 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 12670, in the name of Hamza Yousaf, on Scotland's place in Europe. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press the request speak buttons now, and I call on Hamza Yousaf to speak to and move the motion. Minister, 14 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Colleagues, Scotland has been a progressive and integral part of the European Union for the last 40 years, engagement with the European Union and its institutions is a core priority for this Government. It is a priority that is essential to our programme for government, with a focus on driving sustainable growth but also tied with that, of course, tackling inequalities and one that flows from Scotland's economic strategy, which has internationalisation at its core and at its core of that engagement with the European Union. I want to focus today on Scotland's place in the European Union. First, our strategic priorities for engagement in that union are successes and how we are building on those successes. Secondly, perhaps focus on some of the benefits of EU membership and that EU membership brings to Scotland and vice versa. Why it is vital that that membership very much continues and perhaps lastly touch upon and spell out why it would be completely unacceptable for Scotland to be dragged from the union against her will and why we need to put in place appropriate safeguards to prevent that from happening. Colleagues, the institutions in Brussels have undergone considerable renewal and change over the last year or so. Elections to the European Parliament May 2014 have returned many new MAPs from across Europe but they have also returned a number of strengthened euroskeptic parties and members, a symptom perhaps of the frustration that is felt by EU citizens that the institutions have grown too remote from the citizens that they are meant to serve. There is, of course, a new European commission under the presidency of Jean-Claude Juncker that has taken office with significant changes to its feel and to its structure. That includes a beefed up role for vice presidents who, over the next five years, will be responsible for overseeing the delivery of key strategic objectives around, for example, energy, economic growth and the completion of the single market. The commission has now published its work programme for 2015, a 23-point plan aimed at progressing the commission's own EU 2020 growth strategy. The programme is designed to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth across the entire continent. It fits squarely with its own economic agenda, which has an economic focus of course but also a social focus too. I wrote to the EARC earlier this year setting out the key areas of interest for the Scottish Government and a copy of that letter is available in SPICE. However, critical issues for Scotland in this work programme include, among many other things, ensuring the successful agreement to the so-called UNCR investment package, a loan guarantee fund designed to deliver up to €315 billion in funding to kick-start a whole pipeline of capital projects across the EU, including, we hope, in Scotland. We also attach great importance to the completion of the single market and digital infrastructure, abolishing EU roaming charges and delivering an ambitious international climate agreement, of which Scotland has been a leader in discussions up to this point. I am very grateful to the minister for taking intervention. He will be aware of the importance of structural funding to the region that I partly represent in Orkney. There has been some concern back in the last year about decisions about how the allocation of that funding may be distributed in the Highlands and Islands, being centralised more to Edinburgh rather than has been the case in the past by partners in the Highlands and Islands. Can he give some reassurance that that will not be the case, those decisions will be taken in the Highlands and Islands? Yes, it is an issue that I know that the member has raised before, and I hope that he has had previous reassurances. I know that he has had reassurances, in fact, from this Government, and we would share those concerns, and I am happy to give reassurances to the member in that regard. I also hope to give some reassurances in this debate to Horizon 2020, which I know has been raised previously by the member, Claire Baker, and raised to me personally by those in the academic sector. Horizon 2020 is a very successful programme. Scottish academics and institutions have had a great amount of funding from it, punching above our weight, and any further reduction in Horizon 2020 would certainly give us cause for concern. I raised the issue personally with the UK Government, and it is fair to say that, across the table, a number of UK Government ministers present all of us shared our concern of that. I hope that the UKOW investment package would allow opportunities for educational establishments and academic institutions to be able to get more funding and to put it into context of Horizon 2020, although there has been a reduction in its budget in terms of a monetary reduction, in terms of percentage that is increased by around about 38 per cent. I hope to give reassurances on that during the debate. Let me touch briefly on that and the benefits of EU membership shortly. It is important to see the union—European union—not just as a place in which rules and regulations are made as important as they are. The union is so much more. It is a marketplace for exchanging ideas, for showcasing where Scotland can display leadership. We have displayed leadership through our hard-working Brussels office, which is included in the field of energy policy, which I know is of interest to members here. We have worked closely with states and sub-states to increase the visibility of marine renewable energy. Scotland has also played a leading role in the Vanguard initiative again, which is familiar to members across the chamber—a collaboration of 25 innovative European regions that aims to influence EU innovation industrial policies through collaboration. The initiative has been active on advanced manufacturing, where Scotland more certainly has a role to play. We look forward to welcoming members of the Vanguard initiative and Edinburgh to a visit here next week. We have also gathered support in a number of EU member states as a consequence of lobbying for the right to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol following the referral of the Scottish Government to the European Court. The Scottish Government has never argued that the EU is perfect. In fact, in every single member state I have come across, it has never argued that the European Union is perfect. The institutions of the EU have grown too distant from their citizens. There is a need for those institutions to reconnect. The key to that is pursuing an agenda that generally adds value and addresses those issues that are problems for citizens across the European Union. That is why we have welcomed very much the commission's plan to tackle stubbornly high youth unemployment, to promote energy security through the energy union package, to tackle climate change or to build North Sea's grid. Members will be aware of our own document, our EU reform agenda. The commission agenda also needs to address many other issues. That includes tackling red tape, for example, by decentralising fisheries management and reducing the complexity of the common agricultural policy, extending impact assessments to the additional stages of the regulatory process, and giving sub-national parliaments such as this one a greater say in ensuring that proposed EU legislation respects the subsidiarity principle. The commission's own refit programme, which will examine the suitability of existing rules, is very welcome. Indeed, the Scottish Government has seconded a senior official to the European Commission to undertake a review of birds and habitats directive under the refit programme. I know that that is something that has been raised by a number of environmental organisations with myself, my colleague Dr McLeod and, again, to give reassurances, that we would be looking for that refit programme to maintain and increase standards, nothing less than that. Those reforms that I have just argued for are about things in the EU, doing things in the EU better and doing things smarter. Of course, EU institutions must also do their part to ensure that they operate transparently. Perhaps that is of most importance in the current TTIP negotiations that are taking place. I am pleased that the commission has taken board that issue of transparency. We are now seeing documentations and discussions being put online. While the Scottish Government certainly acknowledges that TTIP could well bring benefits, more needs to be done to address our concerns about the potential impact on the NHS, public services and, of course, ISDS. We will continue to monitor TTIP. I thank the member for giving way. On the issue of TTIP, would you accept that, in fact, we have probably more common ground with some of our European neighbours than we do sometimes with the London Government on those kinds of issues, as far as commitment to public services is concerned? I do my best to be as consensual as I could in this debate. I would say that, in the UK Government knows our position, and we know certainly that we are asking for a black and white exemption for the NHS. That is what the people want. That is certainly what the Scottish Government and, in fact, a number of parties across the chamber want, because the soundings that are coming from the commission at the moment and from politicians are not quite sure of them and are not convinced by them. Therefore, if we are being told that there is no threat to the NHS, if we are being told that by the UK Government, if we are being told that by the commission, I can see no reason as to why there should not be that black and white exemption that the First Minister herself has called for. As the member says, that is shared across Europe when it comes to public services. In spite of all that, my point is that some of the concerns that we have, in spite of all those concerns, point is that the treaty framework is suitable in terms of a legal basis for effecting that necessary change. We do not believe that there is a need for treaty change for those reforms to take place. Indeed, many of them can best be accomplished through existing programmes that are being operated by the European Commission, such as EU 2020. On the benefits of being part of the European Union, politicians, political parties and civic society and perhaps the business sector, we need to do more to talk about some of those benefits. I do not think that we do enough. Our membership of the European Union gives us access to 500 million citizens and also gives us access to around 20 million businesses that operate across the EU and that single market. The EU is a vital export market for Scottish firms, accounting for almost half—46 per cent—of Scotland's international exports in 2013. That is a massive almost £13 billion each year. Almost 40 per cent of the 2,100 foreign-owned businesses in Scotland were owned by firms based in the European Union. Every year since 2006, Scotland has been ranked one of the top two areas outside of London within the UK to attract inward investment. Research suggests that more than 330,000 Scottish jobs were associated with exports to the EU. I agree that there is still more to be done in the domestic market to encourage more small and medium-sized businesses to look at the potential for export within the European market. Yes, I agree entirely. Internationalisation was one of the key four priorities of Scotland's economic strategy that was launched a couple of weeks ago by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. On top of that, I agree entirely with what the member is saying, too few companies in Scotland export in too few sectors to too few countries. It is a commitment from the Government—a priority from the Government and also our agencies such as Scottish Development International—to try to increase that pool, and that small and medium-sized businesses must certainly be a part of that. It is important that we do not just view our relationship with the European Union as simply a business transaction, but that it is much, much more than doing that. I think that through the new president, President Junker, it is being very clear that the protection of the welfare of our citizens in the EU, promoting equality, improving conditions for workers, strengthening consumer rights, is an important part of the agenda and of the relationship. I also welcome the social, cultural and economic benefits that migration from the EU delivers to Scotland's communities. The right to freedom of movement is also a huge benefit to Scots. It is a huge benefit for Scots who move to live, study and work elsewhere in the EU. It is estimated that 171,000 people born elsewhere in the EU currently live in Scotland, so that is a very much a two-way exchange that benefits Scotland, but also benefits, I would hope, the rest of the European Union. There is a lot of negative rhetoric around migration from Europe. I looked at one study from UCL that said that EU migrants from 2001 and 2011 benefited economically a net benefit of £20 billion. All of us as politicians have an important job to ensure that we are not letting ourselves get dragged down into negativity into hostility during the course of the debate. Scotland wants to continue to be a constructive member of the European Union. We have a general election coming up in seven weeks on Thursday, and part of that discussion debate has been the in-out referendum. The Scottish Government does not support the Prime Minister's proposals for that in-out referendum. We believe that it puts our membership, our businesses and our academic sector at most certainly at risk. We should, of course, as parliamentarians, not wait for that in-out referendum to put the positive case for Europe on the table. In that regard, I would like to reiterate that we believe that there should be a double-majority system for that in-out referendum. We believe that Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom should not be dragged outside of the European Union against their will. That is why we put in that motion—I am happy to move on behalf of the Government—a proposal that the UK should not be dragged out of Europe if there is not a majority not just in the entire UK but in each of those countries. The Government will continue to press for a double-majority voting system in the event of a future referendum. If Scotland is, after all, an equal member of the United Kingdom, his voice should be listened. I am pleased to be opening the debate for Labour this afternoon. It is my first opening speech in this area of my portfolio. As a previous lead on rural affairs food and environment, I often speak about the importance of Europe to delivery of policy in those areas. They are good examples of Scotland's positive relationship with Europe, and I may return to them later in my opening comments. The first election that I voted in was for the European Parliament. Unfortunately, I was, and I continue to be, part of the minority of the electorate who takes part in those elections. Just over 33 per cent of the electorate took part in May 2014, and that was in a year when interest in elections in Scotland was very high. Across Europe, the picture is not much better. Although higher than a third of our electorate, it was still the lowest-recorded turnout figure. In many ways, Europe is high on the political agenda for the political classes, but it remains low for the voters. The member recalls when the UK entered Europe in 1973 in the EU that most of the major broadcasting and print media organisations had correspondence in Brussels. I understand that virtually none now do. Perhaps some of the responsibility lies there. Claire Beker. I am pleased to say that I do not have much recall of 1973, but I think that the member makes a fair point on that it is not just down to politicians, but also down to our society and our media to fairly represent Europe working for us. However, I would suggest that high on the agenda of why people do not engage with election is a lack of understanding of what Europe delivers for us in a modern world, combined with a lack of confidence that Europe is actually working for the ordinary person. We are seeing huge economic challenges across Europe. Our fellow Europeans and many economies are suffering levels of poverty and economic downturn that have not experienced for many years. Many countries are seeing a crisis in youth unemployment, which leads to significant social problems and often depopulation as those who can are leaving those countries for opportunities elsewhere. In response to this, Europe, the Parliament, the commission and the council of ministers, for too many people it looks like it is not responding. It is still often bureaucratic, slow to respond, driven from the centre and inflexible. Here is my first reference to my previous area of knowledge. The common agricultural policy takes up 38 per cent of the EU budget. This is a reduction on previous years, but it is still a significant share of Europe's support. During the recent reform process, attempts were made to increase the environmental delivery of the policy, to support rural economies, to deliver fairness across the member states and to have an increased focus on jobs and the economy. Focus in those areas was slow, and I would say that that is working in the public interest. The role that the European Parliament paid in those negotiations was important. It was the first example of co-decision making, but change is slow and challenging. We need to see greater reform of the commission and its bureaucracy, the Parliament and its accountability and the economic model of the Eurozone, which for too many economies is now imbalanced. How do we have a Europe that works more transparently in the interests of all its people? As many of us will say here this afternoon, it is hugely important to our economy. It seems to be one area in our proposals that we agree on. Across the UK, there are some 3 million jobs dependent on our membership of the EU, 200,000 companies and £200 billion worth of annual exports and £450 billion of inward investment, which are tied to trade with those partners. For example, in Scotland, we benefit by access to a single market of more than 500 million consumers, with Scottish exports to the EU accounting for almost 50 per cent of our international exports. It also means that we recognise the benefits that we get from EU members who come to choose to live and work in Scotland. Scotland has a long tradition of welcoming and working with people from other countries. As a Fife MSP, I represent an area with a long history with the Polish community in particular, and we should recognise the contribution that people are making when they come here to our economy. We have an ageing population and we need people to help drive our economy. That is not to ignore the challenges that it can present, and last week the BBC ran a report on immigration with a number of findings that politicians cannot ignore. Yes, we need a welfare system, a housing system and education system that balances the needs of everyone, but migrants contribute more to the economy than the resources that they use. Many businesses that I speak to—those in the food sector, the agricultural sector and the textile sector—could not operate without employees from EU member states. Migration brings huge benefits to our country, and that is a fact of our economy and of who we are. Those of us here—I am sure that we will have disagreements during the course of this debate—but those of us here who believe that the European Union is a good thing is beneficial to Scotland and the UK, who support its founding principles and recognise that, if it did not already exist and expanding in global world, we would have to create it, we need to positively support membership. Of course we need to work to improve the benefits of the EU and not deny the difficult times that it is currently facing, but we must argue strongly that, ultimately, it is a positive union that contributes to our modern world and our economy. We should not underestimate the global challenges that are facing Europe. Other economies and continents with greater populations who are increasing their investment into education and their enterprise have growing markets and industries. Those will all present economic challenges. Future trade deals are important. Labour's amendment today recognises that, but also reflects our position on the protection of public services and trade deals. Facing the increasing challenge of global competitiveness by working collectively, EU members will be in a stronger position than if they were alone. We will be in a better position to get the best deals and trade, tackle pollution, take action on money laundering and corruption and a whole number of areas when we are working within the EU. European co-operation is important in so many areas. So many of our modern challenges do not recognise borders—internet fraud, copyright crime and human trafficking. If we look back at the horse-meat scandal a few years ago and the complex food systems that we now have to deal with, that was a prime example of the importance of European co-operation to address the issue. Scotland, as part of the UK, can demonstrate how the European Parliament and the commission can be used for good. So many of our progressive social policies originated in the EU, driving common standards for workers across the EU—maternity leave, paternity leave and working hours. Many of our environmental targets come from the EU by diversity targets, air quality, water quality, and we must do more to deliver on those targets. Scotland does have ambitious targets in those areas, but in recent years we have not been achieving those targets. We are even currently in the position of the commission being prepared to take legal action over air quality with a lack of progress across the UK. In those areas, we have a responsibility to do more to deliver, and our actions in those areas would support the credibility of the EU. The European Parliament has championed new initiatives to reduce youth unemployment, and it is the focus for much debate on progressive working practices. An amendment calls for this to be a central focus of on-going European activity. That is why it was disappointing last week when SNP MEPs abstained over a vote to phase out carious employment and tackle the exploitative nature of too many zero-hour contracts. That is the kind of area that Europe should be leading on, and it was disappointing not to have the SNP's support. An amendment today also states our opposition to the proposed cuts to horizon 2020 that the minister also referred to. I raised my concerns with the minister last week, and I am glad that he recognised that. Scottish universities benefit considerably from that fund. It meets the objectives of economic growth and investment into research, and we must do more to resist the cuts to it. There are concerns that, as things stand, the proposed changes that the minister referred to are still concerns that they are not an appropriate funding mechanism for research and development, and they may hinder innovation across Europe. That is why Labour members in the European Parliament are looking to amend the proposals on horizon 2020. This afternoon, we will not be supporting other parties' proposals. Encouragingly, all the motions recognise the importance of membership of the EU. However, we do not support an in-out referendum as presented by the Conservatives. I do not believe that it would be an interest of the people of the UK. The SNP this afternoon attempted to put their case for a veto. I do not believe that that is a credible position. In September last year, Scotland voted to stay in the UK with the full knowledge that there was the possibility of an EU referendum. We voted to be part of the UK, and any vote on a national basis would have to be treated as such. It would have to be a decision made collectively by people living in the UK. Nicola Sturgeon claimed that a referendum was inevitable, almost regardless of whoever wins the general election. That is not true. Labour does not support a referendum—believing that it will cause uncertainty for business. We know that that is true, and it is not in the interests of the UK. I look forward to this afternoon's debate. We have different views across the chamber on referendums on Scotland's place in the UK and the EU, but I hope that we do not miss the opportunity this afternoon to put forward the positive case for our involvement in Europe, recognise the challenges that it presents and the opportunities and advantages that it offers us. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate as it gives me a chance to dispel myths and scam mongering coming from the Government benches on Scotland's membership of the European Union. It also gives me the opportunity to once again reaffirm the commitment of Conservatives to making the EU work in the best interests of Scotland and the wider UK. That is the whole point. This club has to work for its members, and that will only be truly achievable through reforming the EU, through renegotiation with our European partners to create a new favourable settlement for the UK and for the rest of Europe to cut out red tape and excessive baggage for everyone, including new entrants, and encourage growth and an end to stagnation. When the Conservatives win the forthcoming general election with an overall majority and David Cameron is returned to Downing Street, we can begin the process of bringing about that necessary change. And it's always been a cast-on guarantee of the UK Government to then put to the British people a simple question. Do you wish to stay in the EU on the basis of a reformed EU or do you not? That referendum is likely to happen in late 2017. If Conservative Ministers achieve these reforms and transform the EU and the UK's relationship with it, David Cameron has stated that he will campaign for the UK to remain a member state. As a committed European myself, I'll be joining the Prime Minister in that EU campaign. But only if reform in the interests of Scotland and the UK has been delivered. So let's dispel SNP myth 1. The majority of Conservatives north and south of the border are not anti-European. We simply want change in Europe as do the British people, and I'm sure the Minister has to accept that. It's not only the UK who wants to see change. Countries across the EU such as Angela Merkel's Germany, the Netherlands and the Netherlands have argued that the EU in its present form is too centralist and isn't working for member states. Indeed, the Dutch phrase European were necessary, national were possible, shows the shift away from an ever closer union, and this from one of the original six countries which was so federalist originally. So another SNP myth that it is only the UK Government who see the EU reform as a priority is dismissed as well. Well, I've only got six minutes. Can I make a bit more? We then have the SNP's assertion that Scotland has no appetite for a referendum on EU membership. This is despite the fact that polling has consistently shown that almost 60 per cent of Scots want a referendum, and that includes over 60 per cent of SNP voters. There is a trace of arrogance surely in the Scottish Government's motion which suggests we know best, so we won't trouble you with a direct say on EU membership. It's clear that the majority of Scots do want a say. Our amendment justifiably highlights the need for a referendum which is UK-wide. It takes place on a one-person, one-vote basis and decided by a simple majority that was in the 1975 referendum. Let us remember that in the 1975 referendum the SNP campaigned against continuing membership of the common market whereas the majority of Conservatives, myself included, supported our position in Europe. The Government's motion turns that principle on its head with its cumbersome double majority proposal which splits the UK into its constituent parts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the referendum question. The Government suggests that Scotland should not be forced to leave the EU even in the rest of the UK to choose to do so. It's ironic, isn't it, that the SNP should give a proposal of this nature. I don't recall them arguing in the referendum to break up the United Kingdom that if another constituent part of the UK didn't want to leave, then a separation wouldn't happen. As a member of this Parliament's European and External Relations Committee, I spent a considerable amount of time with colleagues in conducting an inquiry into an independent Scotland's position in the EU. I went to rehash the arguments regarding whether article 48 or article 49 should apply. What I will say is that while it was shown that an independent Scotland would not automatically be admitted as a member of the EU, it is also true that if the UK chose to leave the EU Scotland could not remain as part of the EU. The SNP position is simply untenable. It's conjecture. We are probably united across this chamber is the part in the Government's motion that speaks about the benefits of the EU membership to Scotland through the single market. Access to consumers and businesses on the continent have obviously been of huge economic importance to Scotland, as well as the references to the benefits of EU membership both socially, culturally and educationally. To give one example, the benefit of objective one status to the Highlands and Islands is the construction of the number of causeways and bridges and infrastructure projects which have left such a valuable legacy. I do emphasise that these benefits have only been possible by UK membership of the EU and it's a pity that we don't have objective one anymore in the Highlands and Islands. However, the proposed 2017 referendum has been brought about for various reasons. Businesses in Scotland and the rest of the UK find the extent of European interference in their everyday life sometimes excessive and red tape can strangle creativity. People I've spoken to over many years continue to feel that decisions taken in Brussels are remote and removed from the people that they actually elected. That's not every decision, just some of them. There are concerns and worries that the relaxed nature of European rules means that people arriving into the UK are allowed to claim benefits without having worked here. EU enlargement, while welcome, must not lead to unmanagable consequences for member states. For all those reasons and many more, the need for a referendum on EU membership will become further apparent over the next two years, where the British people will take part in a debate on Scotland and the UK's position in the EU. Thank you. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you so much. We now move to the open debate. I call on Christina McKelvey to be followed by Anne McTaggart. Six minute speeches or thereby please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In the last four years as a convener of the European External Relations Committee, I've not only learned a lot about Europe but I've learned a lot more about its strengths as well. The basic principle of Europe is a peacemaker, the strong positive corporate self-interest in ensuring the safety and protection of all of the nations within. Yes, there are weaknesses and sometimes tensions, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a very good example of that. I commend to you and my colleagues in the chamber today the report published by the European External Relations Committee on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The EU is a very pragmatic creation. In spite of its huge size, the answers to challenging situations can usually be found. There is an underlying consensus that is not much discussed. It is just there because all of the member nations want pretty much the same things. They want equality, they want fairness, they want tolerance, they want human rights protected, they don't want illegal wars and they have an overarching European Parliament which upholds those values, which can be difficult given some of the Eurosceptic MEPs elected in the last round of elections—some calling for the human rights laws to be abolished. Presiding Officer, the EU has another side. It is a vast trading market, too, with 500 million people and 22 million businesses. Scotland's substantial export markets are constantly building trade with our European partners. However, when it comes to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, there are serious concerns to be addressed, protection of public services being paramount. Of course, it is much more than a simple free trade association. The EU principles reflect those of the Scottish Government, I believe. We welcome the role that the EU plays in protecting the social welfare of its citizens, including people who need to claim benefits. We seek to influence those decisions that will impact on us on a daily basis. We want to work from within the EU. We do not want to be forced out by a right-wing, UKIP-friendly Westminster Government. We know that Europe is where we need to be for trade, for the free movement of people, for our own human protection and for the great cultural melting pot that is the block of nations that is each with our own unique background in history. Last Wednesday night, Presiding Officer, I had the great privilege and pleasure of hosting the Latvian ambassador, who brought some of the most amazing, talented musicians to play some Rachmaninoff for us on Wednesday night. However, they finished with their own rendition of Loch Lomond, which I have to say was the most beautiful piece of music that I have ever heard in my entire life. Let us not forget the foundations of Europe. Let us not forget the origins. Let us not forget the founder countries and where they came from, and they all tell their own story—France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Netherlands and Germany. We do not have to go very far to understand where the foundations of the EU came from and the reasons for it. Presiding Officer, I do not want an in-and-out referendum. The Scottish Government does not want one, but once again we are being shoved into a battle that we do not need and that we do not support. I want to see changes in Europe, and the mechanisms are already in place for us to work towards that. The existing treaties provide the framework. There is no need to try to renegotiate them now, no matter how big you want to appear in front of your colleagues at Westminster. As is often the case, the EU institutions will not do much in the way of their own publicity. The shrill voices of extremists—I use that word deliberately—will be as loud as they are daffed. Scots are not fooled by this nonsense. While David Coburn slings abuse at our foreign affairs minister, he is very happy to pick up the £5 million or so that he collects for staffing and his own salary and expenses, but to denigrate the institution that gives him that opportunity. If we are to be forced into this referendum, then at the very least we will demand that it is one member of our four nations. David Cameron has called in many occasions this family of nations. Only a family of nations during the referendum does not seem to be a family of nations now. We are each an equal member. Scotland's decision needs to be the same as England's, Wales's and Northern Ireland's for that vote to be carried. It is neither democratic nor legitimate to tolerate a situation where one of the family imposes its will upon the other three. I am very disappointed that Labour will not back that very important right. It is an equal member of that said family of nations. Former European Commission President Jose Manuel Baroso remember him? Everybody listened to him during the Scottish referendum. Maybe they should listen to him now. He said, what will be the influence of Britain, of the British Prime Minister, if he was not part of the European Union? His influence would be zero. So before Mr Cowan sales off into the sunset with his union jack flying and his supporters from UKip applauding his achievement, he needs to think very, very carefully about his own job prospects as well of those of the people of the UK. The sunset may well turn out to be an exit from the strong and protective arms of his much-valued family of nations. I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate and to support my colleague Claire Baker's amendment. While there is much debate about Britain's place in Europe, we have to recognise that we are much stronger and Europe is also much stronger by us all working together, and not just financially. Membership in the EU gives way to many benefits and leaving the European Union would only be detrimental to that prosperity. Our relationship is give and take. Its symbiotic nature is what allows such great progress. That partnership with the EU is necessary in order to solve the challenges that presents themselves, which are best dealt with working together. Economically, EU membership allows access to a single market with millions of people, numerous opportunities for investment and increased competitiveness. Leaving that single market would not be in our best interest. Three million jobs, 25,000 companies, 200 billion in exports each year, 450 billion in investments. That is what we would have to show for our ties to Europe. We also must ensure and welcome any changes that may be beneficial to the European Union, the United Kingdom and Scotland. The employment and social aspects in the annual growth survey of 2015, which was put to a vote in the European Parliament last week, failed to gain the necessary support due to the negative votes from Conservative, Lib Dems, UKIP, MEPs and abstentions from SNP and Greens. Those precarious employment situations, such as zero-hour contracts, affect nearly 1.4 million UK workers, the rights of the workers and supporting the favourable changes that the EU is trying to make for the good of the member states. It is clear that the benefits from continuing our membership with the European Union are numerous. That close relationship to Europe is essential to both parties and it has undoubtedly crucial to our interests to stay part of that relationship. It was suggested in the Smith commission that Scotland be allowed to have a greater influence over the UK policy positions in regard to Europe. With that in mind, we had the now cabinet secretary, former minister Angela Constance, who presented the UK at the EU education youth culture and sport council in December last year. That direct engagement demonstrates Scotland's voice plays an important role on European issues. Our place in the world is not defined by being a part of Europe, but is strengthened by it. The key here is keeping the United Kingdom and the EU and improving on it so that we can maximise the progress that we, the UK and the EU can make together. In conclusion, there is no doubt that there are many advantages that the EU membership brings to Scotland, while the future of the United Kingdom undoubtedly lies within the EU. We need to be leading the way for an improved European Union rather than threatening to leave it. I believe that the EU should be taking the lead in issues such as tackling exploitative work practices and recognising the need to protect public services in any trade negotiations, as we in the Labour Party want to have those jobs across Europe, not just in Scotland, fair working conditions in Scotland, the UK and across Europe, and the Labour Party is the party that backs those measures in the UK. Thank you very much. I will now call on Christiana Lart to be followed by Liam McArthur. Let me start my contribution to this very timely and very important debate. We have a 1736 court found in the diaries of a French minister. René de Voyer is known to have first used in writing the following well-known say, laissez faire. Laissez faire or let it be, he wrote, should be the motto of all public powers since the world was civilised. He added that we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbours' detestable notion. Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle, and our national interest is opposed to it. This motto was also at the essence of Adam Smith's thinking. Not that it supported an economy free from government interference, but that it supported free trade between nations as a condition of the growth of those nations. Because, Presiding Officer, laissez faire is only one half of the motto, the other half is laissez passer, the right of free movement, not only of goods, but also, and more importantly, the right of free movement of people, which is at the heart of the European project that is the EU. I believe we are where Adam Smith would have liked us, the people of Scotland to be, at the heart of Europe, free to trade and free to set up businesses and to work across the EU. This is very much needed, and like Dennis Robertson in his intervention said to the minister, it's important that small and medium businesses are encouraged to go and work with the rest of the EU. But similarly, I think it's very, very important that our people are encouraged to go and live and work and participate all across the EU. It's very, very important we've got that movement of people, not only the movement of goods, not only the movement of trade and businesses, but also people. This is very, very important is how the EU is contract. Presiding Officer, I found plenty malice and malignity of art in the debate about the European Union since I came to Britain, and I was surprised about it. I particularly find this testable, the notion that the UK cannot pursue its agenda to grow its own economy without rejoicing at its neighbour's economic failings. This is something you find very, very often on television in the press, especially the UK media and the London media. Failings are many in the UK, just like in other EU countries, and the EU is not perfect. The minister said it in his opening remarks, but I can assure you that this attitude to ridicule other nations in the EU when we have problems has never been reciprocal. To the contrary, I found that people across the EU have great respect for the UK, a respect that some politicians are undermining here regularly. I'm not saying here, I'm not saying in this Parliament, of course. Former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard was one of the first voices worrying about this, and it made it clear that if the UK was so desperate to exit the EU, then the EU might be better with all the United Kingdom. Because the truth is that we need our neighbours to do well for us to do well. Instead of blaming the EU for our own West Minister Governmential Commings, we need our London-based politicians to change their tune. Our national interest, UK or Scotland, is in direct opposition to this exit from the EU. The so-called Brexit, in France they call it Le Brexit, so famous it is. The former head of the French government made it his views clear on this point. The British elites fear of isolation, he said, that would result could weaken the city. But the English bank is part, paralyzing factors today. It is highly more speculative than others. It is a paralysis for real economy. President of his service comment is a result of a constant attack on the EU. I don't know if Michel Rocard agrees with the Scottish Government double majority proposal, but it made it clear that the Prime Minister's political in London, not in Scotland, not even with the people of England, and certainly not with the people of Scotland. President of his service, many years working in the fishing industry, I understand maybe better than most, and the minister said it again on his opening remark, that the EU is far from perfect. But again, I need to point out that other EU countries have been a lot more successful in negotiating at EU level than the UK has. For example, I welcome the Scottish Government proposal on fisheries. Yes, we should continue to move away from a centralized approach to fisheries management in favour of greater flexibility and the further delegation of powers to the national and regional level. And member states should be granted further autonomy in relation to ensure waters, to ensure the survival of Scottish fishermen's traditional fishing grounds. And it's not only only in fishing, but it's also in agriculture. And of course, in migration, in migration from outside the EU, we are taking evidence at the Justice Committee just now on the Human Trafficking Expertion Scotland Bill. And I can tell you that the scientific stories that we have of migrants coming from outside the EU will be a lot worse if we were isolated, will be a lot worse if we were not part of the EU. That free movement of people is so important. President of his service, let me finish with a quote not from Adam Smith, but from his contemporary Voltaire. Adam Smith kept the bust of Voltaire in his home. You won't find one in my office. And Voltaire knew what place Scotland is in Europe was. And when he said, we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation. Scotland plays in the European Union is where we are today and what we all are. This EU migrant, this EU citizen will be voting for the Scottish Government motion tonight. Presiding Officer, many thanks. I now call Liam McArthur to be followed by Stuart Maxwell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, welcome the debate and thank Humza Yousaf for, as I like to call him, the minister for allowing Parliament this opportunity. The motions, the amendments before us, I think, are somewhat revealing. The Labour amendment, which I'm happy to confirm will be supporting, sets out, I think, very fairly the broad benefits, as well as some of the specific areas of strength. It also, I think, rightly identifies the opportunities for improving things going forward, not least through the Smith commission proposals. I think the SNP motion has much of the same and I very much welcome, I think, the conciliatory and reasonable tone that the minister adopted in his opening remarks, despite some of the siren voices perhaps on his back benches that we're encouraging him otherwise. But he can't, the motion can't resist the dog whistle to its base at the end. A little, like the Tories themselves, the Jamie McGregor's amendment achieves the twin feet of being factually incorrect and ideologically misguided. The UK Government does not demand treaty reform in an out referendum. That is the Tory party. The Tories appear to be in a blind spin over UKIP and their long-standing internal divisions over Europe. As a result, despite Mr McGregor's reassurance, he seemed hell bent on driving the UK out of an economic, social and political union that has served us well for over four decades. I agree that an in-out referendum is more meaningful than one based on the minutiae of a treaty change, but this policy is a sign of weakness of the Tories and of the Prime Minister, not a sign of strength or indeed of leadership. As I say, the SNP motion is fine up to a point. It regrettably lapses into playing the independence card towards the end. Let's be clear that the preferred option is not an in-out referendum. There is nothing for business or indeed for safeguarding the hard fought economic recovery that we are now seeing from such a route. However, if there is a referendum, we need all the progressive voices to be united in support of keeping the UK, including Scotland, within the EU. The one part in Mr McGregor's speech I probably had some sympathy with was that I do not recall any suggestion that Orkney or Shetland were being offered a double lock during the referendum campaign, where Glasgow or areas of the central belt to drag us out of the UK. No, thank you. It is too easy to link the SNP's calls for a retreat from the UK to UKIP and the Tory calls for a retreat from Europe. There is a remarkable similarity in the rhetoric about so-called rule from London and rule from Brussels that the best people to make decisions about what happens in Scotland are the people in Scotland, the best people to make decisions about what happens to the people in the UK or the people in the UK. The minister I know will refute to that charge and I accept entirely the genuine felt commitment that he has to a pro-European agenda. However, it does rather highlight the scale of the task for the SNP in having to work all the harder to convince voters that their principal objective, their principal motive is to keep the UK in the UK and not secretly hope for Brexit, so that independence plans can have to be dusted down. As I said during the referendum debate, UK exit from the EU is not in the interests even of an independent Scotland, just as Scotland's farmers. Farmers are not the only ones who benefit from our EU membership and nor are they the only ones to point out with some justification the fact that the EU itself is far from being perfect. However, the economic benefits of membership are plain for all to see. The largest single market, which incorporates two of our most significant trading partners outside the UK, in the shape of France and Germany. Scotland is a high-skill economy, with an export focus, has opportunities across a range of sectors, from food and drink through to energy. The benefit from freedom of movement, again, we have seen Scotland profit from this. Many Scots make up the 1.5 million UK citizens living and working elsewhere in the EU. Myself and my now wife are evidence of that, from our time spent in Brussels. Again, this benefits key sectors from our higher education sector so attractive to others throughout the EU to come and study through to our tourism offering. The Labour amendment very fairly points to the benefits to be derived from initiatives such as Horizon 2020. The importance of that to industry and academia has well been underscored already, but I think the £2.5 billion secured for SME engagement very much picks up a point that was that was reiterated during the Horizon 2020 event hosted by the Europe Committee here in this Parliament not so long ago. The freedom of movement also illustrates the social dimension to our EU membership, further underscored by the benefits derived from structural funds, a recognition that the EU itself will be undermined if it is seen to benefit only some and not all. Yes, the hundreds of islands have benefited from objective one status, but I would remind Jamie McGregor that it is a testament to the success of that, that we are no longer eligible to that as we have seen relative economic growth as a result. The single market is not just a survival of the fittest, it is always recognised that there is a social dimension to that and we have seen that through workplace reforms over many years as Claire Baker highlighted. Everything from environmental reform to a cross-border collaboration in tackling crime, all of those demonstrate the ability to act collaboratively at an EU level to tackle or meet objectives that cannot be met by individual nations alone. I thought that Christine McElvie was absolutely right in drawing attention to the EU's role in being a force for peace. I think that, as those with the lived experience of the world wars are now dying off, we are at risk of losing sight of this fundamental purpose. The remarkable distance that we have travelled since 1945 are the objectives, even in 1958, to use economic integration and binding in Germany's industrial base in coal and steel in such a way as to make war, if not impossible, certainly a good deal more difficult, something we should never underestimate. The risks remain, we see it in terms of the Balkan conflict, the Russian influence in Ukraine, we are not out of the woods. It is not to say that we are not uncritical of the EU. I bear the scars from fisheries councils like Christian Allard. It is guilty of mission creep, a tendency to want to micromanage, and where national interests can often be dressed up as EU-wide interests. We must engage with the EU institutions and partners in the need to improve. The Smith proposals give us a way of doing that by improving the mechanisms at an official and ministerial level within the UK. John Swinney and Mike Muir are to be commended on the commitment and the dedication that they showed to this particular aspect of the Smith. We need to be vigilant that that is now delivered in practice. I again welcome the debate, the positive tone of acknowledging the benefits derived from the EU and a commitment across the piece to be critical friends where need be and improve the way in which the UK engages with the EU going forward. Thank you very much indeed. Scotland is often described as being on the periphery of Europe, and while that may be true in a geographic sense, our strong cultural, historical and political connection to Europe suggests otherwise. Indeed, it is impossible to understand Scottish culture or the development of our political system without an appreciation of our historic links to other European nations. We need only to look at the quintessential markers of Scottish nationhood to realise that Scotland itself is a product of Europe and our interactions with our European neighbours. Today, we have a more formalised relationship with our European neighbours and the legislation that we scrutinise in our committees and debate in this chamber are always considered within a European legal context. Clearly, Scotland has benefited greatly from its European interactions and I believe that Scotland should continue to build on those connections as a constructive member of the European Union. However, after being instructed that a no vote in last year's referendum was the only way to secure Scotland's participation in the EU, our EU membership and ability to effectively influence European policy is now under threat from the Tory party. David Cameron's commitment to an in-out referendum on our EU membership threatens to undermine decades of European co-operation and the vital economic benefits of a single market that gives Scotland access to 500 million people and 22 million businesses across Europe. It is a threat to Scotland's participation in the single market that I am particularly concerned about and I believe that the removal of our EU membership will seriously undermine Scotland's long-term economic objectives. The EU accounts for nearly half of Scotland's international exports and in 2011, those European exports supported more than 336,000 jobs in Scotland. It is difficult to understand how our withdrawal from the European single market will improve economic relations with Europe, particularly in light of the €985 million investment that Scotland is currently receiving from the European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund. In reality, the loss of EU membership not only threatens jobs, it undermines investment and our ability to create sustainable growth. Even putting aside economics for a moment, the threat of the UK Government's proposed EU referendum is a symptom of a more general rise in hostility against Europe from the Westminster elite. That hostility has also shown itself in the Tory threat to withdraw the UK from the European Court of Human Rights, a move that would place us alongside Belarus as one of the few European states that not to have ratified the convention on European human rights. We have also seen that hostility focused against migrants as the UK Government toughens its rhetoric against Europeans, wishing to work hard and to build a life here in the UK. It is an unedifying spectacle to see UK parties tack to the right as a response to the siren calls from UKIP. It is essential in my view that we continue to challenge the UK Government's politically motivated and illogical immigration rhetoric. University College London, as mentioned by the minister in his opening speech, found that EU migrants contributed more than £20 billion to the economy between 2001 and 2011. Workers from EU, 15 countries such as France and Germany, contributed 64 per cent more in tax than they received in benefits. While migrants from newer accession states paid 12 per cent more than they received, that shoots down the very argument that Jamie McGuiger used earlier about people coming here and taking benefits. The figures put a lie to that argument. European migrants make a positive economic, social and cultural contribution to Scotland and they deserve better than a Westminster political culture that is locked in a race to the bottom on immigration. The clear difference of approach that we see at Westminster, compared with Hotherwood, is indicative of the diverging political cultures of the two parliaments. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the UK Government does not reflect the views of the people of Scotland nor does it prioritise the Scottish position on a range of European policy issues. Research undertaken by Durham University and the University of East Anglia concluded that, while a majority of constituencies in England would vote to leave the EU, only four seats in Scotland would vote to do likewise. Dr Henriette of the University of East Anglia said that the findings showed that Scottish views on the European Union are distinct from English views. That, and I want to quote very clearly here, even looking at constituencies just north of the border, areas that are by no means bedrocks of SNP support, you find a more favourable opinion of the EU than you do in the north of England. Those findings show why it is essential that Scotland has a democratic safeguard against the threat of the UK Government's in-it referendum. I therefore fully support the introduction of a four nation consent clause as part of any future EU referendum bill to ensure that the voices of the respective UK nations are respected. We were told to vote no to be part of the family of nations. We cannot be a family if one particular member of that family can drag the other three members out of the EU. That is not a family of nations. Scotland cannot be dragged out of Europe against the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland. I would like to conclude today by reaffirming the importance of the UK's European Union membership, but that ultimately Scotland's interests would best be served by having its own voice on the European stage. The proposals outlined in the Smith commission that would see greater Scottish UK Government co-operation on European representation is welcome, but there are still limitations to that approach. I know that I will not be alone in raising concerns about the UK Government's ability to accurately represent our interests on energy policy, or fisheries, or indeed many other portfolio areas. I look forward to the day when Scotland's voices heard unimpeded at the top tables of Europe and, given the evidence from recent polling, that day might come sooner rather than later. Many myths are peddled about the EU, as Jamie McGregor said in his speech. In my experience, they mostly come from people who want Britain to leave. When it comes to assessing a relationship with that institution, we should focus on the facts and the positives, so I welcome this afternoon's debate, which allows us to do just that. To begin with, I believe that being a member of arguably the world's biggest marketplace provides huge advantages for both Britain and Scotland. Being able to export goods and services across all of the EU without customs and other barriers is something that we cannot afford to lose as over half of our exports go to the rest of the EU. UK membership gives access to what continues to be a growing single market, governed by a single set of regulations that cuts costs and facilitates much greater potential trade. In total, 60 per cent of British trade is with other EU countries, involving 700,000 companies across Britain. Our EU trade provides 3.5 million jobs. If Britain is not in the EU, it would be on its own in a world of powerful regional trading blocs such as NAFTA. On our own, we would be isolated and unable to negotiate with the USA and China in the way that only the power of the EU can achieve for us at the moment. Those large blocs would have all the advantages of large domestic markets in global trade negotiations, leaving the UK at a comparative disadvantage. The petty-minded euroskepticism of the current and previous Conservative governments has already put us at a disadvantage when it comes to economic interaction in the wider world. We should stay and influence the future of the EU, making it more democratic and increasing benefits for all EU member states and its citizens. Most of the progressive legislation that we have on workers' rights has come from Europe. By acting in concert, European countries have, to some extent, avoided a race to the bottom on workers' rights. So why would working people want to jeopardise such things as the working-time director, a piece of key health and safety legislation by leaving the EU? Unfortunately, as Clare Baker said earlier, the SNP has disappointingly refused to support some of those measures. For example, the vote that was taken last week in the European Parliament aimed at addressing workplace exploitation by restricting and reducing atypical forms of employment. That vote in the European Parliament on the employment and social aspects in the annual growth survey 2015 report failed to gain enough support through the Conservative, Lib Dem and UK MPs actually voting against it, while Nicholas Sturgeon's UK coalition of the SNP Greens and Plaid Cymru abstain. Labour was left as the only UK party to support those calls on EU member states to combat precarious employment such as zero-hour contracts. The issue is once again that Labour is the only party genuinely standing up for workers' rights. The primary among the myths that we hear is one that tries to make people believe that the EU forces Britain to adopt laws on human rights that are contrary to British tradition. However, the rulings that those right-wing politicians object to come from the European Court of Human Rights and that tribunal is not a part of the EU system. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, an honourable British creation that predates the EU. Those aspects argue that Britain's market is too valuable for the rest of the continent to ignore, and so the British Government could negotiate a trade deal that would preserve all the advantages of membership in the single market without any of the political and financial costs. However, that ignores the real politic that, while the UK is an important market for the rest of the EU, any free trade agreement would have a price. For example, in exchange for access to the single market, Norway and Switzerland make major contributions to the EU cohesion funds, and they also have to adopt EU standards without having any say in how they are written. Norway's net contribution to the EU budget is actually higher per capita than Britain's. Britain would almost certainly lose its influence in many international forums. By negotiating as one block in world trade talks, the European Union gives its members the EU, UK included, a powerful and united voice to use when speaking to China and the United States. If Britain exit, it loses that. The many of the arguments for retention of Britain's place in the European Union are similar to the arguments for retaining Scotland's place in Britain. Just as Scotland's interests are in Britain, Britain's interests are clearly in Europe, and so we should follow that path where our interests lie. Just as Scotland recently voted with practical good sense to remain part of Britain, Britain should determine similarly, based on reality and not myths, to remain part of the EU. Thank you very much. I now call on John Mason to be followed by Hans Alamallach. I will just let the chamber know that there is a modest amount of time available for constructive interventions, should anyone wish to make them. Mr Mason, six minutes are there by. I will have to judge whether any interventions are going to be constructive or not. My first vote as an 18-year-old was in June 1975 on EU membership, and I seem to remember definitely voting for being in the EU. I see Europe as a family of nations, and we are part of that family. It would be strange to be in Europe but not in the European Union, which is the situation that Norway finds itself in, being bound by many of the decisions, but with no real voice, as Mr McMahon was describing. Let's remember, as Liam McArthur put quite well, how successful the EU has been in one of its core objectives, which was to prevent further wars in Europe, which had been part of all our ancestors' lives for many centuries. One of the problems that the UK has when it comes to deciding any constitutional issue is that the UK does not have a constitution, at least no constitution in the sense that growing up democratic countries virtually all have written constitutions, which would include provision for changing the constitution and for making major decisions such as entering or leaving the EU. Far be it from me to criticise the wonderful UK, but at least in this regard it does contain a major flaw. Mind you, having mentioned one major constitutional flaw in the UK, another one immediately comes to mind, the House of Lords. Now, we are quite used to saying that it is undemocratic as if that was normal, but again, for other modern democratic countries and certainly European countries, having one chamber unelected would be anathema. Why is that relevant here today? Because there is no democratic check on the House of Commons. The Government motion today proposes that each of the four parts of the UK should have to vote no to the EU before we could leave. Now, a similar result, I think, would be achieved if the UK had a second chamber which was elected and which consisted of 25 per cent for England, 25 per cent for Scotland, 25 per cent for Wales and 25 per cent for Northern Ireland. Then a 75 per cent majority for such a major constitutional change would provide a democratic break on any English Government. Speaking personally, I spent two years of my life living in London and three years in Nepal. In both of those places, I worked in two separate international charities. I worked with many different European people, as well as folk from outside Europe. I have to say that, of all the nationalities that I have worked with that I feel most close to, it would be the Dutch, despite the fact that I do not have any of their language. But Scotland is a huge amount in common with the Netherlands and with other countries for that sake, but at least we are both being relatively small countries. We both have a strong maritime history, and we both have a similar religious mix of reformed and Catholic churches. Again, it has been said that, if we are to compete on the world stage with the large countries that we face today, such as the United States, China, Russia, India and others, the UK is really too small. We need to work together as a European family. Another reason why the UK is too small is for our export industries, whisky, food and drink, specialist engineering. 64 million is too small a market to grow companies for the world stage. The EU itself has a market of some 500 million, and through it we get better trade agreements for selling worldwide. Some people would say that we have failed to grow companies that are based in Scotland, and we have failed to keep key sectors in public ownership. But I ask myself, is that a fault of the EU, or is that a fault of the UK? I would suggest that, in both of those cases, the fault lies with the UK. In fact, other EU countries have not privatised rail, electricity and so on, and they have also been much better at keeping local companies local, as with manufacturing in Germany. If you were to ask me, are our businesses and jobs safer in the EU or in the UK, it seems clear to me that the UK is the bigger risk, with their desire to sell anything for a quick buck, whereas several other European countries are better at taking a long-term view and investing for the future. Another strength of the EU has been its confederalist approach with subsidiarity lying at the heart of decision making. That contrasts with the UK, which is at a very centralist approach, only conceding the minimum of devolution and only very reluctantly when forced to do so. John Mason, do you think that I have a plan for this? Yes, absolutely. Mason, for taking an intervention, will try to be as constructive as possible. I am interested in the point that he makes there about the surlannacy across our European partners. Do you not agree that France, for example, is one of the most centralised societies and economies in the European Union and, in fact, has been a driver of much of what has happened at a new level? I certainly do agree that, from my knowledge of France, it is very centralised. I think that I am arguing probably more for the EU as one institution rather than the individual constituent parts of it, but I take his point. I was just going to mention one or two more things. For example, as Michael McMahon has already mentioned, the EU has often taken a more progressive approach than the UK has on issues of concern to Scotland, such as the working time directive, such as financial regulation and caps and bankers bonuses, and for that matter on immigration, where Scotland frankly is short of people and we need more people in order to grow our economy. Small countries are also respected, back to Liam McArthur's point, more in the EU than I would say they are in the UK. For example, smaller countries get proportionally more MEPs in order to counterbalance the big countries. Thus, in Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain it takes over 800,000 people to get one MEP, but in Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Finland it is under 500,000. That is the kind of practical arrangement that Christina McKelvie mentioned, in which the EU is so much better than the UK. It takes into account both the population and recognition of the importance of the individual state, which in fact the United States does that as well. However, in the UK, that does not happen, and we have this very rigid legalistic approach insisting that every MEP should represent the same number of registered voters. However, if we followed the European model, Scotland would have more MEPs at Westminster. There are many other examples of how small countries in the EU can punch above their weight and can club together to counteract the bigger countries. We can see clearly that smaller countries feel safer in the EU and see the EU as a good protection against traditionally predatory larger neighbours in the same way Scotland there can feel safer. I am Scottish first, but I am certainly European second. I am very happy to be both, and I want it to continue that way. Thank you. I am pleased to be taking part in today's debate on Scotland's place within Europe. I have always seen the advantages of Scotland within the United Kingdom as part of the European Union. The European Union's single market allows for easy access to trade, education, and support developing our economic economy and society. The European Union, I believe, is an exceptional partnership in developing and development, and with the proper relationship, our partnership with Europe can assist with many issues that face us in our nation today. However, there is a lack of strategy in improving Scotland's ability to draw funds to the third sector developing infrastructure or supporting industry. I strongly encourage it. In fact, I demand that the Scottish Government takes a strong role in guiding and supporting our third sector and private industry to apply for European funding in future. I have brought up this issue of the need for better access to European support and grants at the European and External Relations Committee, but I have yet to see real progress from the Scottish Government on this issue. Our relationship with Europe is not without its issues. Scottish universities have raised concerns over the planned diversification of 2.7 billion euros for the horizon 2020. The European Union's main research fund to a new European similar funding, officially called the European Fund for Strategic Investment, in short EFSI. Scotland and other United Kingdom research institutes have benefited a great deal from this fund, and the resulting grants from the European Fund Council. I would like to ask that what discussions the Cabinet Secretary or, for that matter, the Minister Hamza Yousaf has had with his UK colleagues to counteract this near-sighted decision that the European Union is hoping to make or intending to make. As I have said, I generally support Scotland's membership of the European Union through the UK, and I wish to see this relationship develop further. But, Presiding Officer, we in Scotland have seen many organisations either don't apply or have failed to get European Union funding. Once again, I will call upon the Scottish Government to identify officials, organisations or even agencies who can guide and help the third sector and our private industry through this maze of acquiring funding rightfully their right to apply for and gain for, and I look forward to the Minister commenting on this issue. I have to say that consistently there has been an underspent in this area in the European Union, and consistently we in Scotland have missed our opportunities in getting our fair share of funding. What is now concerning me is the European Union's concentration in new members that are up and coming within Europe and giving them opportunities. But what worries me and I have concerns about is the organisations and communities that have not actually got any funding in Scotland during that period of time. History can be very cruel, but history can also be very kind. It can be kind if we have been able to consistently apply and utilise the opportunities that Europe had offered us, but it's cruel that we've not been able to do so and hope that we can find ways of redressing that. One of the biggest issues that I feel that we have missed out opportunities in the past is our infrastructure and our communications sector. I think that the fact that most of Scotland is rural, many people could benefit from good communications and good infrastructure facilities and Europe could have helped us in that fact. The fact that the European Union has reduced their budgets in the internet facilities as well is also damaging. So I will be very interested to hear from the Minister today how he can find ways to help us to organise potential support for the third sector. I think it's absolutely crucial in a shrinking resource scenario in Scotland. Coming from Glasgow, many of my constituents come on a daily basis to me complaining that funding has been reduced or even stopped in many instances and I think that we have lost opportunities in the past. I hope we will not lose them in the future and I'm more than happy to support the minister in this bid to try and redress this issue. Presiding Officer, as my colleague Stuart Maxwell said in his opening remarks, Scotland may well be on the fringes of Europe geographically but in terms of our natural resources and what we bring to the table, Scotland is very much at the heart of Europe. We're a small country with about 1 per cent of the population of the European Union but we bring to the table huge resources in terms of fishing, renewable energy potential, world-class products and food and drink and a contribution well beyond our size in science, medicine and innovation. Scotland pulled out of Europe against our will would be as much a disaster for our European friends as it would be for us. The scandalous thing about this prospect is that none of it is what Scotland is doing. It has all come about because of the failure of England's political parties to persuade ordinary people in that country that the European ideal brings greater benefits than drawbacks. It has come about because that failure has allowed extreme elements to fill the credibility gap, fuelled by a hysterically anti-European media, all too ready to peril the message on behalf of those extremists. It has come about because those parties feel compelled to appease that anti-European agenda rather than taking it on and exposing it for what it is. It's not acceptable for a Prime Minister to talk up the idea of a family of nations one minute, then tell us, we will all do what England decides in Europe the next. In that context, how in earth can any Scottish parliamentarian support Scotland being pulled from the heart of Europe on the back of such a negative and regressive political agenda elsewhere? Scottish MPs and MPs of all parties must stand up for Scotland if Scotland decides to stay in the European Union and if England decides to leave. That scenario can only happen though if the Tories get back into power because Labour can't defeat them. Even by aping them as best they can, sticking to the same spending plans and voting with them to cut another £30 billion off public spending. The real test under that scenario would come if the Tories do form the next Government and then fail to get the changes that they claim they want Europe to agree to. Under those circumstances, I think that the prospects of the UK Government recommending leaving Europe would be very real and the consequences of that for Scotland would be dire. Membership of the European Union gives Scotland direct access to a huge market of 500 million citizens, as has been mentioned by one or two of the members. The world's biggest economy, with over 20 million businesses, has over 300,000 jobs in Scotland that are associated with exports to the EU and accounts for nearly half of our international exports. Over 150,000 citizens from other member states live, work and study here, as do many thousands of Scots throughout Europe. Most of that would be thrown into chaos, and the consequent damaging effect on jobs and Scotland's economy could be catastrophic. Many of those who have given evidence at our European Committee and from across Europe too have said their clear hope is that the UK does not leave Europe. None more so perhaps than in Ireland, who, as Michael Matheson said, celebrates St Patrick's Day. Laila Porigson-Ajeev is happy St Patrick's Day to everybody, whose T-shirt Ender Kerry has spoken publicly of his hope that the UK remains in Europe, but he has nevertheless recently set up a new department, specifically looking at the issues that are rising for Ireland from a possible UK exit. Clearly, on the negative side, there would be border control issues to resolve, but some look too to the fact that over 250 foreign banks, with their European bases in London, might consider moving to Dublin, or to Scotland under different circumstances. Some view that as a positive outcome of a UK exit, but on balance, the Irish hope is very much that the UK stays in Europe. Mr Juncker's 10-point strategy for Europe is technically possible that the UK could operate outwith those key strategic priorities, but it is really hard to see how a UK out of Europe could develop alternative and possibly competing strategies on things such as the digital single market or the €315 billion investment plan. Who knows? The UK might end up with its own brand of T-tip, a UK T-tip. None of this is impossible, but it is unlikely that any positive impacts achieved by an isolated UK would have anything like the scale of success from a pan-European approach to some of those matters. One thing, though, I am certain of, is that Europe needs to connect with its citizens in a more direct, simple and easy-to-understand way than it does at the moment. Eurobabel is a language that is hard for ordinary people to understand, and the quicker Europe realises this and does something about it, the better. If you look at the European Union and the commission's public-facing websites, you would be forgiven for thinking that they were designed by officials for the amusement of academics. They need to simplify their communication methods with the public and make Europe easier to understand for citizens, showcasing the many positive stories that there are to tell. Finally, should there ultimately be an out referendum on Europe where England votes to leave and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland votes to stay in, then the UK must respect the mandates in this so-called family of nations and stay in. Any move to force Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland out of Europe against the wishes and best interests of their people will inevitably trigger a constitutional crisis more serious than the membership of the European Union itself. At that point, the will of the Scottish people will be the sore determinant of our own future. Like others, I campaigned in the 1975 referendum that Harold Wilson had to solve internal political difficulties in the Labour Party and the party of government that resulted in a yes vote. My party took a position against because of the sell-out of the fishing industry, but for my part, I was always firmly on the yes side and voted accordingly, doing so with a heavy heart knowing that I was disagreeing with my party. Of course, 1975 was not the start of the story. The UK joined the then European economic community in 1973 under Tory Prime Minister. Things go further than that. It was a UK member of Parliament who had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials who was the moving spirit behind the European Convention on Human Rights, and Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister who took the UK into that and was a proud signatory of the convention when it came into operation on 3 September 1953. Of course, it goes further back than that as well. In 1320, when Scotland sought to protect its independence, it was to the Pope in Rome that Scotland wrote. The Pope was not simply a head of a church, he had a secular and key role in co-ordinating international relationships. Scotland is no stranger to Europe. Scotland has no distant connection to Europe. It has always had a very intimate connection. Jamie McGregor and others derided the idea of for-nation consent. Among other things, it said that it would be inconceivable that different parts of the UK went in different ways. Of course, that is to neglect what has already happened. In 1982, Greenland, an autonomous country within Denmark, voted to leave the EU. By 1985, it successfully did so, despite having that relationship. I do not commend that, because I would wish to stay, but their choice was to go. It is entirely possible by that example for different decisions and different effects, even within one single existing member. Jamie McGregor also, in his approach, seemed to imply that Spain should withdraw access to benefits for the nearly one million UK citizens who live in that country. The reference has been made to Norway and Switzerland. For a while, one of my nieces lived in Norway and commuted daily to Sweden to work at MSA, never showing a passport or anything else, which I thought was quite interesting and a European boundary. However, certainly, there is increasing disquiet in Norway at, first of all, the economic contribution that they require to make to the European Union as a price for being in the European economic area, but also that they are having to be bound by the rules of the European Union who are having no say in how they work. We heard someone say that France is substantially more centralised than the UK. I think that that will come as a very great surprise to many people in France. There is a tyrical novel by Gabriel Chevelier of 1934 called Closh Merrill, which was a successful TV series in 1972, which was all about the local mayor wanting to build a new pieceware in the town square. To this day, there is considerable local authority in the towns and villages of France, and indeed, in the real life Closh Merrill, the mayor is there every Thursday for two hours while she takes her lunch and eats her sandwiches in this tiny little village. She is there. France is far less a centralised country than one might imagine if you listen to some people in this debate. Turning to the amendments that are before us, the Labour Party's amendment in the most part I could find myself relatively comfortable with, but it fails to understand the reality of the UK's engagement with the European Union when it says, at the end, that the UK should lead as a strong member of the EU. The one thing that the UK is not is a strong member of the EU. The UK has never, to this day, properly engaged with the internal workings of the EU. The Irish, the moment they got in in 1973, sent the people across there. They got into the grassroots, they were involved in the very early stages of formulating European policy. The UK has always waited until the policy has been formed before saying, this is when they do, and we have got to change it, by which time it is too late. If the UK had engaged in a proper way, I suspect that the EU would be one that would operate in a way that would satisfy even many of Jamie McGregor's colleagues who are less sympathetic to the idea of the EU leaving aside its operation than he is. In conclusion, I was interested to hear that the Tories are essentially saying, let the people speak. The European Convention on Human Rights protocol 1 article 3 about elections means that you have to have democracy. The UK has a majority of its legislator, unelected. We are in breach of that. I would love to have a referendum in the House of Lords. I suspect that I know how it would turn out. Maybe that is why the Tories will not have one. Thank you very much. I now call Cara Hylton to be followed by Roderick Campbell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the founding principles of the European Union back in its early days as a coal and steel community was the commitment to the equalisation and improvement of the living conditions of workers. While Europe can often seem distant from our daily lives, the reality is that we have the European Union to thank for many of the rights and freedoms that we enjoy every day, from paid holidays for all to equal pay for women, from equal rights for part-time workers to maternity rights from day one and statutory maternity leave for up to a year, from safer workplaces and action to tackle working hours, real benefits and make real difference every day. We have a single market that allows Scottish businesses access to 500 million people with one set of rules and issues of common concern rather than 28 sets of rules, allowing Scots to live, study or work anywhere in the EU, a union that has helped to keep the peace in Europe for 70 years. Yet, while Europe makes a real difference to our lives, turnout at European elections is low, as Clare Baker has already highlighted. Right across Europe, there is a growing disenchantment with European institutions, which often appear to put markets before people and simply seem remote and detached from the lives that people lead. However, in the UK, despite the best efforts of some of the tabloid press, support for remaining in the EU is now on the increase and, according to Ugov, has risen steadily since 2012, particularly among women and voters in Scotland and in London. That is an encouraging sign for those of us who believe Scotland's role is at the heart of Europe. Scottish Labour's amendment today calls in for the EU to focus on tackling inequality and exploitative working practices. It highlights how important it is to focus on measures to protect our public services and trade negotiations, and that is particularly topical in respect of the current debate around TTIP. If the European vision is to prosper, it must be a bit of an hope and opportunities for its citizens about ensuring that globalisation works for working people and about guaranteeing that, alongside jobs, there are decent rights. No, thanks. One of the most pressing challenges that we face, not just in Scotland but across the EU, is equal pay and the continued gender pay gap, which means that, on average in Europe, women are paid 16.2 per cent less than men. Yet, in a recent debate on promoting greater equality, which included a grain action to reduce the pay gap and also to combat violence against women and promote paid paternity leave, the UK's Tory MEPs voted against taking action, revealing once more that when it comes to making life fairer for working people in the UK, the Tories choose not to act. This is obviously no surprise from a party that chooses to offer tax breaks to millionaires and to ignore tax avoidance, but ordinary families up and down the length of the UK pay the price of austerity. Scottish Labour knows that we only succeed in Scotland when working families succeed and we can't rebuild our economy based on low wages, temporary and insecure work. The Tories' actions, both in Europe and at home, show exactly why Scottish families cannot afford another Tory Government, and that's what we'll get if the SNP has their way and the Tories are the largest party in May. However, it's not just Tory MEPs that are letting down hard working families in Europe. One of the biggest issues facing the UK is tax evasion, and tackling this is on a Scottish Labour's top priorities. Tax evasion costs European Governments €1 trillion a year, €2,000 for each and every one of us, more than the budget deficits of all member states combined, more than Europe spends on healthcare each year, four times what we spend on education. Yet, in a vote in the European Parliament, SNP MEPs joined with UKIP and the Tories and refused to support action to fight tax evasion, tax fraud and aggressive tax avoidance. While zero-hour contracts are an increasing problem right across Scotland, leaving more and more families unable to plan from one week to the next, as Michael McMahon has highlighted already, rather than vote to take action SNP MEPs in Europe against sat in their hands and abstain leaving Labour. Through the roll call of MEPs that voted on the amendment that she's talking about, does she know that David Martin voted against it? David Martin did make an error, and this was corrected, she'd... But the SNP members made a conscious decision not to sign up the action on exploiting a zero-hour contract. Consider this mirror to the position that SNP MEPs took in the Parliament today. I'm quite astounded that the minister has raised that issue at all. The SNP MEPs in Europe sat in their hands and abstained, leaving Labour as the only UK party to support calls on EU member states to combat zero-hour contracts. We hear a lot of hot air in this place about the SNP about being inside of working people, but time and time again they sit in their hands and make excuses rather than take action to improve the lives of hard working families. The message is clear, there's only one party that will stand up for workers' rights, and that's the Labour party. We won't abstain when it comes to taking action for working people. One area that Europe must focus more on is tackling child poverty. In the upcoming reforms in the EU, give us the opportunity to push children and their rights up to the top of the European political agenda. A recent Save the Children report highlights the fact that the number of children at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe has risen by almost one million in recent years to staggering 27 million children. Poverty that doesn't just leave children hungry or cold, but which robs some of their dreams, their hopes and their rights as enshride in the EU charter of fundamental rights and the UN rights of the child. Much more needs to be done by every single member state to put children's rights at the centre of the European Union's work and to fight the unacceptable reality of child poverty right across Europe. In conclusion, the best future for the UK is within the European Union, but we need to work to reform the EU to make it more relevant to people's lives. We need to ensure that there is an opportunity to take action at European level to protect and enhance the rights of Scottish families that we do so. People need to see the difference that being a member of the EU makes every day and Europe's future will only be secure if we put the fight for social justice back at its heart. In Europe, like here in the UK, we achieve more together than we do apart and we must do all we can to ensure that Scotland and the UK are at the heart of Europe, shaping its future rather than retreating into the narrow, nasty isolationism and often blatant racism being promoted by the UK. The debate occurs against the backdrop of a UK general election and with Euro-skeptic parties on the rise elsewhere in the UK and to a lesser extent in Scotland. We see the political narrative becoming ever more insular and isolationist in those terms, and Willie Coffey referred to that earlier on. Research conducted by Ugov in August 2014 and referred to in the renowned think tank Chatham houses report published in January showed that voters in Scotland would vote to stay in the EU. The only other area in the UK that would vote to stay in that survey was London. That survey also found that Scottish voters are more pro-European, more supportive of overseas development and more likely than English voters to say ethics should play a role in foreign policy. Chatham house concluded that heightened scrutiny over the position of an independent Scotland within the EU during the referendum period may have driven Scottish voters to consider the value of EU membership and resulted in a move to a more pro-EU viewpoint. According to the research, the Scottish public has largely positive associations regarding the benefits of EU membership, protection of citizens rights and peace and security. The negative associations of bureaucracy and the loss of power were perhaps a very mixed position on the question of freedom of movement and limitations on that. Results from that survey showed that Scots would vote to remain in the UK by a two-to-one margin. 59 per cent of Scots said that they would vote to stay with only 24 per cent indicating that they would vote to leave. While the rest of the UK would all be at narrowly vote to leave the UK, I know that there is other more recent polling evidence suggesting a more tight situation, but I think that it is accepted by at least most commentators that at the very least Scotland is less Eurosceptic than the rest of the UK. Thank you very much, and I appreciate Roger Campbell taking an intervention. He would be aware of the survey carried out by the BBC Scotland last week in relation to attitudes towards immigration. There is not a direct read across, of course, but the similarities between the attitudes of immigration north of the border and south of the border were remarkably similar. Perhaps there are more things that Stuart Maxwell was saying than Roger Campbell, but do not indicate the divergence that he is alluring to there. Obviously, different polls produce different things, so that particular poll has been criticised by some people in terms of the definition of what was meant by immigration. However, we will keep that debate for another time. It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that the rest of the UK would vote to leave the UK and Scotland would vote to stay. It would be indefensible, in my view, to be taken out of Europe against our wishes, and to reassure my colleague Liam McCarthy is that I am not aware of anyone in the SNP who somehow believes or secretly wants a British exit from the European Union. Should a bill be tabled on an EU referendum, it is right and proper that a simple amendment requiring all four constituent nations to vote for withdrawal be placed in play. We need proper protection against any constituent nations being removed from the EU against their will. We said, and many speakers have referred to that already today, that during the referendum campaign many unionist campaigners talked about a family of nations, but it cannot be a family of nations if you can be taken out of another union against your will. It is not just the SNP who believes that such a proposal was also commended by Carwyn Jones, who agreed that the proposal was worth considering and wondered if the UK leaves the EU on the basis of English votes, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have not seen. We cannot risk our place in the EU by pandering to those who would take us out against our will. Whilst I appreciate that the EU is not perfect and its institutions must reconnect with citizens across the EU, I believe that we can achieve reform and improve EU policy without changing the treaties. The emphasis must be on reform, and it is important to note here that the UK Government's own balance of competencies review has shown to date very little progress on the issue of repatriating competencies from the EU to national governance. If anything, it is illustrated how the UK has benefited from the current situation, so it rather odds with the Conservatives' intention to use the findings as a basis to renegotiate the terms of the UK's membership of the EU. In my view, membership of the EU is vital to securing Scotland's interests. It provides the best international framework for Scotland and we can benefit from the world's largest economic and trading area, which is capable of competing with the most advanced economies in the world. With access to a market of 500 million people and 22 million businesses across the EU, approximately 336,000 jobs in Scotland are being dependent on exports to the EU. To withdraw would be disastrous for our economy and would put jobs at risk. However, it is not just the SNP who recognises the risks of leaving the EU and indeed the downside of a referendum. Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat colleague of Mr MacArthur, said that the prospect of a referendum and possible exit from the EU is deeply unsettling for businesses trading in the European single market from the car industry to financial services. I could not agree more. To ensure that Britain trades successfully in the modern world, it must stay in the EU. It is clear that the UK and Scotland would not be taken seriously by either the Americans or the Chinese if we were isolated from our European neighbours. Indeed, Steve Odle, chief executive of Ford Europe said that he would strongly advise against leaving the EU for business purposes and for employment purposes in the EU. However, the EU is not simply a trade association. It strengthens peace, security, justice and prosperity across Europe and we are enriched by the free movement of peoples across the EU. EU migrants have made a positive contribution to the UK, both in economic and cultural terms, and the negative rhetoric on EU migration is hugely concerning, particularly as the indications are that migrants coming to our country to work contribute far more to the country than they take out, as Mr Maxwell referred to earlier on. We need to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard within the EU and we are pushing with others to ensure that any economic benefits from TTIP cannot be at the expense of our NHS or indeed other public services. That is why the SNP is pushing for a double lock to be enshrined in TTIP, which will explicitly exempt the NHS from its scope and respect the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Finally, the Smith commission states that the UK Government quote, recognises the need to reflect fully the views of the other devolved administrations when drawing up any revised Government's arrangements in relation to Scottish Government representation of the UK to the EU. What that means in practice we don't yet know, the devil will be in the detail, but I think that we should follow that legislation as it passes through the Westminster Parliament with interest. In conclusion, Scotland's interests are best served by being in, not out of the EU. I thank you and to now call Dennis Robertson to be followed by Jane Baxter. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Europe is complex, and I wonder sometimes if the complexity of Europe in itself, in people's minds, means that when it comes to the election for our MEPs, people stay at home. The referendum would have a 85 per cent turnout of people going to the polls because they were energised, excited, and had something that they believed that they could take part in. Europe for many seems to be somewhere else, and that's a strange thing because we are European, but it's an attitude that's happened and has grown up within the UK that the UK is a stand alone within Europe. I think that that's something that we need to try and shift. As a member of the European States, we are extremely fortunate because, apart from the economic advantages that have been mentioned by many members, it's the cultural aspect that also interests me. When we look at the migrants that are coming into our country and into our schools, into our universities, we are seeing, especially from our younger people, the embracement of Europe in its wider context. I smiled when Murdo Fraser a few weeks ago said at committee who, in this modern day, speaks French—apart from Mr Allard and the French and many other people—there are a lot of children in the playgrounds speaking French, speaking German, speaking Spanish. When we look at the cultural embracement of our languages, I feel quite embarrassed because I struggle with English and I don't remember any other language. When John Mason, my colleague, said that he has this love of the Dutch but fails to be able to speak the language, is that not something that maybe happened within the UK, the Scots? Maybe have we not embraced this ability to go and speak different languages? This is something that we need to try to push forward because, if we are to be successful, and I believe that we are successful to some degree, but if we are to be successful and take our export market, the internationalisation of our products to the European market, we need to engage and be able to speak the language of Europe. I certainly will. Stuart Stevenson Ainship op het strand is in beacon varamzie. That's a bit of Dutch—a Dutch saying that a ship that's stranded on the beach is a warning to the sailor and perhaps that's exactly the Dutch in their language capturing the position that the UK will be in. If the UK leaves, that will warn everyone else of the dangers and promote cohesiveness in the EU. Dennis Robertson I always appreciate interventions from my friend and colleague, Stuart Stevenson. The opportunities are there for us to embrace Europe in this cultural aspect, to ensure that our young people take forward the opportunities before them. At the moment, we quite often hear about the oil and gas industry, especially within the north-east of Scotland. Some people say that there is no crisis. The problem that we have within the industry is that we are going to have a skill shortage, a skill shortage that could impact in the industry and its future. However, if we have our young people embracing this aspect of migration and the free movement that we have at the moment, we can be very successful. Our fishing industry relies quite heavily on people coming from other countries. Here, poor, lowly Ross County in the football sense has brought many Spanish people to Inverness to follow their goalkeeper, who seems to be keeping Ross County away from the relegation zone. I think that when we are looking at this opportunity for Scotland within Europe and Scotland remains part of the UK, we need to ensure that, when we are engaging in Europe and within the Parliament in Europe, the voice of Scotland is heard and the knowledge and expertise of Scotland is heard within that sector. When Richard Lochhead goes to Europe, it is his voice, his knowledge, his expertise that we should be listening to when it comes to fishing and agriculture. He is a person who knows the industry and I believe that it would be respected within Europe. It is time for us to recognise the importance of our ministers in this Parliament within the European sector at the top table. The UK Government needs to look at who has the knowledge and who can best serve, not just Scotland but the UK when it comes to negotiations. Presiding Officer, I am proud to be a Scot. I am proud to be a European. I am proud of the fact that we embrace people from all parts of the world but certainly within Europe. What I am delighted about, I am delighted about the fact that I love Italian cuisine, I love French cuisine, which your alert himself makes a wonderful beef bourguignon. He has yet to bring it to my table. Presiding Officer, we have a wonderful aspect that we can embrace within Europe and it is a culture that we should embrace. When it comes to European elections, we should be saying to our people when we knock on the doors, this is your opportunity to have your voice heard again. It is important that we should not get back into the situation that we sit in our hands when it comes to elections. I am looking forward to the general election, where I believe that the Scottish voice can be heard within the UK Parliament perhaps to influence our direction within Europe. I sincerely hope that that is the case. However, let us put one myth to rest, Presiding Officer. The myth is that we are European. When Jamie MacGregor says that the SNP has many myths around our situation within Europe, he is misled, he is misinformed. We are European and we will remain in Europe because, unlike Jamie MacGregor, I am not sure that Mr Cameron will be Prime Minister after the general election. Since the United Kingdom joined in 1973, our place in the European Union, or the European Economic Community, as it was known then, has been a topic of political debate across the country. There are many views on that, but I believe that Scotland has clearly benefited from being part of the EU and will continue to do so in the future. I want to focus today on the benefits that EU membership can bring to Scotland and to the influence that Scotland can have on the future direction of the EU. The EU is hugely important to Scotland's economy. 40 per cent of foreign direct investment into Scotland comes from firms based in EU member states. In the other direction, the EU is where nearly 50 per cent of Scotland's international exports go. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland are directly and indirectly reliant on us being part of the EU. EU competition law ensures a level playing field for our businesses when operating on the continent. The European regional development fund and European social fund deliver around £700 million in funding to Scotland. Tens of millions of that will be spent in social projects and economic development in Fife. Helping people back to work, enhancing our economic competitiveness, developing our environment and resource efficiency, all whilst improving social inclusion. Take, for example, West Fife enterprises. The organisation was set up in the wake of the closure of coal mines across West Fife. One of the key local leaders in getting it established at the time was councillor, later to become MSP, Helen Edie. The organisation has worked hard for nearly 30 years to help people in Fife improve their life and work opportunities. It works closely with over 200 companies operating in Fife, shaping the vocational training that West Fife enterprise provides. That approach not only helps people who need support in gaining new skills and jobs, but also helps local companies find new employees with the skills and knowledge that they need to grow their businesses. West Fife has received nearly £2 million from the European social fund and the European regional development fund for a number of projects in the last 10 years or so. With direct support for that and many other projects, as well as the indirect economic benefits that have been part of the European Union, it is abundantly clear that our continued membership of the EU is good for Fife. The same can be said for any part of the country, whether it be the east end of Glasgow, which receives millions from the social fund and regional development fund each year, or the financial district of Edinburgh, which benefits from the free movement of goods and services within the EU. The economic benefits extend beyond the EU's borders. The European Union has negotiated trade agreements with countries all over the world. It gives us a stronger voice on the international economic stage, as in 2010, the 27 member states of the EU accounted for over a quarter of global GDP. However, the benefits are not purely economic. Over 150,000 EU citizens are resident in Scotland. Citizens of other EU member states enrich Scotland and add to our multicultural society. Students from the EU make our colleges and universities even better, as Scottish students benefit from being part of exchange schemes such as Erasmus, where they can experience new learning environments and different cultures. Tens of thousands of Scottish people live in other EU countries, encountering new cultures and picking up skills and expertise that they bring back home. We all benefit from that. Our beaches are maintained to standards set by the EU. We benefit from Europe-wide standards on consumer protection. In Fife and across Scotland, we have untold numbers of farmers and rural workers who benefit from the common agriculture policy and the open market across the entire continent for their produce. We work together across Europe on climate change. The EU provides important protections to workers, guaranteeing employee protection not just for Scottish and British workers but for those in countries with far less advanced worker protection schemes across the continent. Recently, the EU cat charges for the use of mobile phones when roaming across the EU. The European Parliament hopes to soon go further and abolish the charges outright. Similarly, the European Parliament recently voted in favour of capping credit and debit card transaction fees, a move that would save British businesses nearly £0.5b a year. On those and hundreds of other similar issues, being part of the European Union makes business and ordinary people's lives easier. We are part of the European arrest warrant. According to the European Commission, prior to the European arrest warrant's introduction, extradition procedures took on average one year to complete. That has now been cut to on average 48 days. That, alongside the multitude of arrangements designed to maximise cross-border co-operation and policing, means that Police Scotland and the Crown Office are able to investigate crimes more easily and prosecute them more effectively. We are able to co-operate on transnational issues such as human trafficking with ease. That is not to say that the EU has no flaws. There is a constant need for reform and refinement, but it is not good enough to seek to leave an enduring and powerful political, economic and social union because it is imperfect. The solution to those flaws is to seek to fix them, not abandon the whole process. We often congratulate ourselves on how pro-European the people of Scotland are. That is a mistake. We must continue to argue the case for staying in the EU. We must highlight the benefits that derive from our continued membership and the potential losses that would arise if we left. We must also say what being in the EU says about us. It shows that we want to be open to the world and part of things that are bigger than ourselves. We want to co-operate with others and not close ourselves off. We want to contribute to the world and influence global affairs. Scotland's place in the EU is at its heart. We benefit from the economic and social union inherent to the European Union. We all enjoy the direct and indirect benefits of our continued membership. Being a part of the EU is a powerful statement about our place in the world and how we view ourselves. We should use our place in the EU to press the case for action on inequality and on vitally important problems such as youth unemployment. That would be far more practical help to the people of Scotland than the partisan and divisive agendas that others seek to pursue. We should ensure that we do everything that we can to protect and strengthen our position in the EU. It is clear that our voice is amplified on the world stage by our continued membership of the EU and it is amplified within the EU itself by our continued membership of the UK. Thank you. Thank you. Our final open debate speaker before we turn to closing speeches is Claire Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 2012, this Parliament hosted an exhibition of the Wallace letters, which included the Loublet letter, considered to be one of the few artefacts remaining with the connection to Wallace. It was written in 1297 in states that Scotland is ready to trade with the ports of the Anziatic Lake. This is just one example of Scotland reaching out to trade with her European neighbours then, as we do now, as enthusiastic, engaged and committed members of the European Union. It was either us. Scottish links to Europe, ancient and modern, can be found across the whole of the European Union. In Bruges, for example, it was one of the great commercial centres of Europe and at one point most of the wool being exported from Scotland to the rest of Europe went through its ports. As such, a community of Scottish merchants settled here more than 700 years ago. Bruges today holds a college of Europe, which is the first university to offer studies in European affairs and the Scottish Government funds scholarships to that institution to this day. Another example of the way in which Scotland's prosperity over the centuries has been bound with the ability to trade, travel and work in Europe. Just as Scots have always worked and lived in Europe, so there are now 160,000-odd people from other EU states have chosen to live to work in Scotland and, as has been detailed by many of the contributions this afternoon, they have a massive contribution to Scotland's economy and culture. Those European connections are an essential part of who we are. Scotland has always been a nation that looks outwards to its neighbours in Wales, England, Ireland and Northern Ireland and to the other nations of Europe. We also welcome visitors to our land. Indeed, it is this that has led to the historian Tom Devine to describe us as a mongrel nation. If I stop to reflect just what that means to me, that means that I am a Scottish citizen, a British citizen and a European citizen. However, if this Scottish citizen embraces our European citizenship but is told that being a British citizen makes that impossible, that is a personal conflict for me. That is for our whole nation and for those who cannot see that this would be a constitutional conflict, simply have their heads in the sand. Liam McArthur mentioned the Second World War and, in 1946, Winston Churchill made a famous speech in Zurich, which helped to inspire early pro-European attitudes following the Second World War. He said that a stronger European partnership would, quote, make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to common cause. Scotland has made a great contribution to the European cause. There is no doubt that my preference would be that that happens as an independent nation within Europe, but nonetheless, as a member of the family of nations of the UK, we continue to make our contribution to Europe. As a member of the European Committee, I have watched— Is that a brief intervention? Yes, I certainly will. Thank you. Dennis Robertson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remember agreeing that, although Scotland makes an important contribution to Europe, they also make an important contribution to Scotland. Claire Adamson. Absolutely concur. It is a two-way street. It is a two-way exchange of ideas, of influence and of trade, and one that has served Scotland and the rest of Europe well over the centuries. I have been greatly honoured to witness small nations take the presidency of the European Union in my time in this Parliament, Denmark, Lithuania and, noted by the Ireland, who concluded the negotiations of the EU's financials up until 2020. Small nations, similar in size to Scotland, taking a pivotal role in Europe, and we should continue to do so as a small nation within this family of nations. However, we find ourselves at the moment in a very Eurosceptic position. If I return to Bruges, Margaret Thatcher made a speech there, which was at the time seemed out of culture and was a Eurosceptic symbol that was unheard of in the European Union. It was, unfortunately, that rhetoric from both some of the Conservatives and from UKIP led us to a much, much more Eurosceptic position then. However, even at that time, Margaret Thatcher was not arguing that we should come out of Europe but just change the way in which Europe worked. However, we now find ourselves with David Cameron's proposal to hold an in-out referendum in a position that seems alien to Scotland and that very few politicians in this country would have argued for under any circumstances. While I appreciate that Jamie Greger, in his speech, talked of his pro-European stance, unfortunately that is not the rhetoric that is coming through during this election campaign. I take no pleasure in that, but I am going to quote from David Coburn in his written evidence to the European Parliament. He said, UKIP and its anti-establishment, anti-UEFDD group allies have been highly successful in highlighting and warning Scottish businesses, agriculture, fisheries and the Scots in general, of damaging European directive, issued by an out-of-touch oligarchic unelected commission, supervised by a unique European Parliament." Challenging and intemporate language are not for the first time from Mr Coburn, but that is what is driving the call for an in-out European referendum. It is not the position that is laid out by Mr Greger this afternoon. I hope that Scotland will embrace the opportunities of a renegotiated position within Europe, one that could offer a reinforced public trust in the European Government and its ability to materially improve the lives of people, as many of my Labour colleagues in the chamber this afternoon about what it can do in workers' rights. There is also an opportunity to prioritise economic policies that stimulate sustainable growth and have a place in social policies that ensure that everyone can benefit from that growth and improve their country. There is also an opportunity for that yet completed European dream of a big European project that will absolutely bind us. If we look to some of the challenges of global warning, there is an opportunity perhaps in the future that we could have a grid that would allow renewable energy across Europe to benefit and interlinker countries even more in one of those proposed great European projects that have come up over the years. I, for one, want to stay in Europe. Thank you. We now turn to our closing speeches and a call on Cameron Buchanan in around six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it's ironic that I've never heard the SNP speak so much about family when, not long ago, they were voting to leave a different family. Anyway, I would like to thank members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate and to support my colleague Jamie McGregor's amendment. It is clear across the chamber that we all value Scotland and the wider UK's ties with Europe, and that I think is very much to be welcomed. Having spent time at Le Sorbonne in Paris and with my exposure to Europe's rich tapestry of culture and language through past business activities, I can certainly agree that there is an intrinsic cultural-social-economic value to Scotland's interactions with our friends across the continent. However, we must nevertheless accept that many people throughout the United Kingdom feel that the European Union must change. It is fair to say that it is not the same institution that the UK chose to join in 1973 and that the UK electorate voted two to one to remain part of in 1975. In the Conservative amendment, it talks about negotiating a new settlement for the UK. Would that involve treaty change, and if that involves treaty change, will that not lead to countries such as Ireland that can only allow treaty change through a referendum in their country, having a veto over any negotiations that the UK may undertake? No, I think that it is not just a treaty change. I think that we are trying to alter some of the petty rules that we have in the European Union. There are too many petty rules. We have not actually defined yet what the petty rules are. The European Union today is too bureaucratic, it is too undemocratic, it is known more to the general public for unnecessary interference than for the positive benefits that membership brings, such as a single market and free trade. The creep of EU red tape continues, while ever closer union looms largely at the expense of our national sovereignty. Since 1975, the geopolitical environment has changed. We have experienced one of the worst economic crisis in living memory. 40 years have passed since the British people last had a say on the EU, and it is simply not good enough. That is why the Conservatives have committed to negotiate a new settlement, not treaty, for the UK in Europe, followed by an in-out referendum before the end of 2017. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I would like to ask if Mr Cameron Buchanan will maybe help me on one particular matter. You and I have been talking about having a referendum to take Britain out of the EU. We had a referendum last year which has participated in many EU migrants. Will we participate in that referendum or not? Our referendum is not to take Britain out of the EU, but to renegotiate the terms. Mr Buchanan, are you taking another intervention? If not, I cannot have conversations across the chamber. That is why the UK in 2013 launched a campaign to cut the EU red tape. In the first year alone, that campaign brought about savings to UK businesses of over £200 million. Further reforms potentially are worth up to £0.5 billion to the UK businesses and they are still being implemented. Further, as part of the cut EU red tape campaign, the UK Government is supporting the adoption of a common sense filter for all new European commission proposals called the compete principles. It is also out to put a stop to the practice of goalplating, ensuring that the Government does not go beyond the minimum requirement of EU law when implementing EU directives. That is clearly in the UK interest. Those are a few examples of the many things that we are trying to do to reform the EU. The Conservatives have also cut the EU budget for the first time in its history. We got Britain out of the Eurozone bailouts and we protected our rebate. The Conservatives have campaigned to end the travelling circus of the European Parliament decamping from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month, which reportedly cost £228 million over the seven-year cycle. The Conservatives have a track record for change in Europe, but we are going further than that. We want the UK's membership with the EU to have a popular mandate and we want to serve the best interests of the British people. Forty years ago, the referendum on the European community was held on the basis of a simple one-to-one person vote system. The referendum on independence last year had no additional requirements other than a simple majority of votes. To suggest additional terms, i.e., a double majority that could potentially prevent the UK from leaving the EU, even when three out of the four constituent parts are voted in favour, is not democracy in action. It is not a popular vote. According to the recent Chatham House UGov survey, it is not what the people of Great Britain want. 60 per cent now of the public are in favour of referendum and only 24 per cent are opposed. It is my hope that we can bring about together the necessary reforms to change the European Union for the better. It is for the British people from all corners of the United Kingdom to decide if they wish to stay. Either way, the Conservatives will respect that decision and I vote in favour of the motion. Thank you very much. Before I turn to the next closing speaker, I remind members that everyone who has participated in the debate should be here for closing speeches. I was about to say that I noted that Hans Alamalek was not in the chamber and I would be grateful for the explanation. However, I have just seen Mr Malik enter the chamber. I now call in Clare Baker. Eight minutes please. Presiding Officer, as I said in my opening, this is my first speech in this European team as such with those committee members and the MSPs who have an interest in Europe. I found it very interesting and encouraging with largely positive contributions. As a literature graduate, I very much welcome the cultural comments from Christian Allard and also the Dutch from Stuart Stevenson, who managed to entertain us this afternoon. Members have covered a wide range of issues, including workforce issues. Michael McMahon described the workforce benefits that have successfully been fought for within the EU and more that we need to do within that. Cara Hylton talked about tackling tax avoidance and the greater role for the EU to play in that. Christian Allard talked about the need for co-operation. He highlighted the case of human trafficking as an important angle in a modern world to solve these problems that we need to work in co-operation. Many members talked about the need for the EU to be less remote and more engaged with its electorate. Dennis Robertson described the feeling of remoteness very well and gave a good description of the role that culture in our languages, in our performances and in our human relationships to better improve our engagement with Europe. This afternoon, we have three different proposals before us, which I imagine will not gain much cross-party support across the chamber at decision time. This is a pity, because there is much that we appear to agree with this afternoon. Europe is positive for Scotland, it is good for our economy. Being part of the union brings us positive social and cultural benefits, and there is much that we can learn from each other. Last year, I went to the first rural parliament conference in Scotland, and that is a model that we have seen working well in Europe to benefit of rural communities. We have a long history of trade and movement with Europe, and our modern institutions support those relationships in a way that looks to bring fairness and prosperity to Europe. We are, in many ways, in a strong position in Europe, notwithstanding the comments that were made. I cannot remember which member raised it about the current Conservative Government's approach towards Europe. Certainly, the Conservatives have a different history of Europe. It is not universal within their party, but they are not enthusiastically European. I believe that Nick Clegg has only represented the UK Government once in Europe in the early phases of the coalition, and sometimes I imagine where we would be now if that had continued. However, notwithstanding that, we have strengths in Europe. By continuing to be part of the pound rather than the euro, we have the advantage of our own currency while retaining full access to the single market. It is important that we make the case for staying in the European Union in a strong one. The costs of leaving the community that we have been part of for more than four decades far outweigh any outcomes that we would get in return. For an organisation that was founded to oppose aggression between states, it is vital that we play a full part in its future. Instead, we should ensure that Britain continues to have an impact on Europe in the best way possible. As Christian Allard described, free movement within the European Union allows Scottish people to move, to live, to work and study throughout these countries that are also part of the EU, as well as allowing other EU citizens to come to Scotland. That is a vital aspect for the growth of the country, as well as Europe as a whole. The possibility of shutting ourselves out of this opportunity to move freely throughout much of Europe is not only detrimental to those who benefit from coming to Scotland and the UK, but also to our citizens who benefit from the opportunities that other parts of Europe offer. Christian Allard I thank you very much for taking the intervention and talking about all the EU migrants who came into this country and contributed to society. What a great contribution we have is that we are allowed to vote, which I did in the referendum and many others last year. Will the Labour Party support me voting in this particular referendum that the Conservative Party is supporting? Claire Baker, I can give you your time back. Sorry, was the member asking about voting rights in any possible EU referendum? Yes, would I have the right to vote? Yes, I do not support any EU referendum. I am hoping that we have a Labour Government and that we do not have any EU referendum after May. Christina McKelvie talked about the Translatic Trade and Investment Partnership this afternoon, and I was pleased to have the support of the SNP earlier this year, joining Labour and the Greens to have the NHS protected from private incursions by US healthcare providers. It is imperative that the NHS is exempt from any trade agreement. Trade agreements are important and we want to get the benefits from an increasingly global marketplace, and we need to seek new opportunities. If we do not take those opportunities, other countries and markets will. However, member states that, across the EU, we will have concerns about what impact that could have on their public services. In the UK, we must not accept the inclusion of the NHS. I see that the committee published a report this morning. I know that it has conducted an in-depth inquiry into the issue, and I will take time to look at its conclusions, but I welcome its focus on the protection of the NHS. In this morning's media, the minister talked about a Eurosceptic Westminster, and Stuart Maxwell wrapped up all the UK parties together in that. The minister presents parties' positions on Europe to suit a nationalist narrative. Labour is not Eurosceptic, the Liberals are not Eurosceptic, the Greens are not Eurosceptic. Thank you for taking the intervention. I am sorry that you took that view. I was specifically talking about the Tory Government and the Tory policies. I think several times explicitly said the Tory party, so I never mentioned the Labour one. I am sorry that you took that view, because that is not what I intended. I accept Stuart Maxwell's response to that. I had thought that he had talked about a Westminster elite that wrapped the parties up together, but I appreciate the points that he has made. However, the First Minister was in London yesterday calling for Welsh voters to vote for Clyde Cymru and English voters to vote for Green. The consequence of that is not Britain dancing to the tune of UKIP for the next five years, but Britain dancing to the tune of the Conservatives for the next five years, guaranteeing aninac referendum that most people in this chamber do not want to see. Also, some of the comments this afternoon from Stuart Maxwell and Willie Coffey looked in some ways to rerun some of the aspects of the referendum last year. I know that there is disappointment in the chamber at the result of that referendum from some members, but the majority of people did vote to stay in the UK. Members were right to say that the debate in Scotland suggested that people in Scotland wanted to stay in Europe and that the vote showed that the arguments around continuing EU membership, the strength of the UK as the member state, the retention of the rebate and other UK benefits won the day. However, the SNP's case on Europe at the time was not credible and was not supported by a significant majority of EU experts. However, the key thing was that it did not have the support of the decision makers who repeatedly highlighted the difficult securing the agreement of 28 member states. For those MSPs this afternoon who were sounding like they were positively looking forward to an outreferendum, which would cause a constitutional crisis, they should reflect on some of last week's reports of Fiona Hyslop's concerns over the price of Scotland leaving the EU and negotiating its own membership concerns that were glossed over in a subsequent white paper. However, that was last year, and we now need to move on to the circumstances that are presented to us currently. As Liam McArthur outlined, the Smith commission brought forward proposals for strengthening Scotland's role in the UK and the EU, and good practice is already in place. In December, Angela Constance attended and spoke at both the Employment Council and the Education Council as the sole UK representative. At the December Officiaries Council, key Scottish objectives were secured. In fact, I was much encouraged by the cabinet secretary's positive report to the European Committee on Scotland's EU engagement through the UK. Of course, whether our weaknesses and Rupert Ponson by the Seventh Bar and Dumolle, leading on fishing negotiations when Richard Lockhead was there, is a case in point, and I was critical of that decision at the time. We need to learn lessons from those kind of examples. However, if we improve Scotland's role in the UK delegation, as I believe the Smith proposals will do, Scotland will continue to carry the influence as one of the larger member states. Let's improve the working relationships that we have, but retain the advantages that come from the UK membership of the EU. I also thought that Liam McArthur gave a fair analysis of the problems with the double majority proposal. As I said in opening comments, I do not think that that proposal is credible. It would be similar to a majority making a decision in last year's referendum, but a local authority area has been able to veto it. Scotland stayed in the UK last year with the knowledge that there could be an EU referendum, and we chose to continue to make decisions in those reserved areas together. In conclusion, this has been a wide-ranging debate. There has been some rehashing of older arguments and the rehearsal of some future ones, but in our different proposals this afternoon we will not find much agreement at decision time. However, there is much agreement than disagreement in the chamber, and Rod Campbell set out some of the positive arguments, including supportive comments from businesses about the importance of the UK's role in Europe. We have a task before us to continue and strengthen the UK's membership of the EU, to win the arguments, not just economic but also emotional. That is a union that is built around the desire for peace and co-operation. We have a responsibility to tell our story of Europe, both its history and its future, and to ensure that we continue to play a positive part in it. Many thanks. I now call on Humza Yousaf to wind up at minister. You have until 4.48pm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I should have been in my opening remarks. I understand what you meant. I should have in my opening remarks welcomed the fact that Claire Baker is making her first. She did that very, very well. I thought very succinctly and got to the heart of many issues. As Claire Baker said, many other members have reflected that it has been a very good and positive debate about the benefits of the EU. I do not know whether there was a similar debate in other parliaments and assemblies across the islands, whether it would be as positive as it certainly was in the Scottish Parliament, so I commend all the members for that. A very supportive approach encourages that there has been broad agreement around the Scottish Government's priorities in the EU, which many of the members of the ERC have at time questioned, of course, the Cabinet Secretary to my left and myself on those priorities. During those sessions, I have found very broad agreement and I am pleased that that has been reflected here in the chamber as well. I want to pick up on a few of the points that were raised. I think that all of us said that the relationship with the European Union and Scotland's relationship with the European Union was more than just trade and investment. There was a social purpose to it as well—reducing inequality and fighting poverty. I thought that I better respond to the comments that were made by Claire Baker and McTaggart—possibly Cara Hilton and Michael McMahon—in regard to SNP MEPs. I had a look at the issue that was mentioned. First of all, there was not a legally binding vote by any stretch. It was an initiative report. The reason why SNP MEPs, Green MEPs and the rest of the group that the Labour Party MEPs belong to voted against it, or in our case abstained on it, was because the definition of atypical labour could include lone parents on a part-time contract, for example, that could be affected. It is the interpretation that was the problem. I think that all of us generally will look towards the European Union to ensure that fighting inequality and reducing poverty most certainly is at the heart of that. Also, it is heartened greatly by the level of support that members have shown for Scotland's continued membership of the European Union—the real benefits that we get from that, not just access to those half a billion European consumers but also in the businesses but more than that. I thought that Liam McArthur raised a good point on structural funds as others did here too, but perhaps we are not good at delving down into making those relevant to what they mean to people. The €985 million that was mentioned by a variety of members adds to that, the match funding from the Scottish Government taking that up to £1.9 billion. What does that mean? What does it do for the people on the ground that we represent? An example of that would be, for example, that European structural funds funded Ayrshire youth employment service so far has created 1,250 job opportunities in Ayrshire, benefiting from some £1.6 billion of funding since 2030. The minister is outlining many of the positive aspects of being in Europe, in which there are many. However, why is it then that people seem to be disengaged when it comes to voting in European elections, when we have got these absolute positive benefits of being members within the European Union, but we do not seem to get that message across? Who is failing? I think that we all bear responsibility, and it goes back to the point that I was just trying to make to the chamber, that if we do not translate the positive benefits of European membership into what it actually means for people's everyday lives, why would people be interested? On top of that, in our own EU reform agenda, we have said clearly that the European Union should be tackling issues that matter to people. The mass youth unemployment that we see across the European continent would be one of those examples. I am very grateful, and hopefully this comment will be helpful in responding to a legitimate concern that Dennis Robertson has raised. It does not help a situation where member states across Europe have a track record of going along to council meetings signing up to inevitable compromise agreements and then tearing apart the agreement that they have signed up to in order to protect themselves from criticism from the aspect of the compromise that their citizens are slightly less enamoured with. Who would have thought that politicians playing politics can happen, and I agree with them, although I am sure that it certainly is not helpful by this point. Scotland will, in terms of funding, continue to have opportunity to bid into a range of EU competitive funding programmes. Scottish universities have managed to win €572 million worth of funding over the last financial period of 2007 to 2014. To give the EU a sense of scale, that represents over 1.3 per cent of the entire EU research budget. Again, I would like to give reassurances to those who have raised in Claire Baker and others the reduction of horizon 2020. Yes, we do not want to see any further reduction of that, but we hope that, through Yunker's investment package, academic institutions and research institutions will be able to benefit from that. I thought Hans Alamallek was slightly unfair, but I understood the position and the point that he was trying to raise about third sector organisations and trying to tap into EU funding. I thought he was slightly unfair to say that no progress had been made. I had spoken to him and other committee members recently about the funding portal that Scotland and Europa have created, because of the exact reason and the points that he mentioned. That funding portal that is launched or the beta version is launched will become a one-stop shop for information on the 40 or so EU funds that are currently available to people in Scotland, to organisations in Scotland. It will also provide information on projects that are currently running or completed that involve Scottish partners, as well as information on project partners. I appreciate the fact that you are taking the intervention. Yes, perhaps I was a little unfair. It is just that I feel very passionate about the third sector and our small companies. What I am saying is that, rather than just a one-stop shop, I want to see officers on the ground physically taking people and supporting them and helping them to do the job, because at the moment that is missing. I refer the member to Scotland and Europa, who do an excellent job in that regard. They have a number of organisations, but there is always more that we can do, and I am happy to reflect on that. However, our Brussels office is very hardworking, which the member will know, as well as Scottish Development International and other partners, but, of course, more can always be done. The benefits that we have discussed in the debate flow from European Union membership, be it the talent pool that migration to Scotland brings—indeed, the economics or the free trade—are not advanced in the name of arguing for the state of school. We all agree that things need to be changed and that there needs to be some level of reform, but that change can be best advanced. I thought that Dennis Robertson made a very good point about the apathy of EU voters. I think that that stems from a feeling that there is little that individual people can do to change things in Europe. I wonder if, as you say, you agree that there should be reform, if it is not a good thing that the Conservative Party is actually pushing for these reforms about the things that are actually not beneficial, rather than the things that are beneficial coming out of Europe. It is interesting in the Conservatives' own-led balance of competences review, where they look through departments with a fine-tooth comb in terms of its relationship with Europe and whether there was need for reform. Actually, it found that the balance was just about right. When I was listening to Jamie MacGregor's speech in this chamber, he started by saying how pro-European he was and then spent the next six minutes telling us everything that was wrong with Europe, and I could almost hear the gritting of his teeth as he was doing so. However, the point is that where reform is necessary, it will not be achieved through holding a gun to Europe's head in that regard. The EU does need to show that it means business by tackling the bureaucracy that Jamie MacGregor talked about, and having a route and branch review of existing regulatory burdens, a refit programme is therefore welcomed, of course, with all the caveats that it does not lower any environmental standards and so on and so forth. I was waiting when Jamie MacGregor was talking about reforms. I was looking to hear what exact reforms he needed, and the Conservatives are yet to produce something that says, okay, these are the top three reforms that we want to see and does it require treaty change or not. I thought that Michael McMahon was very good in highlighting the alternatives to European membership, which could be very dangerous indeed in mentioning Norway and Switzerland, perhaps in those remarks, and mentioning that, after the other alternative, it would simply be unacceptable. It would mean that Europe would be running our country, but we would not be able to have any say in that. Just as he was talking, I could hear the voice of the late and great Margo MacDonald trying to argue otherwise, but we absolutely agree that Scotland is best placed within the European Union as we currently are. On the in-out referendum, I would say that we do not have to wait—we hope that there is not an EU in our referendum—we do not support it, but if there is, we do not have to wait on that referendum to argue about the benefits of the European Union. We have never argued that there should not be a vote for all people of the United Kingdom, just in regard to the Scottish independence referendum. Nobody seriously argued that everybody across the United Kingdom should get a vote, because that was for the vote of the Scottish people. Thank you, Minister, for taking the intervention. Can I ask him on behalf of the people who voted in the independence referendum last year, or the people coming from the EU, like myself? Will he push the Westminster Government's unlikely event that David Cameron is elected and we've got a referendum to get out of the EU, but we will have a vote on it as well? We do not want a referendum, but we do not feel like Christian Allard and others should be disenfranchised if one is there. A decision that could have potentially devastating impacts on our economy, devastating impacts on those migrant communities that live here, devastating impacts on the academic sector, it would be unimaginable that, if in this family of nations an equal voice in the United Kingdom, Scotland was somehow dragged against its will outside of the European Union. It would be absolutely unacceptable, and that's why we are putting forward a motion today that simply says that Scotland should have an equal voice. It would be quite incredible that we have a Welsh First Minister in Carwyn Jones who says that the proposal is worth considering having a Welsh Labour First Minister saying that Scotland should have an equal voice, but, potentially, by 5 o'clock today, the Labour Party in Scotland is voting against that equal voice that I am in the last minute. I will end by saying that I hope that members across the chamber will vote to give Scotland an equal voice in the European Union, not allow us to be dragged outside of the European Union against our will and continue to make the case for Scotland and, indeed, the UK to remain within the European Union. That concludes the debate on Scotland's place in Europe. We now move to next item business, which is consideration of motion numbers 12625 and 12626, in the name of Liam MacArthur, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, on amendments to the Scottish Parliament's salary scheme and the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme. I call on Liam MacArthur to move and speak to the motions. On behalf of the corporate body, I am pleased to put forward two separate resolutions on the Scottish Parliament's salary scheme and the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme. The first of those is to make an amendment to the salary scheme that breaks the current link of MSPs' salaries to the salaries of MPs, which are in turn determined by Ipsa. The proposed amendment will replace that link with a new mechanism that will directly link MSPs' salaries to future public sector pay rises in Scotland. I formally therefore move motion S4M 12625 on the Scottish Parliament salary scheme. I turn to the second resolution proposed by the corporate body. That is to extend the existing transitional arrangements on the employment of family members up to 31 July 2016. That keeps it in line with the original intent of the Macintosh recommendation. It follows the extension of the current parliamentary session from four years to five years to avoid a clash with the forthcoming UK general election. Consequently, I formally move motion S4M 12626 on the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme. Thank you, Mr McArthur. The decision on these most would put a decision time to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that in relation to debate on Scotland's place in Europe, if the amendment to the name of Claire Baker is agreed, the amendment in the name of Jamie McGregor falls? The first question is amendment 12670.2 in the name of Claire Baker, which seeks to amend motion 12670 in the name of Humza Yousaf on Scotland's place in Europe be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12670.2 in the name of Claire Baker is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 63. There were 14 tensions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment 12670.1 in the name of Jamie McGregor, which seeks to amend motion 12670 in the name of Humza Yousaf on Scotland's place in Europe be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12670.1 in the name of Jamie McGregor is as follows. Yes, 14. No, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion 12670 in the name of Humza Yousaf on Scotland's place in Europe be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 12670 in the name of Humza Yousaf is as follows. Yes, 63. No, 47. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion 12625 in the name of Liam McArthur on amendments to Scottish Parliamentary Salary scheme be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion 12626 in the name of Liam McArthur on the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.