 I love giving you notice of this point of order, but it's just come to light that Kate For速s has issued a press release commenting on the recommendation of Lauren Crairs' report into Highlands and Islands Enterprise, where not to say. I've checked with cognIGPs and ond iddyn nhw i ddod, ond darwch chi ddim yn oed, maen nhw i chi ddim yn gweithio bwysig ddiwethaf y dderbyn. Rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio ar gyfer darloedd i'r parwagol. Thank you very much to Rhoda Grant for raising the point of order. I'm not convinced he's a point of order but I will take it under consideration this afternoon just to have a look at the matter that Ms Grant has alluded to. Now, can we move on to the first item of beth hynny di parameters bwysig, peithio lag nes Falcon 4168 arously? Udiwr reδdiwn yr adrod iechymau ac heddiw wedi baut عr화� â Ang Policy fi o vemi fel yr adrod iechymus yn byw fwy matching bwysig nescribedig mae ein ddechrau. I would like to commend the finance committee and all the subject committees for their constructive approach. Our process in future will continue to adapt to our new powers and I look forward to seeing the output of the budget review group and to working together with all members of Parliament to ensure that our future processes are fit for our new powers and responsibilities. This is a bill of huge importance to Scotland. The decisions that we make today underpin the work of our vital public services, our commitment to sustainable economic growth and the support that we provide to communities and individuals across the country. The bill before us today seeks Parliament's approval for an additional £900 million of expenditure focused on the positive vision for Scotland that is established in our programme for government. That vision is focused on stabilising and growing our economy, empowering our communities, detecting the environment, promoting equality and improving our public services. The budget that we are voting on today includes areas of compromise where, as a minority Government, we have worked hard to secure the bill and support for the bill in order to deliver on our commitments and protect Scotland's hard-won social contract. I again thank those who have engaged constructively in those talks and negotiations. As a result, I believe that this bill offers a balanced approach that is right for our economy, for jobs and our public services, as well as providing stability and continuity for the public and taxpayers at this time of economic uncertainty. As we debated on Tuesday, the Scotland act powers mean that there is a much more direct link between Scotland's economic performance and the revenues that are available to fund our public spending. The decisions that we make must have economic growth at their heart. In the draft budget, I confirmed our £500 million Scottish growth scheme, funding for the city deals and interventions such as funding for the new innovation and investment hubs in Dublin, London, Brussels and Berlin. Our support was also confirmed for Aberdeen, Glasgow and the Highland city deals, which will total over £760 million in the years to come. We are continuing discussions on Lothian and Tay cities, as well as the Ayrshire growth deal. We are using all the economic levers at our disposal and I am pleased to confirm further progress today. I have this week confirmed the Scottish Government's formal approval of Fife Council's tax incremental financing scheme, which will enhance the Fife energy park and is projected to unlock more than £11 million for the Scottish economy and create more than 220 jobs. As well as taking forward the Fife scheme, I look forward to receiving applications next week for the two fresh, tiff opportunities that are announced in the budget. Overall, in 2017-18, we will see investment of around £4 billion in key infrastructure projects up and down the country. Projects across our roads and transport programmes such as the M8, M73 and M74 improvements, the Queensferry crossing, which will complete this year, the A9, the AWPR and, of course, the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme. We will invest to deliver ambitious targets on affordable housing and invest also in the key area of digital infrastructure, including delivering our commitment to reach 100 per cent broadband coverage. There are actions to address the climate change challenge, including improving on energy efficiency, reducing bills, creating jobs and reducing emissions. In addition, to assist the work of our enterprise agencies, our draft budget provided an increase in resources for HIE at stage 1, and I have confirmed an additional £35 million for Scottish enterprise to support loans and equity investments. A fair and competitive business rates regime is, of course, crucial to our economy. The draft budget took a range of early measures ahead of the revaluation, including cutting the tax rate and extending the small business bonus to deliver our commitment to ensure that more than 100,000 businesses pay no rates at all. Mike Rumbles I consider reopening the closing date for the submission to the Barclay review on business rates so that, as a result of what happened recently in your initiatives recently, businesses can have another input to that review before they report to the Government. I am staggered. I have never heard Mike Rumbles make such a contribution, a constructive suggestion in the chamber before, and I think in that spirit that it is absolutely right that I engage with Ken Barclay and others to consider further how we look at the issues that require to be addressed as a consequence of those issues. I am open-minded, certainly, to do that. I do not think that I have seen Mike Rumbles smile at me in the chamber either. The additional measures that I have taken that are warmly welcomed by the business community will help a further 9,500 business premises as a result of our £660 million investment in rates relief, which is ensuring that seven out of 10 premises in Scotland will pay either no or the same or less rates from April 1. I have to say that the Tories and Labour have failed to support any local rates relief scheme so far. They should deliver on their rhetoric and this evening back the Government schemes so that we can provide relief across the country. Ross Thompson I thank you for taking an intervention from me and again I would like to make members away with my register of interests as a Aberdeen City councillor. If the SNP paid attention, it would know that in Aberdeen the city has set aside £3 million for business rates relief. Given that it had less than 24 hours' notice to digest your statement, it is looking for more detail on the implications of that for the city. It wants a local scheme that will help more businesses and other sectors that your proposal does not. Will you be true to your word that it is exceptional in the north-east? Will you be true to your word that you want a local solution and match the funds that the city council has already put aside for local relief? John Swinney What hypocrisy from Ross Thompson and the Conservatives is that, in SNP-led Aberdeenshire, the Conservatives opposed the local rates relief package. In Aberdeen, I cut across the party politics to try to engage with Aberdeen city council to engage constructively and proactively with that council and the local chamber of commerce to listen, engage and deliver, and that is exactly what the Government has done. Isn't it interesting that, when I acted with all the early measures and then in response to businesses responding to the independent revaluation, the Tories described it as 11th hour actions and the best that they can produce with the same information is consideration of a report at some point in the future. I will continue to engage with the local authority, but they need to ditch the rhetoric and start coming up with solutions to support businesses in the way that this Government has. Immediate interventions to support our economy and also lay the foundations for future growth and that is why we should invest in our people as well as infrastructure. As the chamber is well aware, education is this Government's number one priority and that is why there is such a comprehensive package of investment. The bill delivers £1.6 billion of investment in higher and further education, maintaining at least 116,000 college places, maintaining the £50 million attainment Scotland fund, which is targeted, and of course delivering an extra £120 million directly to our schools to address attainment, particularly in our most disadvantaged areas, welcomed by schools across the land. Of course, we are embarking on expanding childcare to the tune of the beginning of £60 million of investment in the first phase of work to expand the provision of early learning in childcare to 1,140 hours by the end of this Parliament. That package of measures places equality of opportunity right at the heart of this Government's approach to Scotland's economy. I have proposed a strong settlement for local government in the draft budget, £120 million for educational attainment, £107 million for additional investment in health and social care integration, increased capital resources, increased access to city deals funding and increased revenues from the council tax changes that are approved by this Parliament, by working constructively with the Greens to reach agreement. An additional £160 million will be spent by local government at their discretion. The council tax freeze provided much-needed relief for household budgets through difficult times. Council tax is, on average, still lower in Scotland than it is south of the border. Although local authorities are able to generate extra revenues through increasing the council tax, it is interesting that some clearly consider that they have sufficient funding to deliver their services without a further council tax increase. Those are matters for individual local authorities, but I say again that support for our local services has increased thanks to the actions of this Government. If using existing resources wisely, a further public service reform is also necessary, and just one example, recognising the role that councils play in the delivery of housing and social care, I am directing additional funding over the next two years to Scotland Excel to develop with Scotland's care providers and registered social landlords enhanced procurement capability that will support plans in these vital areas. We are backing our police and fire services, investing in reform with an additional £25 million for Police Scotland to support their future plans. To ensure that our NHS is fit for the future, the Government is committed to the twin approach of investment and reform. The health and social care delivery plan, published shortly after the draft budget, highlights a range of steps to reform and further improve on our health services. Balancing that action with investment which will see NHS revenue spending increase to £12.7 billion in 2017-18, an increase of £120 million above inflation, and a first step towards delivering on our commitment to increase the NHS revenue budget by almost £2 billion by the end of this Parliament. More spending in mental health, more in primary care and GP services. Today, with confirmed investment of £7.5 million to support the development of GP clusters, which will help GP practices to collaborate on quality improvement, share resources and develop community health services that are more tailored to their local population. I open today by highlighting that voting for the budget of more than £900 million of additional investment in our public services, our people and our communities. Once the budget delivers on this Administration's programme for government, it also responds to requests across this chamber. Supporting businesses in their economy, investing in front-line health and police budgets, expanding expenditure on local authority services, delivering on the living wage, investing in a new social security system, ensuring that no-one will pay the bedroom tax, free tuition, expanding early years provision, tackling the attainment gap, improving energy efficiency, increasing and house building, and it supports public services that are free at the point of use, including prescriptions, eye tests and personal care. This budget delivers the best deal for taxpayers and public services in the whole of the UK, a fairer country, a stronger country and a budget that delivers for our people. I commend this budget to Parliament. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and move motion 4168.2. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the budget bill debate three weeks ago, I said that the finance secretary was a lucky man. He was lucky because he had more resources to deal with than any predecessor in his office. His budget has gone up half a billion pounds in real terms as against the current year. We know that the Scottish Government's total budget is up even on the previous high of 2010-11. He was also lucky because he had an unprecedented range of choices over taxation compared to his predecessors. We did not realise then just how lucky Mr Mackay was. It turns out that he is a far more fortunate man than we even knew at that point. For an addition to the budget that was presented to Parliament, he has had wads of spare cash just lying around. When the finance secretary introduced his budget to Parliament on 15 December, he told us that it was a fair, well-balanced settlement that every penny he had was properly accounted for. If the opposition parties wanted to propose extra spending in any area, they would have to tell them what cuts they would impose as a consequence. It turns out that the finance secretary had much more money than he was letting on. Just three weeks ago, he produced, as if from nowhere, an additional £185 million in order to secure his budget deal with the Greens. That was not all. Just 19 days after that, on Tuesday of this week, he produced another £44 million to introduce a very welcome rates relief for a number of businesses that are affected by the current rates revaluation. That is nearly £230 million extra in just a few weeks. How I wish I had Mr Mackay's sofa. It must be the best-stuffed sofa in Scotland. Every time he has a problem, he puts his hand down the back of the sofa and pulls out wads of cash. Who knows what other riches lie down between the seams of the sofa if he just takes time to look. Will the Tories be voting against the budget tonight and denying businesses across Scotland access to the £44.5 million to which he has just referred? Does he intend to stuff businesses tonight? I think that Mr Stevenson or to ask the business community in Scotland what their view on this budget is, they would give him a very clear response and it would not be the one that he is looking for. This is great wealth that Mr Mackay has identified, which raises all sorts of important issues. Firstly, Patrick Harvie must now be ruining the day that he and his party sold themselves so short in their budget deal with the SNP, for there was another £44 million to be had, Mr Harvie, of which he was blissfully unaware. Secondly, the finance secretary has undoubtedly created problems for himself in the future. Whenever in coming years he comes to this Parliament and presents his budget and tells us earnestly that this is the total sum that he has available to spend, no one is going to believe a word he says, Presiding Officer. What we will be asking is where is all the extra money that he has squirreled away just waiting to do a deal with the lowest bidder. There are also serious questions to be raised in connection with this Parliament's budget scrutiny process. As the Fraser of Allander Institute pointed out a few weeks ago, it turns out that this Parliament and its committee's entire budget scrutiny was based on a draft budget that was, at that time, £190 million higher than the one that Parliament was due course asked to vote upon. As they say, in future MSPs may press the Government for greater information on the scope to use underspends or changes to non-domestic rates profiling at the outset of the scrutiny process. They also pointed out that, in the past, underspends have historically been used to boost Government spending in subsequent years. That is what happened in financial year 2016-17, when underspending for the previous year was utilised with the aim of stimulating the economy in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. The underspend money this time has been made a central part of next year's budget and even Mr Mackay cannot spend the same money twice. As Fraser of Allander says, the case for multi-year budgeting is all the more important, which means that the work going on in the budget review group that has been established is absolutely vital. What the budget review group needs to look closely at is the issue of budget transparency, as highlighted in the finance committee's report on the budget, echoing the concerns of the local government committee, specifically in relation to the lack of transparency around the local government settlement. The Scottish Government's response to that, which was published earlier in the week, says that the increased complexity of the budget process introduces a steep learning curve for all involved. I hope that that is an indication that the finance secretary himself accepts that he must do better in future when it comes to informing Parliament. However, the budget process is not just about balances, it is also about choices. It remains our view that the finance secretary has made the wrong choices in connection with the budget, because what we should have had is a budget for economic growth. The Scottish economy, as we well know, underperforms the rest of the United Kingdom. Our growth rate is barely one-third of the UK average. Our employment is lower, our unemployment is higher and our business confidence is much lower. We should have had a budget to boost economic growth and, as a result, boost our tax revenues. That was precisely the point that was made by the Fraser of Allander Institute last week when they said that, with the Scottish Government's budget now increasingly tied to how well Scotland's economy performs relative to the UK, catching up with the UK must be a key priority for government. There is nothing in this budget today that tells us how it will do that. Instead, the finance secretary has presented us with a budget that will do nothing to promote Scotland as an attractive place to do business. He is introducing for the first time an income tax differential that will make Scotland the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. He continued with a large business supplement at double the rate that is applicable elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and his rates of land and buildings transaction tax have led to a situation where he has had to downgrade his forecasts for tax take by some £3.25 billion over the coming years, representing a potential catastrophic loss to the Scottish public finances. We have seen the action taken on the rates revaluation, which we very much welcome in so far as it goes, but it still only affects a small minority of businesses seeing large increases. When the cabinet secretary earlier talked about local relief schemes, perhaps he was not aware—perhaps Mr Swinney did not tell him—that just yesterday, when the Conservative opposition group on Perth and Kinross council proposed a local rates relief scheme, it was voted down by SNP councillors on the administration. I am afraid that I have to inform the chamber that Murdo Fraser is wrong. I have spoken to the SNP leader of the council and they are building an augmented scheme, an improved scheme, to do even more for the businesses in Perth and Kinross. That is what has been opposed by the Conservatives. Murdo Fraser. What has changed since yesterday afternoon? No doubt Mr Swinney has been on the phone to them, telling them to get the racks sorted out in very short order, because he knew that they were about to be caught out in this chamber. Given all those choices, the finance secretary chose to go in the other direction. He chose to sit down with the anti-business greens and produce a budget that will entrench our economic underperformance. I am sorry, I have no time just now, thank you. In the long run it will be the Scottish public finances that suffer, because if our economy does not grow, our tax revenue will not grow either, and there will be less money to spend on all the things that we regard as important. What we would have done with this budget is keep tax rates competitive with the rest of the United Kingdom, and we would do that knowing that we would raise more revenue in the long run as a consequence. That is exactly what the business community in Scotland has been calling for. The cabinet secretary's budget not only raises taxes, it still delivers a cut to local government across the country. That is at a time when a great many Scottish households are seeing substantial council tax rises, so they are being asked to pay more money in taxes when they are getting poorer public services as a result. What a deal from the SNP Government. That is the budget that Mr Mackay is presenting to Parliament, and it is not a budget that we can support, because Scotland deserves better. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. Stronger for Scotland, that is what we were told the SNP would be. Vote for us, they said, and we will be stronger for Scotland. Those of us on the Labour benches always questioned who in Scotland the SNP would be stronger for. Well, now we know. That budget makes it abundantly clear. Stronger for the richest 1 per cent. If you are already rich in Scotland, the SNP will protect you from paying your fair share. But if you are in an ordinary family whose children go to the local school, rely on the local GP, sometimes need to attend the local hospital or whose elderly relatives need support from carers, then the SNP is not stronger for you. The public services that you rely on will be downgraded, closed or under pressure like never before as a consequence of that budget. In the same week that the SNP refused to ask the richest few earning more than £150,000 a year to pay just a little bit more tax, the Government will team up with the Greens to impose £170 million worth more cuts to vital public services. That makes it £1.5 billion worth of cuts since 2011, so much for stronger for Scotland. Let's take a look at that record. Are the plans to close the maternity unit at the Royal Alexander hospital in Paisley stronger for Scotland? Are the 4,000 fewer teachers under the SNP an example of being stronger for Scotland? Is the utter shambles of ScotRail an example of being stronger for Scotland? With this budget, public services in Scotland face a budget double whammy from the SNP. Under the SNP Green Deal, local services such as schools and care of the elderly face £170 million worth of cuts. Those cuts will harm everybody, but they will hurt the poorest the most. However, another feature of this year's budget process has been the concerns raised by employers across Scotland about the impact of business rate increases. I know from my own local area that it is small firms, those at the very heart of their communities that are most worried. The SNP's shambolic U-turn on business rates for a specific group of firms, Mr Fitzpatrick, is welcome, but our public services are facing massive bills too. We know that the NHS chiefs warned the SNP last year that the health service could face a £30 million bill as a result of the re-evaluation. We also know that our universities could be hit with multi-million-pound increases. At a time when maternity units are facing closure and other NHS services are being scaled back, it would be criminal for the SNP to do nothing to help. The cuts that are being imposed on valued public services do not have to happen. Labour has been setting out throughout this process an alternative plan. It is a plan that says that we do not have to accept the austerity imposed by the Tories, that we have the powers in this Parliament to chart a different course. Labour's plans would stop the cuts to public services that we all value and allow us to invest in those public services instead, because it is only with investment that we can chart a better future for Scotland's young people. I am more than happy to give way. Doug Dale has mentioned a number of times cuts and also tried to make the case local. Can I point out that if we just take one example, the City of Edinburgh council, maybe an area that Kezia would be interested in, the total increase for local services in the city of Edinburgh is over £30 million. That is a 3.9 per cent increase. Kezia Dugdale I do not accept those figures. The cabinet secretary can hear from my colleague behind me that represents Edinburgh Southern that the figure is in fact a £27 million cut in Edinburgh and that there are £170 million cuts across this country. I have to say to the cabinet secretary that, at stage 1, I came in here and gave him very specific examples of fantastic projects in Edinburgh that are facing serious cuts or closures because of decisions that he is making. He knows the troubles that local authorities are faced with across the country and he still insists on cutting service £170 million. It does not have to be this way. There is a different choice. Only with investment in education can we give our people the skills that they need to compete for the jobs of the future. It is not just about tackling poverty and inequality, as important as that is. There is an economic imperative to do that. In this rapidly changing world, where the kinds of jobs people do and how they do them continue to evolve beyond all recognition, we risk our people getting left behind. We know that the people who almost always get left behind are not those from wealthy backgrounds. It is the ordinary working class families of Scotland who will lose out most from cuts to education, but it is all of Scotland that will be worse off as a consequence. Locking so many people out of the jobs of the future means that our economy will not and cannot grow at the rate that it needs to. If we are to compete with the likes of China, India and Brazil, we need everybody in our country to have the skills necessary for those jobs of the future. To make the investment that is needed, we need those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share. Just as I believe that together we are stronger as a nation by remaining in the UK, together we are stronger as a nation when the wealthiest few pay just a little bit more so that we can all benefit from improved public services. When members vote tonight, we will see who really is stronger for Scotland. A vote for a budget that imposes cuts to local services such as schools and care for the elderly is not evidence that you are stronger for Scotland, so we can either vote through this budget, imposing £170 million with the cuts to local services, or we can make true on the promises many of us in this chamber made to the people of Scotland. Labour said that we would seek to stop the cuts and invest in the future of our economy and the future of our country, and that is what we will do when we vote against this budget later on this evening. Patrick Harvie, to be followed by Willie Rennie. Much like the discussions in the chamber earlier this week on the rate resolution and on non-domestic rates, it is pretty much inevitable that this afternoon's debate is going to be entirely polarised, with some members offering glowing praise for a budget that has no flaws at all and others offering utter condemnation as though there is nothing to speak positively of at all. In reality, the record of the SNP in government is mixed and the arguments in relation to this budget are mixed. The green approach, ever since we entered Parliament in 1999, was to challenge Governments but to do so constructively with a view to make a difference. That is what we did when the Labour-Lib Dem Administration was in office. That is what we have done with the SNP Administration since then. That is what we have done whether the Government has had a majority or not, and that is what we will continue to do. Someone listening to budget debates this year for the first time might be forgiven for not knowing that all political parties in this chamber have voted for Government budgets when they have been in opposition before. All parties have done this and will continue to do it. January 2009, for example, the one time a Scottish budget fell not because of green unwillingness to be constructive but because of brinkmanship by the Administration. The Labour Finance spokesperson during that debate called the SNP's approach shameful. He said that the budget failed key economic tests and offered consensus only on the SNP's terms. One week later, he voted for precisely the same budget without a single amendment. I do not want to be rude, but I do not think that we can take fully seriously some of the outrage that has been expressed so far. All political parties have been at their best during budget debates when they have tried to make a difference rather than merely try to express outrage. Mr Harvie, your party had the SNP over a barrel in the budget negotiations, so which high environmental principles or tax justice principles did the Green Party advance when selling out local government to another £160 million in cuts? I am grateful to Mr Finlay for the opportunity to talk about local government because that is precisely where the green approach to this budget has made a difference. This year, we were most concerned, most angered by the cuts. I would like to hear what Mr Harvie has to say, please. We were most focused on the cuts to the unranked, fenced core local government allocation. What we secured is not just an additional allocation, not just the first formal budget amendment that we have seen in years in this Parliament, but a £160 million of additional allocation to local government. I have never said that this budget is perfect and I won't today, but this is the biggest budget concession that any administration since devolution has given to any opposition party. It will make a difference in every single local government area, including that that Mr Johnson represents. Daniel Johnson? Would he recognise that that difference is still a £170 million cut to local government whatever way he dresses it up? I did that intervention by saying whatever way it is dressed up. It will always be possible to produce a different interpretation of the figures. There are some creative thinkers on the other side as well. The labour approach throughout has been to compare the draft budget with the out-turn budget, with the amount that was spent during the current financial year. That is not a fair adjustment. What we have taken is the spice assessment of the figures. The spice analysis of the figures does not include—I have taken a couple of interventions already—the spice interpretation of the figures does not include—I ask particularly the Conservative benches to stop chattering or we would like to hear the debate. The spice interpretation of the figures is the closest thing that we have to politically neutral and impartial judgment on that matter. Its assessment was that the core cut to the unranked bank's local government allocation was £166 million. It was not including the double counting of health and social care money or other allocations that should not be encountered in that overall pot. We argued that that should be robust and that we have achieved £160 million reduction in those cuts. The spice assessment, since the stage 2 amendment was passed, states that the budget line for local government—and I am quoting here—is now essentially flat in real terms, a 0.1 per cent reduction compared with the previous year's draft budget. Once you include the reforms to local council tax, not the 3 per cent, which is up to local councils to decide, but the reforms to the multiplier, then it becomes a 0.7 per cent increase. That is the difference that Greens have made in this budget, making a difference in every single local council area in Scotland, additional funds that councils are free to allocate. Can I just once more remind members, with great respect of the consequences Daniel Johnson on Tuesday asked us to think about the consequences of the way that we vote? The consequences of voting down a budget at this stage would be to send every single local council in Scotland into a panic and the need to set emergency budgets, bringing back on the agenda the cuts that in recent weeks have been able to cancel as a result of the work that we have achieved. As for the Conservative amendment in today's debate, I can never accept, never accept the principle that we should devolve, that we should finally persuade all parties to agree that tax powers should be devolved and then refuse to ever do anything progressive with them, ever to do anything progressive with them. That is the position that the Tories will advance. We should only ever cut tax for the rich, only ever do that, only ever become an ever meaner, more selfish, more self-interested economy in which wealth concentrates in the hands of every fewer people. That is what the UK Government is doing, and that is what they would have us do as well. We will never agree to that. Greens will vote in favour of this budget today, and I appeal to all parties, all parties in all future budget debates, do not just throw a tantrum, make a difference. I call Willie Rennie. Do we follow by Bruce Crawford? Mr Rennie, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Budgets are an opportunity to judge people not by their words, but by their actions. Hard numbers, hard cash reveals hard priorities. It is not easy, but it strips back all the talk and reveals the naked truth. We all remember the First Minister in the debates in the 2015 general election going around England saying that we should reject austerity and that Scotland would do it differently, but now we see from this budget what she really meant. And then we have had Patrick Harvie standing in those Scottish election debates, looking down his nose at everyone and pledging a greener and bolder Scotland. Now the Greens have voted for the budget at stage 1. They have abstained at the right resolution this week, so I am looking for the full set. There is a possibility yet that he could yet vote against the budget, so the budget yet could fall. Patrick Harvie reminded us of 2009, when the budget did fall, when he changed his mind in the middle of the debate, so I would urge the finance secretary to make absolutely sure that he has the greens in his pocket because it may well change after all. But what we need to do now is, because the challenge is great, the challenge is enormous, we have Brexit coming down the track with a significant impact on our economy. We have our education system, as we all know, which is slipping down the international rankings, our once proud Scottish education system. Then we have 643,000 working days lost because of poor mental health. That is worth £54 million to our economy, and of course there is the certain trust that has highlighted the real dramatic impact of the inequality gap in our education system. That is why there is an opportunity yet. The Greens could today vote against this budget, alongside perhaps others who are concerned about those issues. They could reject the budget. It is not too late yet because we can do so much better than what has been agreed—not just now— on what has been agreed in the budget. If you look at the education system, we have lost 150,000 college places in the past few years, particularly hitting women and mature students. We need to invest in part-time courses. Then, of course, the issue about the pupil premium. I am glad to see that the Scottish Government has moved after years of opposing the pupil premium, pioneered by the Liberal Democrats, down south. I am glad that it has changed its mind and implemented a pupil equity fund. It is having a big impact in England. It has closed the attainment gap by five percentage points, but the amount of money that has been put into it is simply not enough. If we cannot even match what it is doing in England, how on earth are we going to get our education system back up the international rankings? Of course, we could have invested more in mental health. I want to take up the mental health budget to £1.2 billion. All of the leaders stood on a platform in last-maze elections, and we all agreed that mental health was a top priority. We all agreed that every single leader said that nobody could possibly disagree with that, but where is it in the budget? We do not even have it up to what was required to invest in tier 1 and tier 2 counselling, to invest in emergency services, to invest in mental health professionals alongside the police but also in primary care 2. Where is the investment to make that happen? It is not there. It is another missed opportunity. All those wise words on the election platform last year come to absolutely nothing. That is the disappointing thing about this budget. That comes at a time when we have the opportunity to do something different. We have got new tax powers. The tax powers we have been wanting for years, so we could do something different from the rest of the United Kingdom, so we can chart our own path to mark a different way to boost the economy, to improve our education system, to improve mental health services. What do we do with that? We tinker with it. We tinker at the edges. We are not making a big difference. We have not got a transformational investment in education. We do not have a step change in mental health services. That is a timid tinkering budget. We could do so much more for Scotland. I am ambitious for this country. I want us to do so much more. I do not want to ramp up tax all over the place. I want it dedicated towards a specific purpose of investing in people and the talents of people, in the mental health of people, so that we can get them to work so that they can contribute to our economy, so that they can create more wealth, so that we can bring more taxes in. It is not all about the conservative race to the bottom on tax. That is not the way to get a better Scotland, to get a more vibrant, energetic Scotland. The best way to do it is to invest in the talents of our people, because our people are the best way to proceed. I urge all of those who want a better Scotland, a more ambitious Scotland, to improve the economy, to make a real big difference to our future, to reject this budget, so that we can go back to the start, so that we can negotiate again a real proper budget that really meets the aspirations of this country. I call Bruce Crawford. We are followed by Maurice Golden. Mr Crawford, please. There are many occasions since we first joined this Parliament together in 1999, when we have been able to say that today is an historic day. I can safely say that today is yet another historic day. Today, we set a budget for Scotland's health service, Scotland's education services, for emergency services for our local councils that contains around £11 billion of commitments supported by money raised from income tax. As the weeks and months turn into years, I am confident that we will witness many more historic days as this Parliament grows from strength to strength. Let us reflect on the moment of today. What will future commentators make of the political players who took part in the setting of Scotland's budget for 2017-18? What will they make of the role of finance secretary who had historic privilege? I am not sure that he always sought that way of setting the first budget to be supported by unprecedented levels of tax raised in Scotland. A finance secretary had to deal with the very real challenge of a revenue and capital debt budget that has been reduced in real terms between 2010-11 and 2019-20 by 9.2 per cent. He, with a finance secretary, has also had the added difficulty of dealing with the volatility of Brexit and all the implications for public expenditure that that brings. He will also have to deal with the immediate Brexit threat of rising inflation and the direct consequence of a reduction in his real-term spending power. In the longer term, if that were not enough, the destruction of up to 80,000 jobs in Scotland would be forced to leave the single market. Today, we are also living in a world of much greater shared powers between Holyrood and Westminster, and it has existed at any time in our history, particularly as a result of the fiscal framework. That is why it is imperative that UK Treasury ministers appear before the Finance and Constitution Committee to give evidence. By refusing to give evidence and to attend, they simply either do not understand the nature of the devolved settlement that they were responsible for creating or treating that place with contempt. I really do not care which one of those is the reality, but what I want them to do is show some respect for this Parliament that belongs to the Scottish people. It also makes you wonder who would take on the job of a finance secretary and then be landed with the additional complications of securing a budget agreement in a Parliament of minorities. However, a secure agreement that he has, an agreement that sees an additional £160 million allocated to local government, and, although Parliament may find agreement at decision time today, it will be of no credit to those who have chosen to be entirely oppositionalist in their approach, no matter the potential consequences for the public services and public finances. The agreement that the Scottish Government secured with the Green Party should make the Labour Party in particular squirm with regret. However, I guess that they will not, because they have become so wrapped up in their all-consuming opposition of the SNP and their own destruction that they have consigned themselves to be an utter irrelevance in Scottish political life today. Others might take some joy from that, but I think that it is a very, very sad thing indeed. I wonder how history will judge the Labour Party's role on this significant day for Scotland. However, what is also clear is that history will judge the conservative party with financial fantasists. Throughout the budget process, Tory members, after Tory members, have brought forward spending proposals amounted to billions of pounds. When challenged on how they pay with them, we get nothing more than financial drivel. Firstly, we are told by Dean Lockhart that a fantasy sum of £500 million from maladministration would be used to fund Tory commitments amounting to billions. I have news for Mr Lockhart. If £500 million was the cost of maladministration, which in itself is a load of nonsense, it has already been spent and cannot be spent again. Then we have the fantasy of the position of Douglas Ross sitting also on the front bench, who tells us that the alternative Tory approach is to expand the tax base by cutting the taxes for the wealthiest. Even if the Tory argument of cutting taxes to increase spending had any shred of credibility, just how would such a plan see any additional money being produced from an expanding tax base in the short time before the start of the financial year? It is absolute nonsense. As for Murdo Fraser's financial fancies, the least said probably the better. Thank goodness, we have a finance secretary who has been keeping his head for the opposition who have been losing theirs. That is why we should vote for the Government's budget at decision time. I asked the Parliament not to deny public services in Scotland an additional £900 million, not to deny the hospitality sector a cap on their rates, not to deny the local government an extra £160 million. For goodness sake, just do not vote against a Government at decision time just because it happens to be an SNP Government. Vote for the budget. I call Maurice Golden. We follow by Kate Forbes. Mr Golden, please. The finance secretary has a plethora of options available to vary tax, improve productivity and grow the Scottish economy. He also has more cash—£0.5 billion more in real terms as against the current year. Patrick Harvie and the rest of the sell-out six must have wondered why he did not ask for more from the finance secretary as he managed to conjure up an extra £230 million since first presenting the budget only a few weeks ago. However, if the SNP Government's original tax proposals were not dangerous enough, they have been made a whole lot worse now that the Greens are dictating the SNP's policy on taxation. The left-wing SNP green coalition has introduced a tax system that will see individuals on pay scales similar to the First Minister pay a marginal tax rate of £42 in their last pound earned. A tax system that will see the CEO of RBS pay a marginal tax rate of 47 per cent on the last pound earned, but hardworking Scots who earn between £43,000 and £45,000 a year will be paying an astonishing 52 per cent marginal tax rate on the last pound they earn. Perhaps even more astonishing though is that the SNP Government has the audacity to claim that its taxation proposals are progressive. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I am a little puzzled as to why, in those two examples, he is only interested in the top 10 per cent of earners. Why is it that the Greens are the only party who has even tried to make the case for cutting tax for people on ordinary incomes around the average full-time salary, which is £26,000 a year? People would be paying less tax under our proposals. Why are the Conservatives only interested in those at the very top? The Conservatives are interested in everyone in Scotland, and we do not do that by hurting the middle classes and those middle income earners. If you listen to our policies, the Scottish economy will grow, will improve productivity and will have more money to spend on public services. My economics professor always told me that GDP was God, and while I disagree with that analogy, I would welcome it if the cabinet secretary for finance made more of an attempt to grow our economy. The finance secretary is fully aware that he has the powers to vary rates of tax by band and introduce new bands, and thus it is entirely possible for him to avoid forcing hard-pressed Scottish families to pay more than the 42 per cent marginal rate of tax. If we accept that the finance secretary is intent on making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK, he could then have at least been more creative in his proposals to ensure that no hard-working Scotland would be forced to pay this marginal tax rate. If the First Minister would not be able to stand up then and proclaim that there has been no increase in Scotland's income tax rates, because for this SNP Government it is more interested in spin rather than standing up for the interests of Scottish families. Derek Mackay. Cabinet Secretary. Does Maurice Golden therefore think that PWC advisers are wrong when they said that although we do not expect any short-term impact on decision-making for people who may already be planning to relocate to Scotland or for Scottish business looking to attract staff, are they wrong when they contradicted the position from the Conservatives that there will be a mass exodus as a consequence of our tax proposition? Maurice Golden. It is a disincentive to work between 43,000 and 45,000, and I would expect that the cabinet secretary for finance would have been better using a more innovative approach if she wanted a more progressive tax system. Here we have it, a marginal tax rate of 52 per cent and the SNP Government doing their best to impersonate 1970s Labour. What will happen next year and the year after that, the Greens will most likely continue pursuing their hard-left agenda and insist that the higher-rate thresholds stay at 43,000. What will the SNP do? If the SNP does not increase the higher-rate threshold over the next four years, there will be an 8,000-pound gap between the higher-rate income tax thresholds in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK. That would result in Scottish taxpayers being burdened with a 52 per cent marginal rate of tax on £8,000 of their income between the earnings of 43,000 and 51,000. Either the SNP Government has not considered the significant threat that this poses to Scotland's economy and the prosperity of all its citizens or they do not consider it a problem. I am not sure which is worse. When the SNP Government erects an earning tax wall at 43 per cent, do they expect that this will have a positive or negative impact on earnings? Let me tell them what the impact will be. Less Scots earning over 43,000 a year, an ever-growing gap in earnings between Scotland and the rest of the UK, less money being spent in our local economy and all of that is supposed to be designed to raise additional tax revenue. I urge the SNP Government and this chamber to put Scotland first and I urge the SNP Government to support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser. I would like to remind the chamber that I am the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, which is a privilege, because this is the first budget to raise revenue through limited tax powers for over 300 years. That is what the people of Scotland wanted. The people of Scotland wanted the powers to raise revenue in Scotland in our way for our services so that we did not have to walk the Westminster way as the Tories would have us do, slashing taxes for the rich and slashing services harder. The Tories complain about divergence, but there is already divergence in that we deliver for all residents of Scotland whatever your background, wherever you live, and the Tories only deliver for the top 10 per cent of earners, and that is a far more dangerous divergence and downright unfair. Having waited that long for tax-raising powers, I am so pleased that this budget will deliver for the Highlands. It is a budget for the crofter in Staffin, the engineer in Drumnodrochwt and the dinner lady in Dingwall. It is a budget for my constituents, because people in the Highlands want reliable connectivity. In this budget, there is over 100 million pounds of investment in digital and mobile infrastructure to support our commitment to deliver 100 per cent broadband across every Highland business and home with pleasure. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Does she not agree, however, with Councillor Margaret Davidson, the independent leader of Highland Council, who said that this was not a good budget for Highland and told the Scottish Government to stop their efforts with smoke and mirrors because it is deluding people into thinking that they have a better deal, and it sounds like Kate Forbes has fallen for it? Kate Forbes. I agree with Douglas and Douglas's Ross comments about the smoke and mirrors, and we are sure that we are seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Tory benches. What I like to go on the basis of is the hard, cold, boring facts and figures, which show that public services in the Highlands are up £20 million versus last year. I would rather depend on the cold, hard figures than on the smoke and mirrors that we have been seeing. People in the Highlands want reliable connectivity. They also want more and affordable homes. In this budget, we are investing heavily in the provision of affordable housing, with over £470 million of direct capital investment to ensure that we are on track to deliver 50,000 affordable homes across Scotland, which will also support employment in construction and housing management. It specifically maintains funding for rural and island housing funds, which should be welcomed by every self-respecting rural constituency MSP. We also want improved roads and rail links. The budget promises to progress, design and development work on improvements to the A82, continue dualling the A9 and improve the stretch at the Berrydale Braves in my colleague Gail Ross's constituency and invest in improving highland rail links. We also want a well-resourced NHS Highland with more healthcare professionals, and this is a budget with £592 million for NHS Highland. If the Tories had their way, they would charge the sick for prescriptions, and instead we are protecting NHS funding. Edward Mountain, please. Sorry, I am very happy to talk about the concerns of people in the Highlands regarding health provision, especially those on Rasseh, who have lost their local nurse and have no provision at night, and especially those mums in Caithness, who no longer have paediatricians in Caithness. How is that improving the services, and how is that going to help people in the local community to get better healthcare? Kate Forbes, could you please wait your calls again? I know that you are anxious to respond. Kate Forbes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Point of order. Perhaps your clerk had heard the word repeated twice by Gail Ross when she called Edward Mountain a liar. Will she say it twice? No, I just asked her to sit down. We heard nothing here, so we cannot make any comment whatsoever. I am sorry. I am sorry. Let's proceed. Please continue, Ms Forbes. Great. On the points that Edward Mountain makes, I agree with him on the point about Rasseh, and it is something that I am actively engaged with, with NHS Highland, with the community. I would like to think that, if you asked the community, and you may well have done so, they would say that I have been working closely with them to try and find a solution. However, part of the problem, as we both will know in NHS Highland, is the problem with recruiting professionals. A BMA survey shows that four in 10 European doctors are considering leaving the UK in the wake of the UK's vote to leave the EU, so that is hardly helping the real challenges that we face in terms of recruitment. In the Highlands, we also want well-resourced education for our children, an accessible, further and higher education for our young people, and to attract other young people to study in the Highlands. Not only is the budget still committed to free education across Scotland, it is also providing additional money to directly reduce the impact of poverty on a child's education attainment. Of the total £120 million, there is almost £4 million going straight to Highland schools. More than anything else, we want local power. The budget promises to empower island communities further, so that island communities can build a more prosperous and fairer future for our communities. That is our budget. If you ever wanted confirmation that the Tories and the Labour Party only care about political posturing, watch how they vote tonight. To vote against this budget is to vote against connectivity, housing, roads and rail, a well-resourced NHS and reducing the impact of poverty. That matters to my constituents and it matters to me. I now call Ian Gray to be called by Ash Denham. We have had 19 budgets since devolution by my account, 20 perhaps if we include two in 2009. However, that one could and should have been different. It had the potential to be both transformed and transformational. Transformed because, for the first time ever, a Scottish Government had significant powers over tax, the powers for us to decide for ourselves, the balance between what we ask our citizens to contribute and how much we will have to invest in our country's future. We could have used substantial new welfare powers to reshape the benefits system, create targeted new benefits to support the vulnerable and thus transform their lives in the here and now. We could have chosen to end 10 long years on the low road of squeezing education budgets and returned at last to the high road of investing in our young people's future and thereby transforming their prospects and the future of our country. Alas, the only thing that this budget has actually transformed is itself through a series of U-turns, humiliating climb downs and shameless flip-flops. It started with the debacle of the council tax when the finance secretary revealed that, after 10 years and three elections of promising to abolish the council tax, he had, well, changed his mind. The only thing that he planned to do was to impose a swingeing increase across the board for higher bans. Specifically on council tax, would Ian Gray like to explain on behalf of the Labour Party why campaigning against the council tax year is freezed for nine years? Labour councils are now freezing the council tax. Ian Gray Well, councils are taking the best decisions that they can locally, in my own local authority, in my own local authority. My own local authority, the council have increased the council tax in order to protect services from the £4.5 million cuts imposed by the finance secretary. The finance secretary's council tax plan was radical in one way, of course, because he planned initially to remove the proceeds of the council tax increase from local communities and use it to swell his own coffers—a redistribution of sorts, I suppose, in the way that a smash-and-grab redistributes wealth to. In the first of his U-turns, the finance secretary had to abandon that plan by the time he brought his budget forward. He did that with great claims of extra money for schools, councils and the NHS, only for those claims to collapse under independent scrutiny. Scrutiny, which discovered sums of money allocated in multiple budget lines in an effort to hide cuts of £327 million to councils. Then we had the green deal, which was that we were told to stop those cuts that the week before the finance secretary had told us did not, in fact, exist. Of course, that deal turned out to be just a smaller cut, nor was it funded by progressive taxation, but in fact by creative accounting in the non-domestic rate pool. The finance secretary was not done, either, because this week his think-of-a-number budgeting led to the last great handbrake turn of the sorry budget process, when suddenly rates relief appeared for a handful of those businesses that were facing increases of two and three hundred per cent. After all that sound and fury, the double counting and the fantasy forecasting, we end up pretty much where we started. No serious attempt to use the new tax powers, but simply accepting the UK Tory tax structure pretty much intact. No attempt at all to use the new welfare powers with our most vulnerable citizens unnecessarily left at the mercy of Tory welfare reform for at least another three years. As for education, the budget squeeze goes on. £120 million to close the attainment gap could be, should be, a serious welcome and needed effort to transform the lives of children from poorer backgrounds. If it did not have to be set against a £170 million cut to the councils who fund those schools, a commitment to expand childcare, if that did not have to be set against again the cuts to councils who will be asked to deliver it, and indeed a nursery sector hammered by rates increases for which they received no help whatever this week. That is true of universities too. Swinching increases in their rates at the same time as the 7.5 per cent cut in their revenue funding. As for colleges, great fanfare made of a tiny increase in their teaching budgets this year, covering up the fact that in real terms college budgets have not yet caught up with 2006-07 when the SNP came to power 10 long years ago, and no support in the budget either for their students, struggling with a system that NUS describes as not fit for purpose. Is not that the truth of this budget? New powers, new opportunity, but all this Government can come up with is more of the same. I say to Kate Forbes, yes, I believe that people did want this Parliament to have tax powers, but I believe that they wanted us to use those tax powers in order to stop the cuts. That is what she and her colleagues promised a year ago, and yet what they have delivered is the same cuts to education budgets, the same Tory austerity cuts simply passed on, the same squeezing of local services in particular, the same tired excuses for a timid Government that does not have the vision or the guts to use the power of this Parliament to do the things that they only pay lip service to, to redistribute wealth, stop the cuts and invest in our future. We have spent some time now debating this budget, and the process has made many things clear, mainly that, while the Scottish Government has worked constructively to build a revenue and spending plan that is both fair and bold, the Tories have moved further to the right, turning their backs on the people of Scotland in favour of damaging rhetoric that is neither forthright nor productive in constructing a budget. In fact, last week, in a speech given in the backyard of her Westminster bosses, Ruth Davidson was daring enough to suggest that the First Minister faced a choice between a top priority of education or an independence referendum. She said that the First Minister cannot have it both ways. I never want to know the realities of a Tory Government in Holyrood, but it seems that Ruth Davidson cannot grasp that getting the best deal for the people of Scotland is not conducive to governing so narrowly, and that is why this budget does prioritise education by providing £1.6 billion to support higher and further education, while also making a record investment of £12.7 billion into health resource spending, while also expanding free childcare and early learning to 30 hours a week, while also handing head teachers of local schools an additional £120 million to use however they see fit, which will benefit eight schools to the tune of just over one million in my constituency, Edinburgh Eastern, and while also lowering the business poundage rate, expanding the small business bonus scheme to exempt 100,000 properties from rates and ensuring that 99 per cent of Scots won't pay more in income tax. On top of that, this week, an additional tailored rates relief package to 9,500 businesses across Scotland, one need only look as far as Portobello in my constituency to see how this action will benefit many restaurants, pubs, hotels and cafes, which are the heart of our local communities. I know that those businesses will be watching the Tories today, voting against crucial rates reliefs, voting against a package of support for small businesses. That is something that the Tories themselves called for, but today they are caught out on their empty rhetoric once again. I think that Ruth Davidson would be better off lecturing her own party about trying to have it both ways, as the Scottish Tories have called for cutting taxes on the one hand while demanding millions of pounds of public service investments on the other. In reality, we know that a Tory-led Holyrood would result in tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of our vital services that real Scots depend upon. That is why voters sent the SNP to Holyrood as the largest party, with a mandate to pass a budget that is far reaching and provides the kind of country that Scots demand, where students do not pay tuition fees for university, or the elderly for personal care, or parents for astronomical childcare costs. Working constructively with the Greens, the budget also now delivers an additional £160 million to local government to be spent at the discretion of individual authorities. For Edinburgh, that equates to an extra £12 million to bolster important local services. All that with a reduction in the business poundage rate, with a large business supplement threshold that matches England's, and with the best support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK. That is what getting on with the day job looks like, prioritising the needs of Scottish people, because that is what being in this Scottish Parliament demands of us. However, it seems as if the Scottish Tories would rather turn their eyes and ears away from Scotland and towards London, where they take their marching orders. That may explain why they have made no constructive engagement in this budget process at all. In fact, they had nothing to say about schools, they had nothing to say about hospitals and they had nothing to say about infrastructure. All they could talk about was tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. However, this Government hears the Scottish people and it refuses to lead in the incoherent way that the Tories would have, for while the adage of Westminster may be austerity. In Scotland, it is prosperity. It is fairness. It is a better deal than anywhere else in the UK. That is what this budget represents and I urge those in the chamber today to join me in voting for it. In the stage 1 budget debate, the finance secretary told this chamber that this budget will support jobs and lay the foundations for future growth. This budget is many things but it is most definitely not a budget for economic growth and jobs. As Murdo Fraser said, the budget process is about choices and the finance secretary has made decisions in two critical areas that will damage the economy and risk future government revenues. First of all, despite having an extra £500 million to spend, the finance secretary has slashed the enterprise budget by over £50 million. At a time—perhaps later—at a time in his words of significant challenge in our economy—at least we can agree on that last point, that is indeed a time of significant challenge to our economy. That is precisely why slashing the enterprise budget, which supports new and expanding businesses across all sectors in Scotland, is the wrong thing to do. I will later. Just to be clear, Mr Mackay earlier said that he has given Scottish Enterprise an extra £35 million. No, he has not. The budget originally cut the enterprise budget by £85 million. Now the cut is £50 million, but in the fantasy world of S&P economic policy, would that be seen as extra funding? Cabinet Secretary. I could ask Dean Lockhart the question. There is just a specific example of another spending request from the Conservatives. Where else from the budget do you propose that we take that from to fund another item of expenditure within our proposals? Dean Lockhart. I could be flippant and mention Mr Mackay's sofa, but let me make it clear to him that, had growth in Scotland's economy under the S&P matched growth in the UK since 2007, GDP in Scotland would have been £3.1 billion higher over the past 10 years. That is an extra £1.2000 per person or per household in Scotland. That is where the extra money is coming from. Grow the economy, not increase tax. In justifying the decision to cut the enterprise budget, the finance secretary has pointed to other measures being taken to boost the economy, including the growth scheme, which he says will provide up to £500 million of investment guarantees and loans. The only problem is that the budget fails to provide additional funding for the growth scheme. Where is the additional funding coming from to finance the £500 million growth scheme? Show me the money, Mr Mackay. I ask Dean Lockhart to understand what contingent liabilities are, because that has been explained to you before. Would you like a further briefing on that? That explains how the £500 million Scottish growth scheme is funded. Indeed, Mr Mackay, under international accounting standards number 37, I know what contingent liabilities are. They are off balance sheet, but you have repeatedly, as has your colleague Mr Brown, said that there will be fresh loans under the scheme. Fresh funding, that money is not available in the budget. When I asked Keith Brown this earlier today, he was unable to answer the question where is this money coming from. He did indicate that it might come from the existing enterprise budget, but, as we have heard, the budget has been cut by over £50 million. It is now becoming clear that the £500 million growth scheme is another example of SNP repackaging existing money and presenting it as new. All headlines, but no substance and no extra cash. Just like the mythical Scottish Business Development Bank, first announced by the SNP in 2013 to expand high-growth business in Scotland and, after four years later, still nowhere to be seen. Not right now. With such a bismol economic policy making, it is no wonder that the economy in Scotland under the SNP is performing so badly. The second area in which the finance secretary had a choice was whether or not to increase tax on jobs and take home pay. We now know that he did not need to increase the tax burden on hard-working families in Scotland, but the finance secretary decided to abandon the central ground and lurch to the left and join the Greens to increase tax on the hard-working people of Scotland. I would urge the finance secretary in the future to listen to the advice of business leaders on the economy and not the Greens. As the chamber of commerce has said, growing our economy rather than increasing tax will boost tax revenues and public spending. We agree. Not right now. Let me just refer to what Bruce Crawford and Ash Denham asked. How would we finance the extra spending? I have already mentioned that to Mr Mackay. If Scottish economy had grown at the same level as the UK under the SNP government, it would have an extra £3.1 billion. Economic growth is the answer, not increasing tax, and that is why we will not support this budget. The Conservatives are very fond of claiming that Scotland has received more money from the old benevolent Westminster Government, but the facts are that we have had a drastic 9 per cent real-terms reduction over this Parliament and the last Parliament. Perhaps if Westminster had continued to support Scotland financially, the economy would have grown further. Let me just refer to the research by Spice, where they show that the real-terms numbers have increased from 2010 to this current budget. I have the numbers here, and I am happy to compare notes with the member later. There is no point in debating across the chamber with each other. If you want to make a point, either of you, Mr Ross, the cabinet secretary, intervene. The debates on the budget have quite rightly focused on how we can increase funding for vital public services. However, no discussion on the funding of public services can be complete without recognising the fundamental importance of funding through the Barnett consequentials. For example, of the £380 million increase in NHS funding in Scotland last year, more than £350 million was funding from Barnett consequentials. Earlier this week, one of the country's top economic forecasters, Douglas McWilliams, from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, provided a timely reminder of the importance of the Barnett formula and the impact that independence would have on public services in Scotland. He said in the event of independence that there would need to be cuts in public spending of about 15 per cent of GDP. That is roughly on the scale of what has happened in Greece. In dragging the high-tax budget through Parliament, the pro-independent coalition of the SNP and Greens have argued that increasing tax is progressive. Let me make it clear that there is absolutely nothing progressive about the massive cuts to public spending and vital public services that would be the direct consequence of their obsession with independence. I support the amendment in Murdo Fraser's name. Before I call you, Mr Paterson, can I remind members that there is a practice in the chamber that, after you have made your speech, you wait the next two speeches before you leave the chamber? Two members have done that. I just tell you to bear in mind that it is a courtesy to other speakers, and those people will find out who they are later today. The budget that delivers on the promises that the Government was elected on is a budget that was created in Scotland for Scotland, not dictated to us by Westminster. Of course, Scotland's finances are still being strangled by the UK Tory Government. However, we will not bend to the plan of total austerity. We will not sell off Scotland's public services. We will not bow to privatisation. However, we will ensure economic growth, social justice and the protection of our services. We all found out yesterday from independent research that Scotland is not the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. That destroys the complaints from the Tories that this is the case. SpiceFind found out that any tax rises are mitigated by the lower council tax in Scotland. It is important to mention that all council tax will be spent locally. National Labour says that increased tax is its mantra. We have had it throughout the process, but last night, when the prospect of increasing tax by Labour in West Dunbartonshire council, they voted to freeze the council tax after years of complaining bitterly locally about it. Is it not the case that the SNP councillors voted to increase the council tax by 3 per cent, ignoring the impact that it would have on some of the poorest in our community? Gil Paterson might well be the case, Ms Bailey. However, the point is locally that your councillors and you particularly have been berating the fact that the council tax was frozen and you continued that freeze. That is what we are talking about here. We have the business bonus, but we also have the social bonus, free further education, free prescriptions and free bus passes, among other benefits that are exclusive to Scotland. However, I am sad to say that the Tories demand a tax reduction for the highest paid. Should we not maintain the principle, the more you earn, the more you contribute. Thankfully, there are many higher earners who will gladly contribute their fair share, and I thank them very much for it. The Scottish budget protects Scottish services. We have invested in education. I welcome new funds set to be given to schools in my constituency, where most of the schools will benefit from it. More funding will go through this mechanism to underprivileged pupils. That will help to improve the life chances of many young people, and it will help to reduce the attainment gap that the Government has vowed to do. The funding increase for universities and colleges is also excellent news, and as I said, free education will continue. If the Tories had their way, everyone would have to pay the huge fees seen down south. However, I believe that every person, no matter what their background is, should get the chance of a great education if they choose to do so. The SNP is delivering on its promises. Poverty scar Scotland and the problem is historic, but we are tackling it. Many of my constituents will benefit from the Scottish Government continuing to mitigate the impact of the hated bedroom tax. Many in my constituency will benefit from the Scottish welfare fund, a fund that will clear up the mess left by the UK Government's punitive welfare programme, and the wheels are in motion for a new Scottish social security system. With the powers that we have, we will run welfare with dignity and respect. Presiding Officer, economic growth is the key to Scotland's prosperity. With the few tools that we have, we are still driving economic growth. Four billion pounds invested into our infrastructure. Most of us will have seen the amazing developments taking place, for example, the motorway projects on the M8 and M74, and the stunning Queensferry crossing, and there are many more progressing across the country. All the drivers of economic growth will improve the lives of millions. The SNP Government is building our economy in Clydebank in my constituency. We boast of one of the finest heart surgery hospitals in the world. The Golden Jubilee national hospital is to receive multi-million-pound expansion and 700 new jobs, not transferred jobs. Those are new jobs, real jobs, brand new jobs into the local economy. The health and social care partnership helps some of the most vulnerable constituents of mine. This budget is about economic growth, investment in our public services and social justice, protecting our most vulnerable from class war wage by the Tories. The budget is about making Scotland's economy prosper. The budget is about investing in and protecting public services. I call on all MSPs to back the budget tonight. I am delighted to have the opportunity, particularly as a newly elected member, to participate in this historic stage 3 budget debate. It is my view that this is a fair and proportionate budget that balances the imperatives of public spending with the exigencies of supporting economic growth at a time of Brexit-driven uncertainty. The proposals that are outlined in the budget will increase resources for local services and totality and increase health spending above inflation. In my constituency of Renfrewshire South, the budget translates to almost £5 million in additional support for integration authorities and more than £1.5 million direct to skills through the pupil equity fund. Although St David's primary in Johnston already benefits from attainment-challenging funding, the pupil equity fund, provided by the budget, means that, to give just a few of the many examples, in Barhead, both St Mark's and Calibur primaries will each receive an excess of £120,000. Johnston High will receive over £110,000 and Woodlands primary in Llinewood will benefit from almost £150,000. That is real money that will make a real difference to the lives of children and young people in my constituency. Those who vote against the budget tonight will vote against that money going to those skills. Neil Findlay does that mean that every time the SNP has voted against a budget in here or in any council chamber that they are voting against every single thing in that budget? Let's get beyond this childish stuff. Tom Arthur? The context in that remark is that I hear from the Labour Party calls for increased investment in education. We provide increased investment in education, but what do we do? We vote against it. Presiding Officer, a frustration that is shared by many of my constituents, particularly in Howard and Loch Winnock, has been the historic lack of access to superfast broadband. On doorstep after doorstep during the election campaign, the Government's commitment to provide superfast broadband access to 95 per cent of homes by the end of this year and access to 100 per cent of premises in Scotland by 2021 was warmly received. I know that many of my constituents will join me in welcoming the support that is provided by the budget to deliver the final phase and the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme and the commencement of the first phase of the reaching 100 per cent programme. Whether it be in health, education or digital infrastructure, that is a budget that will deliver for my constituents in Renfisher South and deliver for the people of Scotland. That cannot be said, however, about the Tory and Labour proposals. Labour's tax proposition is, in my opinion, unfair, ill-advised and incoherent. It is unfair to ask people on less than £12,000 a year to foot the bill for Tory austerity. It is ill-advised to advocate an increase in the additional rate without regard to the potential behavioural impact and consequent reduction in tax revenue. I would rather deal with the pragmatic reality than in Labour's clown car economics. It is incoherent to push for tax increases on the lowest earners in society, while simultaneously implementing council tax treaties across the country. On the grounds that so many people are having to tighten their own budgets and, in the worst cases, are struggling to provide the basics for their families, not my words, Presiding Officer, but those of outgoing Labour renfisher councillor, Mark McMillan. It is incoherent that it has characterised Labour's whole approach to the budget process at every level, which has resulted in Labour's politics being viewed by the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland as outdated, misplaced and irrelevant to the needs. Something confirmed yet again by the grotesque chaos of Labour's walk-out at Clackmannanshire council this morning. While Labour would hammer the least affluent in society with tax rises, the Tories want to cut tax from the most affluent at the expense of our public services. Presiding Officer, the budget process has been very revealing about the values and character of the Conservatives. That confirms what we have always known, that despite the talk over the past 10 years of rebranding and disbanding in a refresh member-stip, it is still the same old Tories. Let me give you one example. East Renfisher stand to benefit by over a digital £3 million announced earlier in the budget process. The budget was set last week. What did the Conservatives decide to do? What was their suggestion for how that revenue should be spent? Education? Additional investment in health? No. Their proposition was that 6 per cent council tax cut in the most affluent parts of Scotland. I think that it says all that we need to know about the values of the Conservative party. For all our talk of being the highest tax part of the UK, the people who stand to benefit from the Conservative proposition are the highest earners, not the people who are most vulnerable and people who are in most need of support. That budget is a budget that delivers for all of Scotland, and I am proud to support it. Presiding Officer, almost on a daily basis, we hear SNP members saying that this is a historic day. It is a historic moment. It is a historic progress towards whatever it is that they dream of every single night, but in actual fact what this is is a historic waste of time and a historic wasted opportunity. This Government spends every waking moment saying that we want more power, more power, more power, but when they get the power they do not want to do anything about it. Welfare powers are all we need to wait and see. Tax powers are all we do not want to use the tax powers. I will listen carefully to Tom Arthur's argument about the 50p tax band. I have heard that argument before. It is a Tory argument to say that people will flee if you introduce a 50p tax band. In actual fact, Nicola Sturgeon used to support a 50p tax band. It was when she was playing the game of the 2015 general election when she said that she supports a 50p tax band. However, now that she has the power and the opportunity, she does not want to use it. The truth is that when it comes to tax policy, Derek Mackay, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP benches are Tory unionists on tax policy rather than wanting to use the tax policy. The budget was meant to be about protecting communities. I am sorry. All that budget does is protect the yes alliance. I am happy to take an intervention. John McAlpine I thank the member for taking an intervention. Can I explain why the last Labour Government did not put the tax rate up for the highest earners until 2010? Annas Sarwar I am sorry that John McAlpine perhaps was not paying attention to what happened under the last Labour Government, but we did introduce the 50p tax band. However, this budget is all about protecting the yes alliance, not protecting the poorest and most vulnerable communities. I listened to Patrick Harvie's contribution. Patrick Harvie is a man that I respect. I almost think that he is a man that speaks on principle, but the reality is that this is a Glasgow MSP who fails to recognise a cut to Glasgow's budget. A £53 million cut to Glasgow's budget is something that his councillors voted on last week. I am happy to take an intervention. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to Mr Sarwar for giving way. This is a Glasgow MSP who has won an additional £17 million. I agree. I want more. I wish we had more. I wish we were investing more. However, what exactly has Annas Sarwar's party's approach achieved in terms of real, meaningful difference pushing the SNP to do something that they did not want to do? Annas Sarwar, I will give you the extra time, Mr Sarwar. I am so glad that Mr Harvie made that intervention, because what the equivalent of the Green and SNP deal is is that someone coming to Patrick Harvie, someone coming to Derek Mackay, someone coming to Nicola Sturgeon and saying that he is going to get a £15,000 pay cut. He then comes back and says that he is actually getting a £10,000 pay cut, but he should be happy because he is getting £5,000 extra. That is the equivalent of the argument that you are making in this debate. There is no extra money. There are still cuts to communities across the country. And look at the SNP benches. Not a single utterance of opposition to a cut to budgets in your own communities. No backbone. No ability to stand up to your own Government. No ability to stand up to your masters. No opinion of your own. No ideology. No thought except independence. I took pleasure standing to shoulder to shoulder with every single SNP, MSP and Glasgow against the proposals to close job centres in the city. Why are not they standing shoulder to shoulder with us now when the budget in the city is getting cut? Why are not they standing shoulder to shoulder with us now when there are actually NHS cuts happening across the country? The reality is that it is easy to be tough when you are talking about what is happening by them in Westminster, but not with any backbone when your own Government makes bad decisions right here in Scotland. I will tell you what else I was this week. I was at the health board this week to protest against claims. I am glad that Mr Mackay is laughing, because I am going to talk about the REH, which is part of the area that he represents. I was at the health board this week standing shoulder to shoulder with Neil Bibby in opposition to the closure of the kids' word, the REH. Where was George Adam? Where was Derek Mackay? Where were these MSPs? They were outside McDonald's campaign against a closure there, or perhaps they were buying Nicholas Sturgeon a happy meal, because the reality is that when it comes to standing up for their communities, they are nowhere to be seen. I have seen the social care promise that was made in this budget, but apparently we are getting £107 million more for social care. The reality is that at the same time they are writing to councils to say that they can withdraw up to £80 million for IJBs. What is the consequence? Delayed discharge being at over half a million bed days lost when the cabinet secretary promised to eradicate it by the start of 2016. Half a million bed days is the equivalent of every single bed, every single day and more at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital being occupied by patients who are fit to leave but are trapped in hospital. There is a shame on every single SNP member across this chamber, because, after 10 years of this Government, we have seen inequality rise. Health inequality rise. The gap is not narrow but widen. The occurring gap is widen and not narrow. The wealth gap is widen and not narrow. What is the SNP's version of redistribution of wealth? What is the SNP's version of redistribution of wealth is to cut air passenger duty for frequent flyers while reviewing the bus pass for pensioners across the country. That is the real truth of this SNP Government. In closing, I will be voting against the budget, because I believe in prosperity, because I believe in fairness, because I stand up against poverty, because I reject austerity. What will the SNP's members do? I know what they'll do, they'll do what they're told. I have Joan McAlpine, followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. If we've learned anything today, Presiding Officer, is that the Tories are economically innumerate and their sums don't add up. All through this budget process, we've heard the Tories made uncosted spending demands simultaneous with demands for tax cuts. They make two completely contradictory assessions exactly the same time. Apparently, without any embarrassment or shame, George Orwell called it a double cross. The Tories are not fooling anyone except themselves. She can't cut taxes and spend more at the same time. No amount of silly extended metaphors but overstuffed sofas can divert us from that dodgy arithmetic. The Tories lined up today to demand extra spending. Is that right, Mr Fraser? Murdo Fraser. I'm grateful for Joan McAlpine for giving way on that point. Where was Joan McAlpine in election after election, when the SNP stood on a manifesto to cut corporation tax by 3 per cent in order to grow the tax take and grow the economy? Was that completely wrong? Joan McAlpine. Why are you doing expecting major returns for a tax cut, which is exactly why your sums don't add up? Because you're not actually coming up with the money immediately to make all those spending demands. I'll just go through some of the spending demands that you've heard today. Dean Lockhart wants more for Scottish Enterprise. Edward Mountain demanded more to fill health vacancies, despite the £12.7 billion being allocated to the NHS this year. It's not just that their sums don't add up. The basic Tory assertion that Scots will pay more tax is simply not true. The fact is that 99 per cent of people in Scotland will pay no more tax, given their current level of income than in 2016-17. Income tax is not going up in Scotland. Instead, the Tories are giving the richest 10 per cent in the rest of the UK a big tax cut. The Tories propose to raise the level of which people start paying the higher rate of income tax from £43,000 to £50,000 by 2020. It's a massive tax cut, which the Conservatives forecast will cost the UK £1.6 billion. I'm very glad that that cost won't fall on Scotland because of the fair and sensible policies pursued here. Scotland will freeze income tax rates for the entire life of this Parliament, and freezing income tax is not the same as raising income tax, yet the Tories continue to assert that it is. The price of that will be paid by ordinary basic rate tax payers through increased charges and fewer services. The real high tax party is, in fact, the Tory party. In England, it's Tory taxes that are higher for poor people who have to pay the Tory's bedroom tax, which the Scottish Government has effectively wiped out here in Scotland at a cost of £47 million. Yes, I will. Annas Sarwar Please clarify, as she said, that there will be freezing income tax rates for the duration of the Parliament. Does that mean that the top rate of tax will not rise for the duration of this Parliament? Is that what she's saying today? Joan McAlpine As you have already said, that is something that is being considered at the moment. One example is of the new Scottish welfare fund introduced by the SNP for the most vulnerable in our society, which will benefit 217,000 households affected by emergencies, financial crisis and the effects of the UK Government's cruel welfare cuts, which, incidentally, Sheffield Hallam University calculates will take £1 billion out of the Scottish economy by 2020. In England, the Tory tax is on education, of course, because in England, students have to pay £9,000 in tuition fees. The tuition fees were introduced by the Labour Government, which Annas Sarwar was part of, as I recall, so 120,000 Scottish undergraduates do not have to pay. In England, Tory taxes are higher for the sick. They must pay 50 for every single item of medicine, and we will be tied to you if you have multiple conditions. In England, 100,000 people suffering from long-term conditions are hit by the Tory tax. Those Tory taxes also apply to older people around 77,000 people who benefit from free personal care in Scotland, which is not available in England, saving self-funders and residential care almost £9,000 a year. Effectively, that is another tax that those older people in Scotland do not have to pay. The SNP does not need to take lessons from the Tories on taxes. Tory tax and benefit changes are hurting the most vulnerable more than the rich. Since 2010, the only income tax rate that the Conservatives have cut is the additional rate from £50 to £45, which gives an insight into their priorities. The Tories are the party of hidden taxes. They plan tax cuts for the rich and stealth taxes for those on low and middle incomes, for the sick, the poor, struggling families, for students, for the disabled and the old. It is now 15 years since Theresa May has stood up at the Tory party conference and told her colleagues that they were the nasty party. We have had many changes in politics since then. Mrs May has gone from party chairman to Prime Minister, but I am afraid that that nasty party tag still sticks. Have Oliver Mundell to be followed by George Adam? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have to be honest as I still relatively new member of this Parliament. I have been a bit bemused at the circus the past few weeks, and I have been struggling to keep up with Derek Mackay's new budget revisions. However, it is more difficult for me—I have also been trying to work out which of my two conclusions is actually worse—a finance secretary who did not notice the missing millions from his own budget, or a finance secretary who willfully decided to hide them whilst hiking up taxes and cutting funding for local government and other public services. I suppose that at least all of that clears up some of the confusion about why those on the SNP benches thought that they had less money to spend if they were not actually planning to spend it. Nonetheless, I would still come into today's debate hopeful, hopeful that even in this, the 11th hour, Derek Mackay might change not just his mind but his mindset. Some of my colleagues might have thought that I was being a bit naive, but given all the unexpected windfalls and new turns since the draft budget was published, I was beginning to think that nothing was impossible. In fairness, I thought that given that cabinet secretary likes finding new money so much and given the newfound propensity of his Government to bound into action in response to Tory concerns, I thought that Derek Mackay might actually be willing to go the full hog and embrace the principles of economic growth and competitive taxation in order to grow the overall tax take. Instead, he is anchoring himself steadfast to the mistaken belief that it is the level of taxation, not the level of economic success that will protect our public services and increase living standards. In doing so, he is single-handedly failing in his duty to properly redistribute the wealth of our nation and setting out on an economic path that will deny a generation of Scots jobs, economic opportunities and the well-funded public services that they deserve. Worst of all, in doing so, the finance secretary is masquerading as some kind of modern day Robin Hood. The only problem is that Derek Mackay is not taking from the rich to help the poorest. No, he is more like the sheriff of Nottingham, putting forward a budget that is robbing all of us in order to pay for 10 years of SNP failure. No, thank you. Instead, I fear that this is more a case of the emperor's new clothes, where the new-found powers seem to have gone to the finance secretary's head, and he has been convinced to parade the naked truth about the SNP's economic policy in front of the people of Scotland, because the truth is that, if they have an economic plan, it must be invisible. Undeterred, the finance secretary sold us on, believing so strongly in his own spin that he does not even seem to have noticed the outcry. Derek Mackay could just interrupt the member's insults for a moment, and could the member turn to his proposition to tell us what area of funding would the Conservatives cut to fund their tax cuts for the richest in society? Oliver Mundell. We are looking, as we have said repeatedly, and I do not know how many times you have to tell this finance secretary that if you reduce the rate of taxation and maintain competitive taxes, you can grow the economy. I will continue. There is no escaping it. His Government has been found out that the years of economic indifference are coming home to roost, blaming the UK Government for years of its own inertia no longer washes. We now know once and for all that this is a socially heartless and economically soulless Government that has chosen and, believe me, the austerity of economic self-destruction is a choice to push thousands of businesses to the wall to demand that those on middle incomes pay more council tax and to send out an unequivocal message to the financially mobile and those who want to invest in Scotland that we are no longer open for business. All of this hurts our economy and means less money to redistribute in future years. That hurts our schools, our NHS and the most vulnerable in our society, and it is just not good enough. No doubt I will be told that I am talking Scotland down or making insults, but at least unlike this Scottish Government I am not doing Scotland down. Indeed, it is about time that the SNP realised that calling out there incompetence is actually about talking Scotland up, because unlike the fanatical hard left separatists, I do not believe that Scotland is too wee or too small to grow, nor do I think that we are shackled by our United Kingdom and I certainly do believe that we can make a success of Brexit, but we are not going to achieve any of that by reducing our competitiveness and making ourselves the highest tax part of our United Kingdom. Perhaps it is because I represent a constituency on the border where people have to make a choice about where to live, work and do business, and that choice for them is very immediate. However, I believe more strongly than ever that we are starting to pay a very high price for SNP rule. That is why I will not be voting with the Scottish Government this evening and I wholeheartedly back the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser. The last of the open speeches is George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would first like to say how pleased I am to speak in this debate as it is not only the budget debate, but it is also the first time a good friend and colleague, Derek Mackay, has presented this to us as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. However, it is the first time in history that we, the MSP of Scotland, have the power to make new decisions for our country. That budget heralds a material change in the financial responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament, including the first opportunity to set income tax and thresholds. That is an important step towards Scotland's future and growth as a country. That budget is fair, focused and forward thinking towards promoting Scottish interests and protecting Scottish people. That budget rejects the austerity that is so loved by the Tory party in Westminster and secures an additional £900 million to spend on our public services. We believe that money is better spent on the things that matter to most people, the things that have the ability to make or break everyday taxpayer and everyday families, health, education, jobs and local services. Those are the things that make us successful in fair society. By making our priority people and public services, Scottish taxpayers get more for their money and a much better deal than anywhere else in the UK. I will take the member's comedy turn now. Anas Sarwar talks about local services. He talks about the NHS. Today, on 30, he was saying that 140 characters are not enough to say what his position on the REH is. When he gets back on his feet, will he demand that his health secretary calls on the proposal and rejects the plan to close the REH kids ward? We have sat here today on three or four occasions from Kezia Dugdale and from the member present as well, attacking members of my community who have low-wage jobs and low incomes because I stood up for them to try to make sure that they had future prosperity for the families in Baisley. Do not come to me, Mr Sarwar, with your playing politics and with hospitals. At this point, the Tories will no doubt fixate upon what they perceive to be a disregard of Scotland's highest income taxpayers. Yet, at that moment, they are only being asked to pay a little bit more each year compared to the rest of the UK. This is greatly offset by the savings that these earners will benefit from in respect of free prescriptions, free higher education and other vital public services in Scotland. The difference with England amounts to around £7.60 a week. Compare that to £8.48 cost to an average person south of the border for prescriptions. That is £8.40 for prescriptions. I have watched the passage of the budget bill through the chamber and at committee level. I have seen the debate between Murdo Fraser and Derek Mackay. It has been an example of two different approaches and styles of political beliefs. However, there is one major big difference. I have known Derek Mackay always political life, and the big difference is that Derek has won every election he has stood in, as opposed to Mr Fraser, who has lost every campaign. The public themes have real insight in the choice of elected members. In contrast, the Labour Party suggests to raise tax to down-down-tably affect our low-income tax payers the most. That is something that this Government will certainly not get on board with. Instead, this Government will freeze income tax rates, and despite Westminster cutting the Scottish budget, it will not pass on austerity to the household budgets of the lowest incomes in our society. Indeed, this Government continues to protect some of the poorest within our society from the negative impacts of the UK Government's welfare cuts while attempting to tackle poverty, protect those with disabilities and continue to develop a Scottish social society and social security system based on dignity and respect. Locally, the budget recognises the importance of community resources. Local government is an integral and essential part of overall good governance of Scotland and continues to be a key partner in the Scottish Government's transformation programme for public sector reform. In acknowledgement of that, Scotland's local authorities are to be a benefit from an additional £160 million investment to spend on local priorities on top of the £240 million already pledged for local services. Every council area will benefit from additional funding through the attainment Scotland fund, which will help to significantly close the attainment gap and further promote a fair and equal society for every Scottish citizen. In addition, all of the extra council tax income, estimated at £111 million in 2017-18, raised by the reforms of our council tax from band Z and H, will be retained and full in each local authority area. Each authority can then decide how to spend this money, based on their own local priorities and needs. All council tax raised locally will be spent locally. Those council tax reforms will provide additional support to families of low incomes across all council tax bans by extending the relief available to households with children, which could benefit 77,000 families and estimated 140,000 children. From healthcare, the budget proposes a record investment in NHS and sends a total health resource to a soaring £12.7 billion. During times of difficulty and uncertainty, it is crucial for the NHS to remain a priority service for the Scottish people. In challenging times, the budget delivers for people of Scotland, and this cabinet secretary is showing the way forward for the prosperous fair Scotland that we all want to live in. We are now coming to the closing speeches. Despite all the noise this afternoon, I actually have some time in hand, so I can give some time for interventions if you wish to carry on the spirit of debate, as it has been so far, but from a standing position instead of sitting on your seat. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Labour's approach from the start of the budget process has been to use the new powers of this Parliament to stop the cuts in full, not in part, so that we can invest in public services and invest in our people to grow the economy. That stands in stark contrast to the SNP, who are content to simply operate as a conveyor belt for Tory cuts. We now have the power to do things differently, but it takes political will, something that appears to be strangely absent from the SNP. Every time we debate this subject, the SNP simply blames the Tories for the cuts. I confess to having a modicum of sympathy for that approach, but when the SNP has the power to change that and refuse to do so, I part company with them completely. I also consistently remind the chamber about the First Minister's pronouncements on the issue of Tory austerity. She used to believe in being anti-austerity. That was at a time when she had fewer powers than she does now. Now she can actually deliver it, isn't it just such a shame that she no longer wants to do so? The SNP always demand more powers. After all, they are the party of independence. However, what a shame it is is that they do not want to use the powers that they have to protect our public services and our economy. We have heard a list of good things from SNP-backed benches today. It is not about denying those things. We believe that this Parliament can and should do more. You see, they cannot really get away from the cuts that they are making in a second, because no amount of double counting on the part of SNP ministers can hide this. £170 million this year slashed from local services, a total of £1.5 billion since 2011, much of it on the Deputy First Minister's watch. What does he have to say about that? John Swinney says that there is no denying the good things in the budget. Why on earth is the Labour Party then going to vote against every single one of them that sees £900 million of investment in local services? Where is the social justice and that absurdity? Jackie Baillie says that it is interesting that there are actually £170 million of cuts, £1.5 billion on the Deputy First Minister's watch. He has cut services. I watch him and the First Minister shake their head. The unfortunate thing for them is that it is all true. They claim to be funding the health service. We know across Scotland that the NHS is struggling. In NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, they will start to consult on the biggest cuts programme in their history, a staggering £105 million next year alone. Services will close, patients will suffer, and let me give you a flavour of that. Reduction in mental health services for older people, and here I thought mental health was supposed to be a priority for this Government. Removal of school nurses from our schools and, of course, the closure of the children's ward at the RAH, the local member, George Adam, failed to mention. That is not to mention the proposals to close the Vale and Denver Clyde maternity units, which they will not tell us about until after the May election, how deeply cynical that is. Let us not pretend that this is anything else than a budget that cuts. I have given way to you already. Let me go to the SNP green deal. You might want to comment on that in a minute. I have watched these manoeuvres with fascination. They all say that there is an extra £160 million on the table, but that is simply not true. The only new extra money is £29 million. The other money is already in the budget, it is underspend, it is shifting budget lines, and it is accounting trickery. Like a cheap congerer, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance reaches up his sleeve and pulls out another bankroll of money, and it is only for one year, so we start off next year with a £130 million cut. Can I say to the Greens as gently as I can? I think that they have got very little out of this deal. I am disappointed that progressive and principled politics has been abandoned for low politics and the illusion of influence. I think that the SNP will be smiling tonight. They have played a blinder, and they have played them well. Can I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement of 12.5 per cent cap for the north-east, the hospitality industry and renewables? Again, that is not new money. Again, it is only for one year. What businesses want to know is whether they will receive this relief next year, or whether we will wait and see what money he can pull from his other sleeve in 12 months' time. That is not even to begin to touch on the additional impact that there is for hospitals, for universities, for nurseries, for schools and, with the greatest respect, this is no way to run a budget. Slight of hand, short termism, a complete failure to grasp the challenge ahead. The cabinet secretary knows that we raise a substantial proportion of our own income. The number of people paying tax in Scotland matters. It has a direct relationship with the amount that we spend on public services, so we clearly need to grow the economy, to grow our tax base, to have more people in work, more people paying tax, the more people you can spend on public services. It really is that simple. Yet at a time when our economy is stagnating, employment is down, unemployment is up, economic inactivity is rising, what do the SNP do? Well, you guessed it, Presiding Officer, they cut the budgets of their enterprise and skills agencies, the very bodies charged with growing our economy. Having cut the Scottish Enterprise budget by 48 per cent, they decided to give some of it back. We have to welcome it, but it is financial transaction money. It can only be used as loans that need to be repaid, and there is still a £50 million cut. Labour will not support grubby backroom deals among parties that are more interested in the next independence referendum than in growing the economy and investing in public services. This budget does not protect the poorest, it does not protect public services, it tinkers at the margins, it is timid, it lacks vision, and that is why we will vote against it at decision time. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a new MSP, this is my first stage 3 budget debate, so I can only surmise how it has occurred in the past. I assume when you get to this stage that there is very little new to add. That may have been the case in the past before we got Derek Mackay, the Cabinet Secretary for U-Turns. I could have given Derek Mackay other titles, such as the Cabinet Secretary for the Parliament's Information Centre, given how often he deflected to Spice any difficult questions over how his funding for additional business rates relief would take place, or I could have named him the Cabinet Secretary for Money, Trees and Cash down the back of the sofa. I accept that that is not particularly catchy, but it does accurately describe how Derek Mackay has navigated his first budget. Long considered, a rising star in the SNP some must now be questioning his abilities. A finance secretary, with over £500 million in real terms more to spend in this budget than his predecessor, but still he can only manage to conjure up a budget that taxes hardworking families more, doesn't deliver for businesses and cuts funding to local authorities while still expecting them to deliver more. I will take an intervention. If the member is so concerned about cuts to local councils, how would he anticipate funding local councils if he is so determined to cut taxes further rich? Douglas Ross. I will come on to funding for local councils and our tax proposals later, because I think that they are important to give them the full amount of time. We know that the only way that this budget will be passed tonight is through an alliance between the parties that support Scottish separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. What of the Greens? Half of them are in the chamber at the moment. We know that Derek Mackay was shamefully described as a white knight by Richard Lochhead on Tuesday. What could we call Patrick Harvey? My colleague Murdo Fraser had his own choice description during the stage 1 debate, but I have another description. They are pusillanimous, lack courage, timid and give in too easily. We all remember Patrick Harvey telling the chamber that he had not negotiated enough from the SNP to meet his party's manifesto that he had been elected on just nine months earlier, but he felt that he had to do a deal. How the SNP and Derek Mackay must have laughed as the Green Party professed to bringing every last penny of concessions out of the SNP only for another £44.6 million to be found for the business rates increases? I will give way to Mr Harvey. I am grateful to the member for giving way. We know that the Tory's main concern is the refusal by the Scottish Government to cut taxes for the richest 10 per cent, but does he at least acknowledge, as Mr Goldman failed to, that people on that higher rate threshold are high earners? Mr Goldman seems to think that £43,000 is a middle income. Does he not accept that the only people that he is trying to protect are the richest 10 per cent in society? I do not accept that and I do not accept calling my colleague Maurice Golden, Maurice Goldman. What I say to Mr Harvey is that this budget will suffer, people will suffer as a result of this budget. Hard-working taxpayers will suffer as a result of this budget. It is wrong for SNP and Green members who have pushed through this budget to try and profess any differently because the public know that it will be hard-working families that will suffer because of the vote that they are about to take. I want to make a bit of progress if I can. I will try and come back if possible, but I want to ask a question of the cabinet secretary if I may on business rates. I welcomed the additional funding that he announced on Tuesday, and I would like to raise a particular point on behalf of an operator of a bowling alley in Elgin. The bowling alley had previously a rateable value of £41,000 a year. It went up to £70,000, a 70 per cent increase. Darren Margarh, the owner and the managing director, managed to get that back down through his own work to a 30 per cent increase, but that is still a crippling increase. Since the bowling alley is also a restaurant and a bar, will it be included in the 12.5 per cent cap? That is an important point that I would like to get on the record. I will give way to Mr Mackay. What I think is inappropriate for me to do is to give individual tax advice to individual companies on the course of a stage 3 debate, but what I would retort in saying is why are the Tories in just a matter of minutes about to vote against the relief package for tens of thousands of businesses across this land? I would say that I am grateful for that intervention, but I am not. If he wants to make it wider than just one business, can he then tell me why bowling alleys across Scotland—some of them are a 20 per cent reduction, but Darren Margarh and Pins Bowling Alley in Elgin were a 30 per cent increase? If he takes them out, there is an overall decrease in business rates, but an increase when you include them. No, I cannot give you any further, but this is a genuine concern. If you can answer that for Pins Bowling Alley in Elgin. Derek Mackay. As I have also said, by lowering the poundage for businesses, that is a tax reduction for businesses across the land. In addition to all the new national reliefs and the extension of the small business bonus, I have asked local authorities to look at what other areas they may wish to protect with the extra £160 million that we have given to local authorities. Within that, the Conservatives need to step up to the plate and support local authorities in making those decisions. I understand why the cabinet secretary will not give an answer here today, but it is a genuine concern that I am raising. I would appreciate, I will write to you and seek a full response for my constituent. However, we will take a final look at stage 1, before I move on. Mr Swinney, what I would say? Mr Ross, please sit down. If members wish to have a debate where there is no back-chat, please respect that. If all parties want to take part in that kind of heckling, then it is for me to decide when it is too much, not for anyone else. I was reflecting on the stage 1 proceedings. Just after that, SNP cabinet ministers, John Swinney included, went into tweet overdrive. They were hailing this deal that they had done with the Greens. All of them were saying how bad Labour and the Conservatives were for voting down the budget. All of them were with the same omission. I looked at them and a number of them all failed to mention a different group in this Parliament. Who was it? It was the Liberal Democrats. They never got a mention in any of the tweets about the stage 1 debate. It got me wondering. I thought that I must check the voting record of the Lib Dem MSPs, and they all voted against the budget. Why were they not included in the criticism? I began to wonder whether it was because they were the smallest party in Parliament, or whether it was because the SNP is now worried that the Greens realised that they had been short sold on their deal and that they will need the Lib Dems to prop them up in the future. I think that that is very telling from the tweets that we saw so far. I want to briefly mention that I will give way to Mr Rennie. I do not really need Douglas Ross to stand up for me. What we really need is a change in the budget to deliver investment for the future. Is that something that he will support next time round? Douglas Ross. Given how unsuccessful Mr Rennie was in his negotiations with the Scottish Government, I do not think that I will be taking any lectures from him as to how to go about budget negotiations in the future. I do not even have time to go over a number of the points that were made. However, I will make a couple of issues if I have a bit more time, because I like to mention things that are said during the debate. Kate Forbes said that it was a privilege to be a parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary and now we all know why. She gets reports from the cabinet secretary before her release to the rest of Parliament, puts out a press release and no wonder she thinks that it is a privilege if that is how she is dealing with her role. At this stage 3 debate on the budget comes to a conclusion just now and with it the door closes on an unprecedented opportunity to grow Scotland's economy. Let us be clear, our economy is one that is underperforming. Tonight, the Greens and the SNP will make Scotland the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. However, the reality is that Derek Mackay did not need these tax rises at all. As Murdo Fraser pointed out during the Tuesday's debate on the Scottish rate resolution, the total being raised by creating this income tax differential is £108 million, substantially less than the £185 million that the SNP had seemingly stashed away for a rainy day. Make no mistake about it. Scots can see past the smoke and mirrors of the SNP and they want a strong opposition, holding the Government to account on decisions that will not only affect Scotland's bottom line but their own. The Scottish Conservatives won't support the budget at decision time tonight because it's a bad proposition for the people of Scotland. Bruce Crawford and Tom Arthur said that this was a historic day. This budget is indeed historic, but it won't be remembered for the powers gained, it will be remembered for the opportunity lost. I now call on Derek Mackay to close this debate until just before 5 o'clock, please, Mr Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I did say in earlier stages of the budget process that I would embark on a process of negotiations to find consensus in this chamber. I feel as if I've done that, as this debate has evidence. Well, not consensus for every every part of the chamber to vote for the budget. Maybe that was too much to ask. I know that I've been described as a magician, but maybe I'm not a miracle worker to get the better together alliance to vote with us to unlock extra investment for the public services of Scotland. I see that many elements of this debate have been quite disappointing when you think about the seriousness of what we are discussing, which is all our public services, the tax rates that we are now responsible for, and I think that this was an opportunity for us as a Parliament to show how we've matured and will respond to the powers that we have. Therefore, the most disappointing contribution in the chamber has to be Douglas Ross, who spent the summing up on behalf of the Conservatives to indulge in a large degree of personal insults and abuse. If you choose to spend on behalf of the Conservatives your summing up time to simply insult me, I think that that does a disservice to your own party and the entire country. This budget was about £39 billion worth of services. That's what we have been discussing. Members across the chamber may find points of difference to oppose the budget on, but many members have been able to express reasons to support this budget and the choices that this Parliament would make. I listened very closely to what the Labour Party and others wanted, and there were very specific requests that I tried to deliver as part of this budget process. You can describe them as U-turns if you want to, but the way that I look at it is that, in trying to listen to what parties in this chamber want, to try to respond to that, to build a budget that tries to build that consensus felt like the right thing to do. Whether that was around attainment, I listened very carefully to what members and local government and in this Parliament had said about our council tax proposition and how we should fund attainment. We increased the attainment fund to enhance what was proposed in our manifesto, and we changed how that resource would be raised. Of course, we listened to voices within Parliament. We also acted on rail fares and local services, but it looks as if the Labour Party in a very dogmatic position will still vote against the budget this evening. I thank the minister for giving way. He will understand that our main opposition to the SNP's budget is their failure to use their tax powers. In the conversations that we had throughout the budget process, which I felt were very consensual and very worthwhile, the cabinet secretary for finance said that he may be willing in future years to revisit the question of a higher top rate of tax. Is he still open to that? Can he tell us today? Derek Mackay. The Scottish Government has been very clear that we would not take an unnecessary gamble with the additional rate. Yes, that policy is still under review that we may revisit the additional rate, but we will do so based on the evidence that the First Minister has specifically instructed the council of economic advisers to look at the issue, so that if we were to change the rate, we will do what is intended, which is to raise revenue for public services rather than jeopardise revenue for our public services. In terms of the Liberal Democrats—I will touch on the Liberal Democrats—just to say that I know that many members of the Opposition in this chamber might not be willing to vote for the budget, but I think that all members of the Opposition are willing this budget through this evening, because they know that this is a sensible and balanced budget to deliver for Scotland. The Greens have worked constructively, and I will return to that. One Conservative member—if I forget which one it was, of course. Willie Rennie. I want to give the finance secretary another opportunity to abuse me to satisfy Douglas Ross. Can he just set out why he has not taken the opportunity to use the new tax powers to do something different on mental health and education? Why has he not done that? Derek Mackay. Well, we are using our new tax powers, but in a fair and balanced and proportionate way, we are not passing austerity on to the families of Scotland, particularly the basic rate tax pairs, whilst at the same time investing an extra £900 million in our public services, spending more on the key areas that Willie Rennie asked me about. That includes police, that includes mental health, that includes NHS, and it specifically includes education in a way that I would have thought Willie Rennie would welcome. However, I will not have not, and I do not intend to abuse Willie Rennie or any other member of the chamber in the future, because I do not think that it is fitting of the seriousness of the subject that we are discussing. It is always interesting when I turn my attention to the Conservatives, it always motivates the Labour Party to get involved, but in terms of the Tories, they have put in the public domain what the priorities were for this budget, and it actually was not education or police or enterprise or innovation or international trade efforts or any of that whatsoever. I will tell you what the requests from the Conservatives were. It was a tax cut for the biggest businesses, it was a tax cut for the higher value homeowners wanting to sell their house, and it was a tax cut for the top 10 per cent of income earners in this country. That is the priority of the Conservatives, not those extra expenditure requests that many Conservatives make day after day, week after week. It was tax cuts for the richest in our society. That is not the choice that this Government will be making this evening. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way for the last opportunity to answer this point. If he will not listen to us, why will he not listen to the voice of the Scottish business community, who has told him time and time again to create a tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, is highly dangerous? Why will he not listen to them? The only people who are saying that there is an impact of our policies are the Conservatives who are talking Scotland down. I do not believe that there will be a mass exodus from Scotland as a consequence of our policies, especially when you look at the other side of the balance sheet and the social contract that we are delivering for our country around free education, no prescription, free personal care and lower counter-stack. Those are the kind of areas that I think will encourage people to continue to live, work and invest in Scotland. You are most certainly not a branch of Scottish Enterprise with your attitude towards this country. You are doing Scotland down whilst we are building Scotland up. There was criticism as well from the Conservatives on our Scottish growth scheme. It has been approved by the Treasury that it will be a sound scheme to support Scottish business. We revisited the tax argument, which was determined on Tuesday, which begs the question of having determined a tax position on Tuesday. Exactly what element is it of the £900 million of extra expenditure to the public services of Scotland? Do the Tories actually oppose—and we will be voting again this evening—that they are hypocrisy. They are hypocrisy has been shown on one issue above all else. That is business rates, where this Government took early action and then took further action to ensure that it was in place in advance of the new financial year. I hear the Conservatives grumbling about 11th hour actions. The Chancellor is still to respond as to what he will do south of the border on business rates. On business rates support, it was this Government that lowered the poundage, increased the small business bonus threshold, and lifted 100,000 properties out of rates altogether, ensuring that 70 per cent of businesses will pay no rates or lower rates as a consequence of our decisions. As well as opposing all that, the Tories at local level have also opposed local rates relief schemes as well. We can hear the noise that comes from the Tories. They may make a lot of noise, but they do not make a difference when it comes to the decisions of our country. That is where the Greens have made a constructive contribution to the budget setting of this country. The Tories are for tax rises, but only if you are poor or if you are sick or you are seeking education, you are quite happy to raise and charge taxes in those areas. You may well be a strong opposition, but tonight you will be opposing. Oh yes, oh yes, a strong opposition, strongly opposing the police, strongly opposing the NHS, strongly opposing the extension of childcare, strongly opposing more support for business and strongly opposing connectivity, as well as a new skills fund. They are a strong opposition to the good ideas that are coming from this Government and this Parliament. Some have said that there was no support for this budget, although I will mention that, since the Conservatives do not want to hear from me but others who have commented on this budget, such as the chair of colleges Scotland who has said that the increased investment in Scotland's colleges is very welcome indeed, particularly in those tough financial times, or Liz Cameron from the chambers of commerce. We are pleased that the key infrastructure budgets, such as roads and digital infrastructure, are set to rise substantially in the coming year, or the EIS who said that they welcome the announcement of additional investment to support schools in the area, or the FSB who said that by giving full rates relief to 100,000 Scottish firms, the Government has lifted the prospects of smaller businesses facing a tough 2017. Further, on the new skills fund, FSB said that we called for a new flexible fund to help firms develop their skills, especially the ones that they need to tap the power of the digital economy. What was announced today, while we need to see the details, sounds like it fits the bill perfectly. Finally, from CBI, Q8, he said that the commitments in this budget on housing, digital and transport connectivity will lay the foundations to allow firms to get on with growing their economy and creating jobs for the long term. I think that Bruce Crawford very helpfully covered the points of the economic incoherence of the Conservative Party, who every time when asked how they would meet any new spending commitment said they would either, how they would spend the resources. Murdo Fraser is heckling me at the moment, but maybe I will recap his economic madness. He promised me a new economics book and all I get is daff dossiers from the Conservatives, which normally begin with inaccurate figures. He said that to fund their policies, they would respend money that has already been spent, or with a status co-tax policy, that would magically increase the revenues, which you could retrospectively spend at the start of a financial year, based on future economic growth. That is the economic madness of the Conservatives. I will not take your advice on economics and I will not take the advice of the Labour Party on how to run a budget. Let us just look at Clackmannanshire, who has administration faced a budget decision today. The Labour leader resigned, the whole administration resigned and they have no budget. I will not take any lessons from the Labour Party on how to run a budget. In my final minute, Presiding Officer, can I say that this is a budget that is good for Scotland, investing an additional £900 million in our public services, record investment in the NHS, expanding childcare, more to tackle the attainment gap in our schools, more support for colleges, more investment in infrastructure, expanding broadband and supporting our business environment. This is a budget of which I am proud and I urge every member to support it this evening. Thank you. Tavish Scott, first paper on Tavish Scott. Presiding Officer, a governance review into public bodies subjected to the Scottish Government school review was published this afternoon. It makes recommendations on the high board and indeed on others. As you know, Parliament has already voted to retain high strategic decision making board. The proposals now in front of Parliament would change that. In light of Parliament's vote, have you had any indication that the Government would wish to make a statement on the matter, given the vote that we have already had? I thank Mr Scott for the point of order. I am going to address that point imminently, given that it was raised by Rhoda Grant earlier this afternoon. Douglas Ross. I would like to raise a point of order under standing order 7.3. I seek your guidance after Gail Ross during the debate that is just completed. Twice called, Edward Mountain a liar. In relation to the concerns that he was raising about maternity cover at Keith Ness General Hospital. When I raised this during the debate, the Deputy Presiding Officer and her official said that they had not heard it, but will you seek confirmation from the member that she did in fact use that word twice to allow that issue to be dealt with? If not, will you check the audio and the visual recordings of this meeting, which will show that even her colleagues sat next to her, were concerned about the language that she used? I thank you for both points of order. I can just address both in turn. Point of order, Mr Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Under rule 7.3 of the standing orders, I seek your guidance on comments made by Kezia Dugdale today at First Minister's questions. Kezia Dugdale said that I couldn't even be bothered to respond to public consultation on paediatric services in the Royal Alexander hospital. I have this afternoon received a letter of apology from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that, due to an administrative oversight, my submission was not included in the report. In this age of alternative truths, I am sure that Kezia Dugdale would not wish to put petty political point scoring ahead of the facts. Can the Presiding Officer advise whether Kezia Dugdale will be given the opportunity to correct the record on this matter? Thank you, Mr Adam, for your point of order. That is not a point of order. However, it is a point. The member was named in the debate earlier. He has now had the point to correct and put his point of view, and that will be noted by all. It is not a point of order for me to rule on. Can I move to the two other points of order, one raised by Tavish Scotland earlier by Rhoda Grant? Rhoda Grant raised a point about the publication of Lorne Creerar's Enterprise and Skills review, and I have looked into the matter further. I understand that the cabinet secretary wrote to the convener of the Enterprise Jobs and Fair Work Committee just after 2.30pm today, and the report has now been placed in Spice. The news release that Rhoda Grant referred to was issued more than 30 minutes beforehand. The Scottish Government will be aware that there has been significant interest in this issue across all parties, and in those circumstances I would expect the Government to make all members aware of its publication at the same time. I would invite the cabinet secretary—I cannot see, but I would invite the cabinet secretary to consider this or to reflect on it. Burea members will also be aware, however, that the cabinet secretary has undertaken to come back to Parliament on this issue in due course, and so there is an expectation that members will have the opportunity to question the cabinet secretary or to discuss the issue further. If I may, Mr Johnson, I will just finish these points of order, and then I will take a fourth point of order. On Mr Ross's point of order, I have been following—I was in for the early part of the debate and I have been following the debate—and I understand that it is a heated debate and that members' emotions are running high. The Presiding Officer was in the chair and the clerks, and neither of them heard the remarks referred to. I would just take this opportunity to remind all members to cheat each other with courtesy and respect, and not to make personal remarks or use unpermential language. Mr Johnson, given your confirmation that Kate Forbes released the information 30 minutes prior to its placing with Spice, would you consider that 4.11 of the ministerial code has been breached where it states explicitly that PLOs are required to exercise care in the use of any official information to which they have access in the course of their duties as a PLO? Thank you, Mr Johnson. Again, that is not a point of order. The ministerial code is a matter for the minister and for the First Minister and the Government. However, I have made my views known and I expect the minister to reflect on the matter. Are there any further points of order? Thank you. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 4168.2, in the name of murder Fraser, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Derek Mackay on the budget Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Were not agreed, we will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4168.2, in the name of murder Fraser, is yes, 31, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 4168, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the budget Scotland bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Were not agreed, we will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 4168 in the name of Derek Mackay is yes, 68, no, 57. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The budget Scotland bill is passed. That concludes decision time and I'll close this meeting of Parliament.