well from FP7, which was the predecessor of Arise in 2020. So maybe looking at how did we punch above our weight in that and how do we maintain that and sustain it and actually grow it is maybe something that we should be looking at in more detail as well. I know that the Scottish Government talked about a portal of information, so we could maybe look for an update on how that's progressing. It was an item that was a favourite one of Helen Eadie, the committee that how do we get access and get hold of the information and make it easy to understand and easy to apply for. Helen always raised that at this committee quite rightly, that how does Scotland get access to the funds that are available and this one in particular is entirely demand driven. So if you don't ask for any of it, you don't get any allocation. So that would be very helpful, convener. We can do that as well, and we can definitely do that. Thank you, convener. I was very interested in FP7 and the section on biofuels. Obviously, this has been a contentious issue in some respects in where developing world countries have been used to grow palm oil and its impact on the food generation in those areas and things, but I was also very interested this week to hear about a research project that's using byproduct from whisky to create biofuels, and it would be really interesting if we could maybe have at some point a follow-up as to how that research project is going and really what the global impact is of this biofuels directive and what happens to biofuels that are actually grown out with the EU and imported into the EU and how that affects it. Another one for the list. Anything else? There was one point that I wish to pick up and it's directive on nuclear safety, and again, it's much, much the same about looking at the apparent strength and regulatory framework and about co-operation across borders and the directive actually strengthens transparency by ensuring that the public has the right to participate in the decision-making process relating to nuclear installations, which I think would be something of interest to us all, given the energy that is pardoned upon such a hot topic right now. Again, just again, something maybe we should seek some additional information on. What that directive actually means, what it means for existing power stations and what it means for proposed future power stations, nuclear power stations. Okay, anything else from the Brussels bulletin? Content? Happy to make the Brussels bulletin available to the relevant committees and highlight the actual points that we've discussed today to the specific committees. Content? Thank you very much. Our next agenda item is our evidence session with the minister. I'm going to suspend briefly to allow the minister to come down to committee and take his seat, so we'll suspend until the minister arrives and come back together then. Okay, suspend the committee. Good morning and welcome back to the European and External Relations Committee. We are continuing on with our agenda for today, which is agenda item 4, which is Scottish Government's proposals for an independent Scotland. The focus of this evidence session is external affairs and international development. It is the main item on our agenda today and we are delighted to welcome back to committee. Minister for External Affairs and International Development, Hamza Yousaf, welcome minister and good morning. Russell Bain, who is the external affairs policy manager and Nicola Plunkett, who is the head of migration. Welcome both minister to our committee this morning. Minister, I believe that you have some opening remarks. Yes, just a few. Thank you convener and grateful for the committee's invitation to be here. I look forward to answering the extensive questions that you have. I'd like to thank the committee for conducting their three evidence sessions. I thought that their round table discussions produced a very valuable contribution to the debate about an independent Scotland's role in place in the world. They have demonstrated the important and influential role that Scotland already plays in global affairs and the experts collective evidence has again shown how much more I believe could be achieved given a yes vote in September. They brings me on to a point that I wish to stress. Independence is not just about the size of aid budgets or the number of embassies, although these, of course, are important factors. It is about Scotland being able to represent itself on the world's days to make its own decisions, to be able to influence, to be able to interact with other international actors in its own way. This is in contrast to being represented, and I would say often underrepresented by a Westminster Government that, understandably, often bases its actions on different international priorities. In terms of international development, as was highlighted in the first evidence session of the committee, Scotland has already acknowledged as taking and making a unique contribution and taking an innovative approach in certain aspects of international development, particularly in our reciprocal relationship and partnership that we have with Malawi. We also have recognised expertise in climate justice, climate change, renewable energy, in education, in health improvement and, indeed, in academic research. This is an exceptionally strong starting point and position for independent Scotland to make a real difference internationally as we seek to share that knowledge, share those skills and technical expertise, for example in water and sanitisation, renewable energy and education. Being a global leader in international development is not necessarily about a country's size and absolute monetary terms, but the impact it can make. If we look at various indices that measure overall contribution in international development, countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway, countries that are of similar size to Scotland, rank higher than the UK for the contribution that they make. In relation to the evidence session that you took on citizenship and migration, again, I thought that it was a thoroughly useful contribution to the debate, one that I read with great interest. One of the topics that are covered in immigration is that I see a significant game of independence being the power to develop our own controlled immigration system that allows Scotland to flourish, control over our own immigration system, and it gives us the ability to look outside our nation and attract talented individuals from around the world. We, of course, need to continue to support the existing workforce to develop their abilities to fill specialist roles in sectors such as engineering, science or medical profession. However, domestic recruitment is not always possible. In those cases, we need to be able to recruit and fulfil those positions from international skilled workers. Scotland benefits when we encourage skilled migrants to move here and when we encourage international students to not just study here but to stay on here and work in Scotland after the studies. That is why we propose, for example, to reintroduce the post-study work visa. I was happy to see that in your evidence session on 15 May, Professor Robert Wright noted the benefits of encouraging talented individuals to stay on in Scotland post-study. The control of a citizenship also gives an independent Scotland the chance to take a very different approach. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive model of citizenship, recognising the shared history of Scotland and, indeed, of the UK by offering dual citizenship, for example. The UK provides that dual citizenship with other countries and we welcome the common sense position confirmed by the UK Government's paper on borders and citizenship that there will be no barriers to joint citizenship with an independent Scotland. In regard to asylum policy on asylum, as the committee knows, it is currently reserved to the UK Government. While there is much that we can do in terms of integration within the current reserved devolved powers, the overall circumstance does place limits on the real progress that we wish to make in terms of the asylum process. It also makes us vulnerable to the imposition of policies and initiatives that we do not like and are, frankly, just plain wrong, such as the go-home campaign. In an independent Scotland, the current Scottish Government would establish a separate asylum system to the immigration system, asylum applications. In terms of asylum integration, from day one, that policy would continue. We would close Dungeval, we would end the practice of Don Raids and the inhumane treatment of those who have exercised their better legitimate right to seek asylum. On the topic of the committee's final evidence session on international policy, it is important to note that our prospectus on independence is not one that rests on issues in terms of how many embassies we would have. These are details that change for all states as their foreign policy develops. Rather, we want to focus on the opportunities that independence would provide and would offer in terms of what Scotland could achieve in setting our own foreign policy. Our priorities for this are clear in Scotland's future. They are based around a very clear framework of participating in rules-based international cooperation, protecting Scotland's people and resource and promoting sustainable economic growth. We believe that this framework would enable us to deliver a set of policies that are focused on our national interests in accordance with our priorities. I was very pleased to hear the experts' evidence from this session, reinforcing the view that small states have the ability to be very influential and successful on the global stage, and again highlighting that it would be in all of NATO's members' interests to have an independent Scotland continue its membership of NATO. I am sure that members will have plenty of questions on a wide variety of issues. I thank you for the opportunities and the opportunity to make my remarks. I am now very happy to answer the committee's questions. Thank you very much, minister. You covered all the areas that we have covered. One of the things that jumped out for me was about the role that Scotland would play internationally and how you would see that role developing and developing in a very positive way. How do you match that against some of the recent comments of Lord George Roberts in very recently saying that the safety of the world would be put at risk, independence would be cataclysmic and we would be welcoming the force of darkness? That does not seem to jars with the independent Scotland that you have just talked about being internationalist, international co-operation, working in partnership and looking at a very positive role. I wonder if you could give us your comments on that. I will try to be as diplomatic as I possibly can because I am debating Lord George Roberts and tomorrow, so I have to use all my best lines tomorrow, I suppose. In terms of Lord George Robertson, I think that even those who are on the same side of him constitutionally have distanced himself from those kind of ridiculous remarks. They have not been repeated by the majority of those who support, for example, his position in the constitution. I think that that is correct to distanced himself from that. I think that his hyperbolic remarks and prophecies of doom and gloom were ridiculous. I have the great pleasure and the great honour and the role that I have to travel across Scotland and promote Scotland and speak about Scotland on every continent on this earth. Whenever I travel, when I tell people that I am from the UK, I get a fairly warm reception. Of course, when I tell them that I am from Scotland, the smile gets even wider and I have never once told somebody that I am from Scotland and received a negative reception or a hostile reception whatsoever. In terms of Scotland's priorities and where we would be, and we certainly wouldn't be aligned with the dark forces by any stretch of the imagination and the approach that we've laid out in Scotland's future, for example, continuing to be members of NATO shows, our co-operation and the fact that we see a responsibility to our neighbours, be they over the Atlantic in the United States and Canada, of course, closer in terms of the European continent, that we take that responsibility to our neighbours very, very seriously. And there will be many occasions where we will agree with the UK Government in terms of foreign policy and that will be a good thing for the international stage, because instead of having one voice, they'll have two voices that agree. But with independence, of course, where we have a different path, we'll be able to have our voice heard on the international stage. So I think, I don't want to dwell too much on Lord George Robinson, I think, his remarks have been widely dismissed, I think, those he has formed in making predictions that don't often come true, and I think those who are on the same side of him are right to distance themselves from his remarks. Colleagues for questions? Janine McGregor Just on the debt relief minister, I know the Scottish Government will give careful consideration to the question of unjust debts and is proposing to support moves to establish Scotland as an international centre for debt arbitration, which is, you know, a fine idea. Where does it mostly take place at the moment and how do you see the transfer, I mean, how will you start that off? Yes, thank you for the question. The Jubilee campaign, I must commend the work that the Jubilee campaign has done across the UK in terms of debt relief, and I would certainly suggest for any member that's interested in debt relief to not just look at the proposals that we've put forward, but those by the Jubilee campaign, which is many of the discussions that we had. The prime example and the exemplar in terms of debt relief is Norry. They completed a debt audit just at the, I think it was the end of last year, but it was certainly in the last 12 months that they completed a debt audit, so they got outside auditors to come in to do a complete debt audit of the countries that owe them debt, and now that, of course, debt audit will be able to provide the framework by which to relieve debt to the developing world. The UK Government has made moves in that regard over the previous years as well, and so there's an example and there's a precedent that's there. I suppose our argument is that it's not gone nearly far enough, and so we're giving very, very careful consideration to the issue of debt relief and we're continuing to talk to stakeholders. The principle is one of absolute fairness and justice, and I think that the member would recognise us. It's inconceivable that this debt that has been racked up, which, by the way, the debt that is owed from the developing world far outweighs any of the contributions of aid, and some of that debt has been racked up from military and defence equipment that has been sold to some of the most brutal dictators in the world that's seen, for example, Saddam Hussein, Robert MacGabby, General Saharto, the Argentinian military in Junta, just to name a few. It's a principle of fairness, so we look at the Norwegian debt audit and we look at that in terms of careful consideration. I would love Scotland, that is a role that I would love to see Scotland play in terms of debt arbitration. If we can get to a position looking at the Norwegian model of debt relief and ensuring that our future export and credit agency for an independent Scotland does not commit to developing world and to unfair debt, then I think that that would be a great exemplar for the world and a great standing for us on the international stage. I think that this is the thing with small states and small independent countries, is that they have to carve themselves a very unique niche and they can then look to be an exemplar on a leader in that niche and I think that debt arbitration is perhaps one of those examples. Minister, just following on from the theme that Jamie McGregor kicked off there, part of the Scottish Government policies do no harm policy. We heard from many witnesses that that was a very positive step, but they were looking for a more proactive, do-good approach across all Scottish Government policy areas, but obviously particularly in relation to international development work. I hope that we can give us some insight into your thoughts on that. Yes, I think that again the work of NIDOS, the network of international development organisations Scotland, has to be commended to the committee and reading your evidence sessions. I think it was Gillian Wilson who was making the point about having pro-poor policies and I think she is correct. In some regards, some of that can be done at the moment within the devolved settlement and we look to do that. For example, we work very closely with education officials and Cabinet Secretary for Education and myself work very closely on the agenda for international development. For example, £600,000 was made available to development education centres across Scotland. That £600,000 was to enable education of Scots, living here of course within our schools in terms of the importance of international development, so that from a young age we can sow the seed of international development, so that when they grow older they will not believe that international development should be sacrificed for domestic spend and so on and so forth. We are already working across. I think that those that make that point and made that point at the committee is one for us to reflect on. Perhaps there is a better term than do no harm. The other term that is often used is policy coherence for development, but it is not the sexiest title in the world. There is perhaps a need for us to think about how we term it a little bit better. However, there is already that joined up working inter-governmentally. I work very closely with education officials, health officials and many others to see what more we can do. A former president of Malawi, her visit here last year, showed that where John Swinney, the cabinet secretary for finance, for example, was part of a ribbon table looking at investment in Malawi to see how trade can help to lift people out of poverty too. That work cross-governmentally and proactively is happening, but with independence when we have the full levers of trade and the full levers of tax and economy and full control over the devolved areas of defence and arms trade, we can be a lot more holistic in that approach. Minister, the evidence sessions that we have been taking are to inform the debate about Scottish independence and the two possible futures for Scotland. I was interested if I could pick up on two points from your opening remarks. The first one is about the willingness to put an end to Don Raids. Obviously, that has been a very important issue in Scotland, not least of which was the campaign of the seven young women from Glasgow, the Glasgow Girls. The subject of award-winning musical by the National Theatre of Scotland was campaigned against Don Raids and their own communities. At that time, we had a Labour Government and Westminster and Labour Coalition Government in the Scottish Parliament, but Jack McConnell was unable to secure the end of Don Raids as the First Minister of Scotland at that time. The other area is the fresh talent initiative. Jack McConnell brought that forward as leader of the Labour Party. It was welcomed, it was recognised that Scotland needed a different position in terms of post-education visas because of the needs of the economy here and yet again what we have seen has been taken away. I wonder if you could expand on what you think that means about the relationship that we have within the devolved settlements and what opportunities there would be with independence in those two areas? I think that the point is well made. Lord McConnell is somebody that I have a huge amount of respect for. Since I came into the role as Minister for External Affairs, I have never been short to credit him for the work that he did in the re-establishment of that connection with Malawi. He is somebody that I go to for advice often on the subject. In fact, I was on the phone with him yesterday. I think that he was absolutely sincere in his desire to end on raids. I think that he was absolutely sincere in that. I think that he genuinely saw as a stain on the conscience of this nation. I do not doubt the sincerity of Lord McConnell, and that is what makes it even more tragic that there was a man who is incredibly sincere about his intention and desire to end such a horrific practice of six officers beating down your door at four in the morning and dragging your children out to detention centres is not something that is justified, not even as a last resort, let alone a first resort. However, you are absolutely correct. The fallacy is that, regardless of that desire as First Minister of Scotland and having his own party and Government at the time in Westminster, he was still unable to do anything about it. There were some words about a possible MOU, but that was never fulfilled and Don Rae's continued. Some will say that they even continued to this day. There is still asylum seekers who claim that it happens in the Scottish Refugee Council and others who have claimed that it still happens to this day. It does not bear well, because even if you have two Governments aligned in the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, it does not mean that you will have—even if the political will is coming from the Scottish Government to do something—that you will necessarily get it. The fresh talent initiative is just a continuation of that. We are again a really excellent policy and credit the previous Government for having the foresight to bring that in, I think, an excellent initiative. It did not come without its problems and they should be tweaked for any future post-study work visa, but generally it is a very good scheme. I noticed the comments from the evidence session from Professor Robert Wright on this one, in particular, saying that he just could not understand why on earth he would not have a system that he would look to retain those who studied here. It just makes no economic sense. It makes no sense whatsoever to spend time and effort on studying some of the best minds from across the world and then letting them just go back to either their own country or leave for destinations anew. In fact, he also mentioned in his evidence, and in the evidence given to the committee, that we are getting beaten by other countries in this—other English-speaking countries, I think, Australia and Canada, in particular, who have seen a dramatic increase in international students. Whereas, of course, we have seen a decrease in students from India, from Pakistan and Nigeria. You are absolutely correct to make reference to the fresh talent initiative. The relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government was removed, as you know, by the UK Government in 2010. I cannot see any other reason for it being removed other than the arbitrary cap that it has on numbers, which, by its own admission, are not going to meet. Student numbers should not even be in that consideration in the first place, regardless. So, there is clearly benefits to introducing a post-study work visa now, as logical as I think it is, being a member of the Government, as logical as the First Minister thinks it is, as logical as the Parliament, because we had a debate, of course, on some of these matters recently in the Scottish Parliament, and it was almost, I think, pretty much unanimous agreement that a post-study work visa would make a lot of sense across that Parliament, regardless of how desirable the universities of Scotland see it as, regardless of how desirable the Institute of Directors see it, regardless of all of that, I would not even say political will, but political, civic society, educational and academic will that there is to be a post-study work visa, we can do absolutely nothing about it, because the UK Government, at the moment, is held bent on reducing numbers and including student numbers within that. I do not have any faith that, if there is a future Westminster Government of a different colour, that will change whatsoever. I have been given no indication that they would do that. In fact, their retro-economisation is just the same as the Government that is in at the moment. I think that it is deeply sad, but, of course, my hope and desire is that, on 18 September, if the people of Scotland choose to vote yes, then this will be a policy that, of course, will reintroduce because it makes sense economically, but also educationally and socially as well. Minister, thank you. I think that we have many examples of how Scotland's attitude right now is perhaps different from the rest of the UK in some of these areas. But one of the things that caused great concern in Scotland last year was the go-home campaign with the Home Office, and I just wonder if you would be willing to comment on how you think that if there is a no vote, that policy might continue in the UK. I am deeply concerned by the rhetoric and the tone of the debate emanating from Westminster, and I must be fair to the Liberal Democrats. They often challenge that rhetoric and must be fair in that regard. From the two main parties that dominate Westminster politics, there is a dreadful tone of debate. My plea has always been not to try to out-Ukip, but to challenge UKIP's rhetoric, and there is a general election less than a year away that is nervous about how well UKIP might do. The response, I believe, as a Scottish Government has done, should be to challenge that and confront that rhetoric. Now, I was deeply disappointed that UKIP won a seat here, for example in the European elections, but to put that in context, they came forth here with 10 per cent of the vote, whereas they came first with almost 30 per cent of the vote in the rest of the UK. That is because you cannot out-Ukip UKIP if people vote for UKIP because they want immigration to be slashed and cut and they believe the negative rhetoric, then they are going to vote for UKIP. They are not going to vote for somebody who is a lighter shade of UKIP or a watered-down UKIP, they are going to go for semi-skimmed when you can get the full fat stuff. My plea is to challenge that, but I do not see it being challenged. Even from the Liberal Democrats who I was being fair to, they, of course, are part of a coalition Government that decided to have Home Office vans drive around parts of London emblazoned with the slogan, go home, and even Brand Street and Glasgow had posters that said, go home. This is the worst of insults, and there may be members here who have had to face some sort of racial or ethnic abuse, and if you have, and somebody who has, there is no worse insult than being told to go home, because you do not have another home. I lived my whole life here. I spent my whole time here. This is the place that I do not have another home. I could not go anywhere else to see that. That has been shouted at me before, by members of the Scottish Defence League and others before. It really grinds as an insult. It deeply hurts. I am deeply worried about the tone of the debate, and I do not see anywhere where it can change. Scotland could change it if we choose to have an immigration policy that is to our economic and educational benefit. If we have an asylum process that is fair, that is compassionate, that is humane, then we could be a progressive beacon not just for these islands, but for the whole of Europe, because that tide, and we saw in the European elections, arise, of course, with the front national and other parties. We could be a leading light for the rest of the European continent that, actually, we are going to stand up against a negative rhetoric, we are going to challenge it, and we will be economically and educationally and socially benefit from it. I would like to open up a little discussion if I can about Scotland's role within the European Union as an independent nation and the kind of influence that we might bring to bear as a small member state. You cannot have failed to have read or heard about the current spat between the present United Kingdom Prime Minister about the Junklord Junker issue. During our committee's discussions over the past while there has been a debate about whether Scotland's role as a small nation can be influential enough and, of course, whether we would be better off as part of a big nation state. I am just checking my notes here from the current news about this issue about Mr Junker. It appears that the United Kingdom has one ally on this matter, 28 member states. Generally speaking, what would Scotland's role be as a small nation state? How would we influence our colleagues in partner countries within the European Union to represent Scotland as best as we possibly can? How would we grow and develop our relations? Would you care to comment on the UK position, which appeared to me to isolate Scotland much more than we would wish to? I think that you have commented a number of times publicly that the way to negotiate within the European Union is not to hold a gun to the European Union's head. It just does not work as a negotiating tactic. It is not how you negotiate. This 2017 promised referendum in and out of Europe is exactly that. It is not winning the UK any friends by any stretch of the imagination. Small states within the European Union have been incredibly successful. In fact, there is evidence to suggest—I was just looking at the article—by LSE professors that France and Germany are among the least successful EU states in negotiating legislation, and smaller countries are much better at negotiating their position within the European Union. That is by Jonathan Golub, who is an LSE professor. Again, I would commend the article to the committee. Small states can have great success in negotiating their position. An example of that would be, of course, the fact that the First Minister said last week at a Royal Highland show that if Scotland was an independent country, we would have had a 3.5 billion euro dividend. That was based on Ireland's negotiating position in terms of per hectare. Scotland would be able to have its own voice. Scotland would be an engaging member of the European Union. Yes, the European Union needs reform. I do not think that there is a single member state out of the 28 that exists. There is not a single member state that does not think that the European Union needs some sort of reform. However, the way to do that is by being a constructive partner, and that would be Scotland's role within the European Union as a constructive, small and independent nation. Do you see a risk in the future if we remain part of the United Kingdom and we do, on the back of a vote perhaps in the rest of the UK, leave the European Union? Very recently as yesterday, I think, Danny Alexander warned on a speech in America that that risk could put at risk over 3 million jobs in the United Kingdom if it were to leave the European Union. Could you comment about the impact that that might have on Scotland? They have opened a door now that cannot be closed. It is a very dangerous and risky tactic to have taken. I am deeply concerned, not only am I, but many people, regardless of which side of the constitutional setup that they are on, have expressed deep concern at the fact that there will be a promised EU referendum in 2017 for precisely the reasons that you say in Scotland. We could easily see the situation with Scotland as a country within the United Kingdom. We would vote to remain within the European Union, but the rest of the UK would vote to leave. Scotland, of course, by default, would have to leave. That would have a huge impact on jobs, on our educational institutions, and a huge impact on us socially. We have 160,000 European Union citizens living here in Scotland to make a valuable contribution to our country. It is a huge risk for Scotland, and that is why the safest way to guarantee Scotland's continued membership of the European Union is, of course, with a yes vote. There are many that have even publicly commented on this matter. Professor Peter Higgs of Nobel Prize-winning fame has commented, and many others have commented publicly on the dangers of negative EU rhetoric and even leaving the EU, but it has not helped the more edgy to talk, the more hyperbolic the rhetoric, the more the chances of that EU exit increase. Scotland does not want that, and the Scottish people do not want that, and the Scottish Government certainly does not want that. So, back to the potential of Scotland as a small member state within the European Union, and you mentioned, Minister, in some of your opening remarks, about it's not about the numbers of embassies and size and so on and so forth, it's more about impact. How do you see Scotland developing our relations with small member states, and how do you see us reaching out to potential new members of the European Union, and I should caution you, we have guests behind from Serbia, Montenegro and Albania, who have met some of before and have a particularly warm relationship with Scotland. So, how will we work with the smaller member states in Europe, and how will we reach out to other countries that wish to join the European Union, and how will we engage with them? I welcome your guests, first of all, that have come from Serbia, Montenegro and Albania, and if it is the first time to Scotland, let me assure them that it's always this sunny 365 days a year in Scotland. That is the only lie that I will tell on the committee. You know, in Scotland, we will be good at doing that. You know, small countries as Dr Julia Carbo had mentioned in her evidence, small nations are able to, you're able to steer a small ship easier than a big ship, so you're able to be a lot more flexible, a lot more nimble in terms of the areas that you wish to delve into in depth and those that you wish to perhaps not go into so much depth in. You're also able to change tack, you're also able to negotiate, be nimble in negotiations and so on. Other small nations across the European Union, but also across the European continent that are not in the EU yet, we'll look to have that alliance of smaller nations and look to build that. Those small nations have been, as I say, in the report from LSE professors and others. Those small countries, by building those alliances, have actually been more successful in terms of negotiations and islands, a great example of that in a country that we would look to have enormously close ties and even closer ties than we have at the moment with independence. An island have shown how they can do that. They have negotiated one of the better deals in regards to cap reform. That's not to say that if the rest of the UK continues to be within the European Union, we wouldn't work closely with them. We absolutely would. The rest of the UK would be our closest ally, but we are in a position to be small and nimble enough wherever Scotland's interests are to make sure that we form and build alliances with them. Small states have shown how they've done that effectively with the European Union and I think that Scotland could be a useful addition to that. Look, in independent Scotland, we'll be seen by many as a gateway into the rest of the UK in regards to our relationship, because our relationship with the rest of the UK will be, as is often said by Scottish Government ministers, one of equals. Going from perhaps a surly lodger to a good neighbour is often the phrase that's used. Nobody will have a closer relationship with the rest of the UK than Scotland would have, an independent Scotland would have. For other people who want to connect to the rest of the UK and the rest of the UK Government, I think that Scotland would be an absolute conduit to do that. That relationship with the rest of the UK is very important, but as the member rightly says, developing alliances with smaller nations will be to our benefit and to the benefit of others, and I think we'll be able to negotiate much better if we do that. Strengths do we bring to the table? You mentioned a few items there in your March about climate justice renewable energy. Are members of the European Union aware of Scotland's strengths and what we bring to the table and expertise and skills and so on, and what would your plans be to make sure that that offer is made to Europe? I see Scotland as bringing more to the European table than we would hope to get from it. I always think that we can make a great contribution in Europe. What kind of strengths does Scotland offer in Europe if we become a member state? The member is absolutely correct. We have a great office out in the EU, Scotland's office. Of course, that would look different if we continued our membership as an independent nation, but they do a great effort in trying to behind the drum of all things that are good Scottish, trying the very best and limited resource that we have. There is some awareness of what Scotland is good at, but at the same time, there is not nearly enough awareness of how much and the breadth of what we do and the depth of what we do. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I held a round table in Brussels on international development. You had many representatives from other nations but also other organisations, NGOs, and representatives from the European Commission, among others. They were blown away by how much we are doing on international development. They had no idea that this small country, as part of the UK, with its own Government and its own Parliament, was doing so much. They had no idea how much we were doing in Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia, and across the subcontinent, and they were fascinated by it. The round table was maybe two hours long, but it could have been 20 hours long and we could have still been talking about it. In terms of an independent nation, we have a really important role to play in international development and the development commission. The EU takes its obligations to the poorest in the world extremely seriously. It works closely with the United Nations for its sustainable energy for all initiative, which is about making sure that the whole world is connected and has access to clean energy. Scotland, of course, is a world leader on renewables and on clean energy in terms of our most ambitious targets and the investment that we put in and the capability that we have would be an absolute leader in Europe in terms of clean energy and what we can bring to the development commission in that regard. Educationally, too. I think that 1 per cent of world-class research is either authored or co-authored by a Scotland for a country of a 0.1 per cent global population. That is not bad going. In terms of research, we can bring a lot to the table in our own right. We are, of course, the largest oil producers in the EU and the largest coastal waters in fisheries. There is a lot of mutual interest between Scotland and the European Union in terms of what the contribution could be. I see us in terms of our contribution to humanity and global humanity, even within a European context, as being one of the key roles that we can look to play and that we can bring to the table. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe, as do others, that Scotland already contributes a great deal to the EU table through the UK, but I would like to get back, if I may, to a question on immigration. On the specific Scottish Government proposals, some witness highlighted issues regarding the proposed geographical incentive for immigrants to move to low-populated areas of Scotland. Now, as an MSP for Highlands and Islands, this is obviously something that would be a very good thing. But there was difficulties, possibly, between a geographic and skills-based criteria for immigrants. Would you like to comment on that and say how you plan to encourage people to move to the areas that are lowly-populated and perhaps need that? I thank the member for the question. I bumped into him in the canteen yesterday and he promised that he would be nice to me at the committee, which I am pleased that he has lived up to thus far. I think that the question is an excellent one. I was pleased to read what the experts said in this regard. I also note that local authorities would very much welcome, have welcomed in a report yesterday, and that migration is a positive thing, and is a good thing for them. What we recommend is looking and exploring the possibility of incentivisation for those rural areas—in particular, but not exclusively rural areas—that would look to exploit immigration where there is a skills gap, perhaps, but also where there is a demographic challenge. You have highlighted it before in some of your evidence sessions about, I think, Argyll and Bute having a steep population decline in your evidence session previously. Migration can be a tool to address that. We have a very good relationship at the moment with COSLA's strategic migration partnership, which is led by Councillor Jeane Jones and many other councillors. We have a great relationship with COSLA's strategic migration partnership. We speak to them on many issues. Anything that we look to do in relation to regional incentive would have to be done hand-in-glove with local authorities in those areas. Incentive does not always mean financial incentive—it can mean financial incentive—but it does not always mean financial incentive. There can be other incentives that can also be drawn on visas and getting access—doing it through a sponsorship model, too. Regional flexibility in other systems across the world is off the work on a sponsorship model that will allow you to work in one particular area and not outwith that area. We are exploring that at the moment in COSLA and its strategic migration partnership, in particular important partners in that discussion. Also, witnesses in our previous meeting specifically discussed how members of the CTA—membership of the CTA, the common travel area—might affect immigration policy in independent Scotland. Would you like to comment on that? Yes. It is an issue that has been raised a few times in the Parliament. The common travel area has existed for 90 years, as the member will know. Scotland will continue to be a member of the common travel area, but it is not impossible by any stretch. In fact, it is very possible to have your own immigration system and yet to be part of the common travel area. Our experience is till that. Ireland does not have the same structure, the same immigration system as the UK, for example. It has a green card system, whereas the UK has a points-based system. The system that we would have would be similar to the UK's. It would be a points-based, tier-based system, yet it operates within the common travel area. In fact, the Irish Government should read the quote, so I do not misquote it, at the Irish Department of Justice. A spokesperson said on 24 January of this year, that the common travel area in no way alters our control over immigration or visa matters and who cannot enter or reside in Ireland. The Irish Government has said through the Department of Justice that there would be no alteration, no pressure on them to alter their immigration system because they are part of the common travel area. Our system would not be hugely different, but it would be tailored to Scotland's needs. Where Scotland's needs are, we would open up points or tiers where there is a skills demand, where there is a demographic demand, where there is an educational demand to do so. At the moment, the current immigration system that the UK Government has is deeply damaging Scotland educationally and economically. There is a range of experts from the International Institute of Directors right through to the University of Scotland who will say just that. Can I bring in a question on the Nordic Council at the minute? There are a couple of supplementaries on this section and then I will bring you back in. Just to follow up on Jamie McGregor's point, Minister, we had evidence from our witnesses who welcomed the Scottish Asylum Agency. The minister will know that that is something personally I have been advocating for for many, many years to have compassion, and especially if it is young children who are unaccompanied asylum seekers to be dealt with by our children's hearing system and our local authority child protection teams, rather than any sort of a border agency. We had supplementary evidence from Sarah Craig at Gramnett, who I am sure you know very well, who had suggested about whether the Scottish Government intended to include an immigration asylum chamber as part of the Scottish Tribunal service. I may be putting you on the spot on that one right now, but it was certainly a very interesting development from the conversations that we had about how this asylum agency would operate. I have great respect for Sarah Craig and the work that she has done. I also know, convener, that this has been a matter of great personal interest to you and campaigning for you before you were even elected to this Parliament. Yes, we have had discussions with Sarah Craig and those at Gramnett, and I think that they do a fantastic job. From an organisation that was only expected to reap in £50,000 for the university who have now just received a grant in the millions, their work speaks absolutely for itself. I commend it again, as I have done for other organisations. I also commend Gramnett, too, for other committee members to see what they do. Sarah Craig has mentioned her work on tribunals and her thoughts on tribunals to us very early on, after the production of the white paper that we held this session, with a number of stakeholders who are interested in immigration and asylum, and she mentioned her thoughts on the tribunal system and how it should work. It is fair to say, convener, that we are still in discussions with Sarah Craig directly as an individual, but also with Gramnett as an organisation. I think that they have very good ideas. We need to look at practically how that can work as well, and we have to work closely with our justice colleagues in order to make sure that that does work. However, you are absolutely correct that the system will be based on fairness, and it will be based on compassion and humanity in terms of an asylum system. I think that that is the problem with the current system. There is no justification at all for the treatment, but the rhetoric, especially, does not justify the treatment. At the moment, we have 3,000 asylum seekers as a rough estimate. 3,000 is not even a tenth of hand in stadium that you are talking about, but 3,000 people. People sometimes conflating the numbers does not help with the rhetoric. Our system will be one that is fair, and there will be people, of course, who are refused asylum. We are currently, again, in discussions with people like the Scottish Refugee Council and others about how that would be dealt with. However, the system will not only be fair, it will not only be compassionate, but it will also be efficient. That is also one of the problems of the current system, and it is not efficient. The current tribunal system is perhaps an example of that. Getting the case right at the first time is going to be incredibly important for a system in an independent Scotland, the fact that a large proportion of cases are overturned and appeal shows how flawed the system is. There is efficiency, fairness and compassion. All those things have to be mixed, and there is a delicate balance to be had, but Sarah Craig and the work of Gramnett is already informing what we are going to do in that regard, and we will continue to inform us. Would the same policy apply to trafficked individuals, given that at this point in time traffic status is determined by the border agency, but people do not seem to have a right to appeal? They have to volunteer for the national referendum mechanism, rather than being cared for and treated as a victim rather than a criminal. Obviously, the Parliament and across all parties take very seriously as the status of trafficked individuals. We have a personal interest in that, and we have personally done a lot of campaigning on the issue of trafficked people, particularly trafficked children and trafficked women. The articulation of the policy, as you say, convener is a commonsensical one, and it is one that we will explore. As I say, we have not determined exactly how our tribunal system will work in that regard, but, of course, we do not want to see the force criminalisation of those who are trafficked. They are not criminals, they are not their fault, they are victims, and they should be absolutely treated in that manner. The UN target of 0.7% spending on international development minister, the UK met that for the first time last year, maybe somewhat surprisingly for such a rich nation, but I have concerns about the indication that the UK Government would wish to include arms trade as part of that international development work. I wonder if you would care to comment on how an independent Scotland would view its international development spend. We have been absolutely unequivocal in that regard. We have said that we would absolutely meet that commitment of 0.7%, but not only would we commit to meet it, we would enshrine it in legislation as well, which I think is incredibly important. We aspirationally look towards targeting 1% in the future as well. We are absolutely unequivocal about that. You put that in context and the committee can do the arithmetic itself, but it is £70 out of £100. It is not a commitment, as some of our press would like to tell you. There is eating up the coffers by any stretch, but it is the smallest, the least that we can do in terms of our commitments to the poorest in the world. I welcome the UK Government meeting that 0.7%, I think that we have to be fair and welcome that as good that they have met that. I hope that they continue to meet it. The problem is, of course, that each of the parties promised to enshrine that in legislation, and they have not lived up to that promise, and they will not live up to it until the next general election, if they promise to or not promise to, their manifestos are still being devised, but they have not enshrined it. That gives us worry. That also has staffing implications for DFID-based and East Kilbride, because a number of additional staff has been created in order to fulfil that 0.7% commitment. By DFID's own accounts that have been explored by the International Development Select Committee and Westminster, that will be a drop in staff numbers. In terms of military spend, it was reported, I think that it was last year, actually, it was February 2013, that it was reported that David Cameron looked to potentially spend money from Britain's aid budget on the military. Oxfam were extraordinarily strong about that, and we absolutely agree with Oxfam, you know, money should be spent on, International Development Select Committee should be spent on schools and not soldiers. That was a very strong mission that came from Oxfam. I am in from international NGOs across the piece, but we very much, we would be concerned about that. We would not spend our aid budget, we would give an absolute commitment not to spend our aid budget on military or defence operations. If nothing else, as well as being wrong in principle, it's also very dangerous. Aid workers are some of the bravest people that I've ever come across. I've had the pleasure of giving the Burns Humanitarian Award out before, and they are some of the bravest people who give up their lives here to go work in some of the most difficult conflict zones in the world. They are already in danger of being confused as enemy spies often, as working for the other side, as operatives, and so they already tread a very, very difficult line. If you're choosing to spend aid budget on defence or peacekeeping even, any element of military, any element of military, then you're in danger of completing the two in Scotland. In Scotland, we've lost aid workers in the field. Khalil Dale, Linda Norgrove, of course, we've lost those aid workers in the field. Every single one of us, whether you're UK Government, Scottish Government, supporters of independence, supporters of the union, all of us deeply, deeply sad at such tragic events, and we feel deep sadness at that. But spending aid money on any type of military operation will only serve to conflate the two, and that will only increase the danger that aid workers face. Thank you. Jamie McGregor, back to a new theme. Yes. Now, in the white paper, it states that Scotland will not require the same scale of diplomatic service as the UK currently maintains. Now, that sounds to me as though that could be taken to say that Scottish people will not get the service they now take for granted. Would you comment on that? Yes. I mean, I disagree with the... Well, that's for the white paper. No, I agree with the white paper, clearly, because I endorse the white paper, really, but I disagree with the conclusion that you've reached from what the white paper says. The white paper says, very clearly, we'll have 70 to 90 diplomatic services across the world. Now, smaller countries and those of our similar size, that is what it's based on and modelled on, would be absolutely incorrect to say that countries like the Nordic countries, perhaps Scandinavian countries that are similar size of Scotland have less of a diplomatic or consular service. Consular services are incredibly important, but the world that we live in, of course, you have to be very targeted in terms of the contribution that you want to make internationally, but in terms of consular services, it was in your own evidence session that some of the experts, of course, said that there's a number of ways of extending your reach without necessarily you don't have to have hundreds and hundreds of embassies across the world that can be done through co-location, it can be done through sharing. Of course, EU citizens can use each other's embassies as currently stands as well. So, there's a number of measures whereby you can do that. Also, it's fair to say of the 70 to 90 embassies that we'll look to having as an independent country. Of course, a large, huge priority for us, one of the five priorities for us is consular services. Therefore, where Scots regularly look to travel, that will be one of the considerations in terms of where we open embassies to. I obviously cannot go into detail of all the embassies that we look to open in terms of 70 to 90. Some of them are highlighted in the white paper, but I wouldn't think that we would have an embassy straight away in the kingdom of Tonga, for example, a population of 100,000 people where Scots don't often travel, some will. That's not a reflection in the kingdom of Tonga. It looks like a beautiful place to visit, but we would have to be very, very targeted because of the impact that we would look to make. However, that wouldn't stop Scots, of course. If they needed consular services and there wasn't a Scottish embassy directly there, they wouldn't stop them getting consular services. They could do that through other, for example, EU embassies as well. Plus, other arrangements that the Scottish and independent Scottish Government may have with other countries, be that the UK, Ireland or other countries. Scottish Government has also stated that it would seek closer relationship with the Nordic Council of Ministers. My question is how will this work, as current members have never considered admitting another member? In fact, Professor Bales states that Nordic co-operation has two pillars—the parliamentary Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers—neither has ever seriously considered admitting a new member. Is that a feasible possibility? Scotland, as the white paper says, will seek a closer relationship with the Nordic Council of Ministers. That does not necessarily mean membership. I'm not taking it off the table, but it doesn't necessarily mean membership. It means that we will be able to work closer with the Nordic Council to determine our relationship with it. There are other possibilities by which to do that. There are possibilities that we can explore, for example, with observer status. There are other avenues to explore a closer relationship. We should not take it to mean, and the member should not take it to mean necessarily and exclusively that, although we wish to seek a closer relationship, that we seek membership. That's not what's said in the white paper. I've got an opening for other members to come in. David Torrance. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Minister. On immigration again, Scotland has a huge scale shortage in certain sectors, like engineering, which I come from. If a person or an individual is moving to an independent Scotland who wants to seek citizenship, would they have to sit a written or oral exam before they could do it, apply for it? Thank the member for the question. We've said that we wouldn't have an equivalent to life of the UK test as a current life in the UK test. I remember an immediate outlet with Scotland tonight, the popular current affairs programme in SDV that was doing the discussion on this test, and I think they had like 10 people sit it, and nine out of 10 failed it. I mean, and these were people who were born here, including the presenter, I think, who also failed the test. I don't know if any of the members around the committee have done the test, but it's not the easiest. Again, this was reflected in some of the evidence that you received. I think these tests on UK history and other such things, I think, they're vacuous and I don't think they actually determine anything. So we wouldn't look to have a life and life of Scotland test that would test your history of when—to test your history and other such things in Scotland, but what we do see very clearly in Scotland's future, the white paper, is that for those that are coming to fulfil a job criteria, for example—you mentioned engineering, I think that's an excellent example to pick up on—they would have to have a working knowledge of English or Gaelic. That makes sense because English is important for integration purposes. I know that from my own familial experience. I mean, I have had family who have been here since the 60s and their English is not—it was not for a long time at a standard, it should have been at. Once they started to take English lessons, once they started to speak with us in English, once their English improved, you could see a whole host of opportunities that would open up for them. So English and recognising Gaelic, too, English provision will be important and so we'll have suitable criteria to determine English provision, but there won't be such a thing as a life in Scotland test. I was wanting to come back to the issue that was raised by Jamie McGregor-Laro on diplomatic services and so on, Minister, and you mentioned the proposal for the 70 or 90 or so missions and you're probably aware that some people have posed the question about whether Scotland starts from scratch after independence, but many of these assets are common assets commonly shared with the UK. Now, despite all the rhetoric about—that occurs in this side of the political debate before September, post September, if there is a yes vote, do you see the relationship with the UK being strong and positive and supportive of Scotland's objectives and do you see the situation where we would seek to—and the UK would seek to share these commonly held resources that have been built up over a number of years, or do you think, and do you support the view that some have, that somehow Scotland would be starting from scratch? Don't support the idea of Scotland starting from scratch whatsoever. The process of the referendum is one that all of us, regardless of which side of the debate that we sit on, should take great pride in. The fact that two governments that are diametrically opposed on just about every single issue, particularly the one on the result of the referendum, were able to come together, sit round a table and have a peaceful, legal, mandated but tough negotiation that hasn't seen a nosebleed, let alone any other drop of blood. I think that that is to be commended. When I travel across the world and I speak about this, I do it with great pride and I don't take anything away from the UK Government or, indeed, of course, the Scottish Government for being mature and reasonable enough to come to that settled, mandated legal process, which is an important point. That is the foundation and that is the starting block of the referendum. You start as you mean to go on. The important paragraph in the Edinburgh agreement is paragraph 30 about regardless of which way the result goes, both Governments will respect the outcome of that vote as well. It is absolutely accepted by the vast, vast majority of legal experts, political experts and others that there will be a negotiation, of course, the day after a yes vote. There will be a division of assets and liabilities. You cannot have one without the other. It is not possible. My dad has been an accountant for 40 years and I did not inherit any of his accounting genes, but nonetheless, I can tell that you have to have an equitable division of both assets and liabilities. That is accepted. Scotland would not be starting from scratch from the base point that, for example, the GERS figures, Governments, Expenditure, Revenue, Scotland report shows that, in the past 33 years in Scotland, we have contributed in every single one of those years, every single one without exception, more tax per head than the average UK. If we have contributed more towards public services, towards the maintenance and upkeep of diplomatic embassies to high commissions across the world, out of our absolute principle of fairness, how could anybody argue that we would not be entitled to a fair share of that? I cannot understand that argument. Scotland would not be starting from scratch. The overseas properties of the UK are extensive. The value of those are extensive and Scotland would absolutely be, of course, entitled to its fair share. Maybe I can just read you a quote from Danny Alexander, of course, the chief to the secretary, chief to the treasurer, and he said last month—I was just trying to figure out how his time goes so quickly while month went, but yes, last month on 28 May 2014, when asked if Scotland would be entitled to a fair share of the assets. I will quote directly. He said, of course, assets and liabilities will have to be divided up through negotiations. I do not think that anybody thinks that that process would either be to the net benefit or disadvantage of either Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom. It is something that would have to be negotiated. If the chief secretary to the treasurer, Danny Alexander, can say that, then there is no reason that I see that anybody else could possibly say that we would be starting from scratch. Minister, I can turn your attention to some of the evidence that we received from Professor Alison Bales, who joined us by video conference from Iceland. It is on this section of our inquiry on membership of international organisations. Of course, my personal feelings about membership of NATO are a matter of public record. Professor Bales had suggested that the connection between a country being a member of NATO and it having or accepting nuclear weapons and its territory and that the majority of current NATO members have never had nuclear weapons on their territory. Would you be able to sort of nail for us today the debating point that has been used to suggest that Scotland could not be a member of that organisation and other organisations? I want to follow that up with some human rights issues afterwards. Again, I read through her evidence session with Professor Bales, which I thought was absolutely comprehensive and articulate on this point. I thought that there was no room for ambiguity whatsoever, and that was also shared by a number of experts in that similar session. They made the obvious point that 25 out of 28 member states of NATO of course do not possess nuclear weapons and 20 out of 28 do not host or possess nuclear weapons in so Scotland is committed to removing, and the safe removal of Trident with the negotiation, with the UK Government to do that safely and responsibly within the first term of the Scottish Parliament, as we say in Scotland's future. There is no contradiction between that and between wishing to be a continuing membership of NATO. It is inconceivable to have a North Atlantic Treaty organisation without a key geographic location of the North Atlantic. It just doesn't seem to me conceivable to be able to do that. As Professor Bales said, she says, I want to state firmly that there is no connection between a country being a member of NATO, and it is having or accepting nuclear weapons on its territory. I agree entirely with her assessment that she articulated to your evidence session. I want to follow up to that evidence from Professor Bales. Bruce Adamson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission had expressed not real concern but raised the issue of how do we ensure that a Scottish human rights charter or legislation or whatever we formulate that to be, and I know that we have a Scottish human rights strategy. How will that play within other organisations where there may be concerns about human rights, and how can we have an influence on ensuring that that human rights and compassionate based debating situation arrives and is very well enshrined in any negotiation that we have with any worldwide organisation? I think that this is one of the beauties of a yes vote on the 18th September, is that we get to inform the future direction of our country from the very foundations. I think that in your evidence throughout your evidence session there was some disagreement between Bruce Adamson and Professor Tomkins on this point, but the written constitution, I definitely agree with Bruce Adamson on the point that the written constitution could absolutely provide a fantastic opportunity in order to codify those rights, codify them and strengthen them so that we have those foundations here in Scotland, and then they are absolutely the core foundation for when we have discussions with international or multilateral organisations, or even in our bilateral discussions as well. Without the powers of independence we are already trying to do that to the best of our ability through the Scottish National Action Plan on human rights, being carried forward by the Scottish Human Rights Commission Professor Alan Miller and his team, which is launched by the Deputy First Minister, as well. Already there you have, that's not purely an inward facing document by any stretch, it's also an outward looking document if you read through it as well. There's things that we can do at the moment, but if you want to entrench and codify those human rights then we can do that, we have the opportunity to do that with a written constitution, which will then, of course, as you quite rightly alluded to, convener, inform our discussions multilaterally, but also bilaterally, and just as an addition to that, just as I'm worried about the immigration tone and rhetoric coming from south of the border from the UK Government, so too am I concerned about the noises that are being made about human rights in that regard, and we saw a little bit of, frankly, a debacle about the so-called Bill of Rights, which I think has now been completely shelved, which was a bit of a fudge, and there's elements within the current Conservative Party that is leading, of course, the coalition that wants to see a removal or at least a weakened link to the Human Rights Act, and that is worrying. I'm delighted to say that in my work with the Council of Europe that the Scottish human rights action plan was subject of extensive conversation and a presentation by Scottish Government officials in Strasbourg only very recently, and a number of other countries are looking at that strategy as a blueprint for their way forward, so we're already leading the way in some aspects here, and that's to be welcomed. Any other questions from Claire, have you got a follow-up? Yeah, it was just when you were mentioning the office and Difford Minister, obviously, Scobrides, part of my region, and within that region I have this CSA organisation with the HMRC and Motherwell and Difford, and I was just wondering if you could maybe say about what the plans in independent Scotland would be for those civil service jobs currently that are delivered from Scotland? Yes, we've been on equivocal in the white paper and stated many times as a massive public record that we would look to preserve continuity of employment, and that means that absolutely we'd of course end the negotiation with the UK Government. Those that are based in Difford are among some of the most committed and some of the smartest individuals that I've come across. I think they would be a great asset to a future independent Scotland in regards to its international development function and what it chooses to do international development, but also because of their international experience too, they will be of interest, I'm sure, to a future Scottish foreign office as well, so there will be plenty of opportunity. We would like, of course, it will be a matter of negotiation. We are determined to preserve their continuity of employment, and I've said that many a time, but of course the UK Government is also entitled, as the members of staff, to be part of that negotiation discussion, of course, as are the unions, the PCS, for example, with the matter of Difford and the other reserved functions that you mentioned, so it will be a discussion between those partners and they will be a great asset for a future independent Scotland and international development, but also foreign affairs will be plenty and plenty of opportunity and very exciting opportunity as well, but it will be a matter of discussion, negotiation with the UK Government. We have committed, of course, to a policy of no compulsory redundancies. The UK Government, to my understanding, has not, so if they haven't then I would continue to urge them to do that, to give further reassurances. Thank you very much, convener Minister. I wonder if I could raise the issue of the pound and the currency in the euro with you that quite a number of my constituents ask me about will Scotland keep the pound and so on and so forth. The Scottish Government's status position is that it will continue to use the pound and as I understand it, as members of the European Union Sweden doesn't use the euro and nor does the United Kingdom. What will Scotland's position be when becoming a member state of the European Union? What currency will we use? It's not even the Scottish Government's position, although it is. It's not just the Scottish Government's position, of course it's also the UK Government's position. We've seen that from our report and article in the Guardian, but the UK Government Minister is saying that there would be a currency union. Ruth Davidson is saying that she would be arguing for a currency union should Scotland become an independent nation if it's in Scotland's best interest. So we've seen that kind of, that is not just the status position of the Scottish Government, indeed. This, of course, came out of a fiscal commission working group, which was a group of independent, Nobel prize-winning economists, such as Joseph Stiglett, Sir Jim Mlees and others, who said that they explored a range of options but said, of course, that a currency union with the rest of the UK would be the absolutely ideal optimum for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The member is correct that there is not a single country in the European Union that has been forced to join the euro. In order to join the euro, you have to voluntarily join ERM2, the European exchange rate mechanism, and you cannot be forced to do that. He mentioned Sweden and that's an apt example of that. Sweden has not joined ERM, and so it cannot be forced to join the euro. You have to be within ERM2 for a minimum of two years, and so if you don't choose to join that, there's no way you can join the euro. It just makes sense. It's a common sensible position in politics, is politics, and what is said the day before, the 18th of September is very different to what is said in the 19th of September, and common sense and mutual self-interest dictates all else when it comes to that kind of negotiation. So if the £60 billion worth of trade coming from the rest of the UK to Scotland, and just to put that into context, that's more exports than Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and Turkey combined, then it would be incredible to imagine that, for no other reason than spite, that the chancellor would suddenly slap her transaction tax on those businesses that export. Similarly, Scotland adds and contributes £40 billion to the balance of payment to sterling. What would be the, I mean it would be a, forget a crash, the sterling would fall through the floor if there was a £40 billion wipe out in terms of the balance of payments at the stroke of a pen. And then, of course, is the issue that we tackled earlier on in terms of division of assets and liabilities. Bank of England, which of course is the bank of the entire UK, has been nationalised since 1946, so you and I have been contributing to the Scottish taxpayers. In fairness, not since 1946, neither you or I are old enough to have done that. But since 1946, as a country, we have been contributing through our Scottish taxpayers to the Bank of England. So the equitable division of assets and liabilities would say that the Bank of England is ours just as much as it is anybody else's. Then, of course, there's a final point that there's no way of stopping a country from using a currency as an international tradeable mechanism. The point is to do it within a currency union and make sense for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, so that you can have stability and so on and so forth. So what is said before the vote is very different to actions that will happen after the vote. What do you say then to the remarks made by the current Labour Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls on the issue of a currency union? He said, and I'm trying to get the quote right here, I can't imagine being in at the start of that negotiation, never mind the end, and folk have interpreted that as an intention to resign if that circumstance were to be brought about. What do you make of that position of a possible future Labour Government next year deciding to oppose the spirit that's contained within the Edinburgh agreement and oppose a currency union in Scotland? What the colour of the Government is or what the mixture of the colours of the Government are, if you go by current pollings it could be anything, it could be a UKIP Tory coalition, it could be anything. I mean polls don't indicate exactly what Government we're going to get in 2015, but whatever the colour of that Government is, whatever the hue of that Government is, both mutual self-interest in terms of Scotland and the rest of the UK in common sense will dictate and if Ed Balls has put his job on the line in that regard then that is a very risky manoeuvre for an individual to do, but I'm neither bothered about what Ed Balls has done or said in common sense as I say will dictate and mutual self-interest will dictate. Any final, Jimmy? Just on mynig of his point, since he's raised the question of the currency Minister, I mean if on September the 19th we get a yes vote I would certainly, whilst as a Scott, still want to join NATO, I would still want to join the United Nations, I would probably feel sore about losing the representation of 270 emboses and this being replaced by 70 to 90 offices according to your white paper and above all I would argue to keep the pound because it's a brilliant currency. Can you give me a guarantee when we keep the pound? Yes, we've said that, we would absolutely keep the pound because of the reasons that I've outlined to my answer to Welly Coffey, of course we would keep the pound. It would be in everybody's self-interest including your own, you've highlighted the point absolutely perfectly and I commend you for doing that because although you clearly disagree with independence and that is respectful and that's fine to do that of course, while you absolutely reject independence you understand the pragmatic reasoning behind keeping the pound and so if you can see that and you're somebody... Okay then I don't want to lose it. Yeah, yeah. And you're absolutely fair to have that position, I wouldn't argue with you in that respect, I mean we'll agree to disagree because I'm not going to be able to convince you about the merits of independence and nor are you going to be able to convince me about the merits of the union. The point is even somebody who is so entrenched in their position opposed to independence is able to look at the pragmatism and say actually I would argue to keep the pound that is exactly why George Osborne would do the same because I'm sure he's just as reasonable as you are. I will speak for him. Well in that case my final point on that point is who will be our lender of last resort? Who will be Scotland's lender of last resort? Well as I said the Bank of England will be, well is ours because we've contributed to it since 1946. As Scottish taxpayers of course it will be within that framework that we will operate so the Bank of England is an asset that in fair negotiation if you're going to take a portion of the debt you get a portion of the asset too so the Bank of England would be including that respect. Okay thank you. Okay thank you I think we're strained dangerously away from the topics we should have been looking at but can I thank the minister and his officials very much for the evidence you've given today. You've exercised a lot of our points and answered a lot of our questions and can I thank you very much for that. The next, and I'm just going to close the meeting actually and wish you all a restful but hopefully very busy recess and we will see you all back on the 9th of October where we will be taking evidence from the Italian ambassador. Thank you.