 Mae nhw'n mynd i hyn sydd horsem ti'n amserófod o'r holl yn Partners Tube i'r josuno ngheithgiffacio. Y reilitiau'r cyfnod yn fag Precis Coming Mubenóig i ddigwydd o ddweud o rothesf doctormariau yn proses, ren danigion i chi'n gweld yr principall. mae genne problad o'r cyzystaeth ar gyffredinadol ydwyhu? Ausun fyddig nhw'n erbyn o pun o'r rothesfoannau gan iddynt certhidau d alphabet cael�ach, a baens rôl iawn, mae genedledd yn cael antic해 tu, Amesgrwsol, r issu gwraetholau pan boedlwch. Aar The second in a series of debates focused on the challenges facing Scotland as a result of the recent EU referendum. At the outset of the debate, it is important to restate a fundamental point about the Scottish vote and about Scottish democracy. In that referendum, people in every single local authority area of Scotland voted to remain. More than 60 per cent of voters in Scotland wanted to stay in the EU to protect the jobs, the investment and the trade that depend on our membership of the EU. The people of Scotland, the Scottish Government and a clear majority in this Parliament support continued membership of the EU. In that respect, we are protecting Scotland's interests. The onus is on those who want to drag Scotland to the EU exit door to justify why the wishes of the people of Scotland should be ignored in that way. The Scottish Government's overriding priority is protecting Scotland's relationship with and its place in the European Union and all its benefits. Business and the economy is at the heart of that. Last week's debate was essentially about getting the right deal for Scotland—the very best deal for Scotland—in circumstances not of our choosing and reaffirming that as a shared aim of every member in this chamber and everyone in our country. Today, I think that we must take a similarly strategic view, but we must also recognise the vital importance of acting now to address more immediate economic challenges. Just to be clear, it is our view that the fundamentals of our economy remain strong. Despite uncertain global conditions and falling off prices, which we all know about, our economy has continued to grow over the last year. Scotland is and remains an attractive and stable place to do business. However, there is no doubt that the referendum outcom presents a significant challenge to our economy both now and in the future. It has already created deep and widespread uncertainty with jobs and investment likely to come under threat. In the lead-up to the EU referendum, the Scottish economy continued to demonstrate resilience in the face of on-going external headwinds associated with weak global growth and the low oil price impacting on the oil and gas sector and its supply chain. In 2015, Scotland's economy grew by 2.1 per cent, which is in line with the historical trend of GDP growth rates for Scotland despite those challenges. Although economic growth was flat in the first quarter of 2016, employment expanded by 51,000 during the latest quarter, the largest quarterly rise on record, and unemployment at 4.7 per cent is currently at its lowest rate since June to August 2008. In fact, I think that from looking at the records, one of the lowest unemployment rates that we have had in the past 25 years. The underlying economic data remains strong. There is much to be positive about that data, but the reality is that post-referendum uncertainty represents an on-going challenge to businesses across Scotland and the UK as a whole. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving away the Purchasing Manager's Index, which was published just last week, that demonstrated that business confidence had returned in every part of the United Kingdom to pre-Brexit vote levels. With one exception, that was Scotland. Every region of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, business confidence was back up and positive. Only in Scotland business confidence remained below pre-Brexit levels. Can the cabinet secretary explain why he thinks that that is? On the other hand, unemployment is lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK. Employment is higher, one of the highest levels that we have ever had of employment in Scotland. I would say this in relation to the businesses in Scotland that I do not think that they benefit from the Tory approach, which is to call them fat and lazy. I do not know how they think that that helps businesses in Scotland or the rest of the UK. Neither does Brexit help them, and it does not help them either. In fact, it is not the economy that spoke to person. The Tory economy spoke to person who is never allowed to talk about those issues. It has to be Murdo Fraser instead, constantly referring to the fact that Brexit does not provide challenges and the only song in Murdo Fraser's songbook is the Scottish independence referendum, by ignoring the challenges of Brexit. It is even more incredible to have a pressurallist issue yesterday in which Murdo Fraser says, it is time to the Scottish Government to solve the problems of Brexit, when it is its own party that is what breaks it upon us. We will go with what we have done in terms of trying to help the Scottish economy rather than what the Tories have not done. The exit or proposed exit from the EU has also prompted a substantial downward revision for output in 2017. The analysis that we produced is that Scottish GDP is projected to be between £1.7 billion and £11.2 billion per year lower than it would have been if Brexit does not occur. Tax revenue is projected to be between £1.7 billion and £3.7 billion lower. We know that those forecasts are contingent on political and other events and the reaction to those political events by the various actors in the economy. What is clear is that the immediate uncertainty caused by the vote is impacting economic sentiment and business confidence. There is never any mention from Murdo Fraser about the problems in Brexit, but, if you look at some other people who have a view on that, such as the American President, or we look at the Koreans, or we look at the note from the Japanese Government, or we even look at his Prime Minister, Fraser May, who has acknowledged difficulties ahead, at least they can see the problems that Brexit will bring, even if Murdo Fraser cannot. I am using evidence of that in a range of post-referendum business services from the Bank of Scotland, the PMI report that Murdo Fraser mentioned. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Fraser of Allander Institute all pointed out to the problems being incurred by the prospect of Brexit. Last week, Highlands and Islands Enterprise published an analysis of the views of 1,000 businesses with more than half, confirming that the EU referendum result, something that is not acknowledged by the Conservative Party, had made them less confident. He asked for an explanation as to why that might be, less confident about the economic outlook for Scotland, while the report was done by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and that is who they asked. We are clear that the policy that we have must support the economy given this business environment, and that there should be two Governments. We are always told—in fact, David Mundell refers to this regularly—that there are two Governments working tirelessly apparently to support Scotland's economy. It is hard to see exactly what the work has been done by the UK Government since it has yet to announce anything in terms of a fiscal stimulus, infrastructure or capital investment. We are always told that, except, of course, when the unemployment figures suit Murdo Fraser, then it is only one Government that is in Scotland. Even though his own party, Gavin Brown, previously said that the UK Government retains most of the economic levers, it is all down to the Scottish Government and it is bad. Of course, the figures are good, not unmentioned from the Tory party about very good employment figures. The Bank of England has taken some action to stimulate the economy, including a cut in the bank rate, the introduction of a term funding scheme and the expansion of the quantitative easing programme. As far as it goes, I would welcome those measures. The Conservative Government in Westminster is, in stark contrast to this Government, ignoring the challenges of Brexit and alienating, sometimes purposely, calling them fat and lazy, our business leaders. The Prime Minister, as I say, has acknowledged that departure from the EU, yes I will. Mr Lockhart, you talked about a strong Scottish economy. Is he aware that every year that the SNP Government has been in power, the Scottish economy has either underperformed the UK in terms of economic growth or has been in recession? How is that being stronger for Scotland? If you look at a longer term, you go back 25 years or so, too often that has been the case in the past. What you will also see during the time of this Government is that frequently the employment figures in Scotland are far better to those that are in the rest of the UK. Of course, it is the case that we have to deal with long-term issues, including a lack of growth, as we know, in Scotland and in the UK. However, the issues are compounded by the fact. In my view, the economic levers that the Tory party itself says mainly reside in Westminster are not being sufficiently used to the benefit of the Scottish economy. Ignoring the challenges of Brexit and alienating business leaders, as I say, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that departure from the EU will bring difficult times to the country. I am hopeful that we hear from the Conservative benches when they get the chance to speak what their view is. Should Scotland stay part of the single market? It would be interesting to hear if that is addressed by either the economy spokesperson if he is allowed to speak or Murdo Fraser, who more usually does so. President Obama has said that the United States would guard against any adverse impact on the Brexit vote, but warned that a trade deal with the UK was not Washington's top priority. Early this month, the Japanese Government issued an unprecedented warning about the impact on jobs and investment of giving up single market privileges. It said that Japanese businesses, with their European headquarters in the UK, may decide to transfer their head of its function to continental Europe if EU laws cease to be applicable in the UK after its withdrawal. We are going to meet myself and Mike Russell to meet with Japanese businesses and with the Japanese Consul General to try and give him the true impression of how things are in Scotland to try and mitigate that threat. As I have said, calling business across the UK is fat and lazy. It is not the way we should be responding to that situation. On economic and financial issues, we need the UK Government to provide answers on key questions. We need to know, for example, are workers' rights going to be protected? We need to know if a new holiday visa tax will be introduced for people travelling to the EU. For the economy, despite repeated demands, as I have just said, there have been no answers on the most important question of all, will the UK remain inside the single market? To make it an easier question, do you believe—who ever speaks for the Conservative Party in this debate—that the UK should remain inside the single market? It is a fairly simple question that would answer a lot of fears among businesses, so let's hear the answer from the Conservatives. Before the referendum, I will do. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary for giving way. Does he agree—as I think the Scottish Government has been this clear—that to be part of a single market implies absolutely the retention of free movement? If capital is free to move, but people are not, that is not a single market. Patrick Harvie is absolutely right. If you think about some of the major infrastructure projects that we have, our ability to deliver those infrastructure projects is fundamentally limited if we do not have that free movement of peoples across the EU in coming to Scotland. Before the referendum, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives was adamant that answers were required, and she said to those who were campaigning to leave, that she would not tell us how much her economy will be hit by, she would not tell us how many jobs might go, and she would not tell us what they are going to replace a single market with. Now that the Conservatives seem to be united behind the leave position, it defies belief that they still will not answer those questions. In fact, they will not even ask those questions here in Scotland now that were asked so forcefully before by Ruth Davidson. So what are the answers? We know how important the answers are to business, but support for continued single market membership was a position that was endorsed by the main business organisations in Scotland when they issued a joint statement in July. So we need a clear answer. Does the UK Government want to stay in that single market or not? Answering that question is the most important action the UK Government could take, and it is not just me saying that in a debate in the Scottish Parliament, businesses that are asking that question and they deserve an answer. In the debate that follows, I would welcome, in addition to that answer, constructive ideas about how we can further support economic growth and from MSPs across the chamber. In that spirit, I would urge the chancellor to explore two key measures that the Treasury could take to protect and create jobs despite that continued uncertainty. First of all, increase capital spending. An increase in the UK infrastructure spend of £5 billion could provide an additional £400 million spend in Scotland. That would support around 3,000 jobs. Increased support for exporters. I think that there is general agreement about the need to drive up our exports. The depreciation of stirring represents challenges to businesses in the UK, admittedly, but it also presents opportunities for companies to either move into new export markets or start exporting for the first time. The UK should be investing more to support that. Those measures could encourage investment, recruitment and exports in growth. I am putting them forward as a clear plan for how the UK Government can help at this critical juncture for our economy. I hope that the chancellor will act as soon as the autumn statement, but ideally even in shorter order than that. For our part, we have taken decisive and positive action to support and stimulated the economy. Building on the established economic strategy, £100 million of capital investment provides immediate support to the Scottish economy. We have set up a new dedicated service to answer questions from businesses that are affected by referendum uncertainty. A new post referendum business network will work closely with the main business bodies, the Scottish trade union's congress and the Scotland office, and forms part of a wider upgrade to our engagement with businesses and sectors. Understanding their knowledge and experience is vital if we are to support them fully in the months ahead. We are providing support to businesses with high growth potential through a £500 million Scottish growth scheme to provide investment guarantees and some loans of up to £5 million for eligible businesses over the next three years. That will focus on new and early-stage businesses. I am sorry, I am very short of time there, but I have only got a short time left to finish. It will focus on new and early-stage businesses with high growth potential and clear export growth plans. We have approved European structural front projects to invest their economy with a total value of £290 million of grant. With partner funding, that means an additional £650 million being invested in Scotland's people, communities and businesses. We are increasing the supply of affordable housing in Scotland. We are implementing the recommendations of the independent review of planning to ensure that we have a strong high-performing planning system that supports housing and infrastructure delivery. We are improving connectivity through strategic investments in our transport infrastructure and in our digital connectivity. We are supporting investment in Scotland's cities and regions through our city and regional partnership deals. We are continuing to offer a competitive business rates regime. A small business bonus scheme offers zero or substantially reduced rates, and we are committed to expanding that scheme from next year to remove the rates burden entirely from 100,000 premises. We have commissioned an external review of business rates led by Ken Barclay to make recommendations on how the rate system could be further improved. We are working to make Scotland a more internationally focused economy by piloting innovation and investment hubs at key global locations, including London, Brussels and Dublin, to support trade, investment and innovation. We will also widen and deepen our business engagement to shape our response to the EU referendum and wider trade and investment activity. We are establishing new trade envoys on which I hope to have discussions with other parties in the Parliament and a ministerial trade board. I am listening to and engaging with businesses through existing engagement structures sector-specific international trade summits and a dedicated investor forum for critical inward investment. I will finish where I began. A more competitive and inclusive economy will ensure that Scotland with them withstand the economic shocks, sustain that higher employment, create better quality jobs and fairer work. Our economic priority is protecting Scotland's relationship with and place in the European Union. I move that the Parliament welcomes the overwhelming vote of the people of Scotland to remain in the EU. Notes that leaving the EU is widely expected to have a negative impact on economic growth and public sector revenues, as well as access to labour, inward investment and opportunities to export, as well as threatening essential economic and social protections and recognises the continued resilience of Scottish businesses and the urgent need to support and stimulate the economy in the wake of the EU referendum. We note the initial steps taken by the Scottish Government and calls on the UK Government to bring forward a substantial stimulus package instead of the complete paralysis that we see just now in the UK Government to boost business confidence, keep our economy moving, end austerity and endorse the vital importance of growing an inclusive, productive and sustainable economy with more jobs and fair work. I move the motion in my name. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary was able to join us this afternoon, although I am a little bit disappointed that his speech seems to be more about attacking the Conservative opposition than setting out any detailed proposals as to what new ideas the Scottish Government has to take us forward. Let me start, if I can, by putting this debate in some context. Seven days ago, the long-established sterling retailer Macaree Brothers announced that it was closing its doors after 138 years of trading in the city. As mentioned in the local press, this is a severe blow to the retail economy in the centre of sterling. There is no doubt where the responsibility lies. The company itself is quite clear that it was the burden, the crippling burden of business rates that led to the decision being taken and, in particular, it blamed the large business supplement, introduced by the SNP Government, which meant that a business like theirs—not actually a large business but one operating from middle-sized retail premises—was being punished. This is a large business supplement introduced in Scotland at double the rate payable in England and Wales and, therefore, putting Scottish businesses at a competitive disadvantage. The reason that I mentioned this at the outset is to reinforce the point that, right here and right now, there are issues more serious than the consequences of Brexit affecting the Scottish economy. As our amendment today makes clear, even before the Brexit vote in June, there were issues with Scotland's economic underperformance, which required to be addressed and still need attention today. As the cabinet secretary said, we had good news and unemployment published last week when, against the trend in recent years, we have seen Scottish unemployment dip below the UK level. However, across a whole range of indicators, Scottish economic performance is lagging behind the UK as a whole. Whether that is GTB growth, retail sales or business confidence, we are not doing as well as we should be. That debunks the myth that is being put about in some quarters that any problems with the Scottish economy are purely the responsibility of the Brexit vote. Yes, Mr Crawford, I will. I wonder whether Murdo Fraser agree with David Mundell when he said in May that leaving the EU would be an absolute disaster for Scotland. Now he says in September that Brexit has amazing possibilities for Scotland. Which one of those would he choose from? Like my good friend Mr Mundell, I did not support the UK leaving the EU, but that is a democratic choice of the British people in a referendum that people in Scotland participated in. What we have to get on is to make the best of the situation. Instead of sitting negatively on the sidelines and carping, we have to make the best of the situation. Let me say a bit more about where we are with the Scottish economy. Maybe I can suggest to Mr Crawford and his colleagues some positive things that we can all be doing to try to help the situation. The situation with the Scottish economy is set out very starkly in last week's publication by the Fraser of Allander Institute on Scotland's budget 2016. In the section on outlook for the Scottish economy, the institute comments that there is an on-going divergence between Scottish and UK economic growth with production and manufacturing in Scotland in particular dragging down overall growth. In terms of output per head, the UK is growing more quickly, with growth in Scotland of just 0.4 per cent compared to the UK's 1.4 per cent over the past year. Immediately prior to the EU referendum, the pace of growth in Scotland weakened further with both production and construction sectors contracting. This is a situation that should be a worrying one for the Scottish Government and, as the institute makes clear, all this data predates the Brexit vote. Perhaps the most worrying statistic that was published recently was the Purchasing Managers Index business activity report, which came out last week, which I referred to earlier when I intervened on the cabinet secretary. When the figures came out for July, it was not perhaps surprising that in immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, we saw a slump in business confidence in every single part of the United Kingdom as a reaction to the uncertainty caused by the outcome of that vote. However, the figures for August tell us a different story. In every part of the UK, business confidence is returning, with one exception. It is up in Northern Ireland to a two-month high, up in Wales to a five-month high, up in the south-east of England to a five-month high, in the south-west of England to a 13-month high, in the north-west to a seven-month high. The only part of the United Kingdom where business confidence has not returned post-Brexit is here in Scotland. Why should that be? What is it about Scotland uniquely that means that business confidence has returned? I asked the cabinet secretary earlier to explain this. He was unable to do so. What we also see from those figures is that, even in those parts of the UK that voted to remain in the EU, such as London or Northern Ireland, they have seen their business confidence returning in August. Only Scotland is the exception. It is only in Scotland where we have the issue. I suggest that, because the cabinet secretary cannot give us an explanation, there is one very obvious conclusion to draw from those figures. The unique Scottish problem—the one that is holding back Scottish recovery is the one issue that they do not want to talk about on the front bench—is their obsession with an independence referendum. We have seen in recent weeks a whole range of business figures saying that the last thing that Scotland needs at this point is another referendum. The last thing that we need is another period of economic uncertainty. However, two years on from that last vote, one that we were told would be once in a generation vote—all we hear from SNP figures—is about how and when another referendum should take place. Astonishingly, we even had the First Minister at the weekend on the front page of the Sunday Herald telling us that the case for independence transcends the economic argument. Never mind the economy, just close your eyes and vote for independence. It might be that there is another explanation, but I need to tell us what that other explanation is, and we have not heard that yet. Oh, yes, please. I also did not get very far down the list of actions that we were going to propose to help the economy. In fact, we did not get anywhere at all, but could you at least try and answer the one question? Do you believe that Scotland and the UK should stay with access to the single market or not? I know that the cabinet secretary did not even attempt to answer my question to him about an explanation for the lack of business confidence, but being a courteous and generous man, let me address his question directly. I think that what is important to Scottish business and UK business is having access to the single market. That is what is important. The concept of membership on the single market is an esoteric thing, as my learned colleague Adam Tomkins has pointed out on many occasions, what is important is access to the single market. That is what we should be striving for. The Scottish Government's motion today is very heavy on calls for what the UK Government should do. It is almost as if the Scottish Government had no tools at its disposal that they were completely helpless. There is nothing that they could do to try and improve our economic performance. In reality, there is a huge amount that they can and should be doing, and they should start, Presiding Officer, with business rates. I quoted earlier the example of Macaree Brothers and Sterling, just one business that has been suffering the business rates burden. There are many other examples from across the country, but I am sure other members in the chamber could quote, and business rates are nothing to do with the UK Government. They are entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government. If there is a need to stimulate the economy in the wake of the EU referendum and deal with the uncertainty that the cabinet secretary was talking about, then that is an area where they can and should be taking action. Therefore, they need to scrap the large business supplement, a misnamed policy, if ever there were one, for many modest-sized retail premises that are affected. They need to take our advice and freeze business rates for the next five years in the same way that council tax was frozen for the previous nine. That would deliver a real benefit to Scottish businesses. Perhaps as importantly, send a signal to the world that Scotland is an attractive place to come and work and set up a business and invest. And continue messages from the Scottish Government about higher taxes in Scotland will simply put people off from investing and expanding their businesses here. Add to that the uncertainty around the second possible independence referendum and its little wonder. We are seeing the Scottish economy struggle, and yet, at a stroke, the Scottish Government has the power to resolve those two issues immediately. Now we know that there are concerns in the business community about the uncertainties caused by the Brexit vote, and we completely accept that. But some of the doom and gloom that we have heard a few weeks ago has already been dispelled. Both Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, who were back in June predicting a UK recession, have now changed their minds and said that there will not be a recession. And what we should be aware of is that there are opportunities that will be afforded by the UK leaving the EU. In the short term, many sectors of the economy have benefited from the Brexit vote. The fall and the value of the pound has been of considerable benefit to the domestic tourism industry. Now we have yet to see official figures, but anecdotally my impression is, talking to people in the sector, that it has been a very busy summer. A month ago I was in the West Highlands in Katie Forbes constituency visiting the same location that I was in last year at the same time, and I must say that it was noticeably busier this year, particularly with European visitors. On a rough count, one in three of the vehicles on the roads belonged to visitors from elsewhere in Europe, France, the Netherlands or Germany. With a pound buying fewer euros abroad, there seems to have been a rise in staycations with more UK residents taking holidays here. Exporters, too, have benefited from the fall and the pound and for industries like food and drink, which are so important to Scotland, that is of great significance. So the question for the Scottish Government is this, what steps are they taking to assist businesses to take advantage of these opportunities? We know, for example, that the fishing industry sees a great future outside the EU. What is the Scottish Government doing to develop a distinctive fishing policy for Scotland to help that industry to grow in its new environment? What does the Scottish... No, thank you, I'm running out of time. You've got a little time if you want to... Well, yes, of course I'll give way. Can you tell us what the Government's thing about the fishing industry is? Will the member acknowledge that the fish catching industry is of one view, but the fish processing industry that depends crucially on the free movement of labour is absolutely behind not just having access to the single market, but being a member of the single market? Mr Fraser. I'm afraid that the member did not make any attempt to address my question, which is that, given that we're moving into this new environment, what is his party and his Government doing to try and seize the opportunities from Brexit to help me to develop a new fishing policy for Scotland that might address the concerns that he has raised? He has nothing to say on that point, and neither does his Government. What is the Scottish Government going to do to develop a new farming policy for Scotland? Given that support payments for agriculture will no longer be paid from Europe, they have to be paid domestically. There is a huge opportunity awaiting us to design a new agricultural support system tailored to the needs of Scottish agriculture, rather than one being handed down from Brussels. Is the Scottish Government doing anything at all to try and progress this? And what has been done to promote exports at this time? The economy committee in the last Parliament, the honour of convening, said at that time that Scottish businesses needed more help with export advice. Ruth Davidson called in the summer for Scottish development international to be expanded to help to gain new markets abroad. Today, the opportunity for exporting is greater than it has been for many years, but what is being done to seize this moment? And what is being done to look at how we best support large-scale businesses? Given that EU state aid rules may no longer apply in the future, what is being done to look at the opportunities for developing a new consumption tax given that EU rules around VAT may no longer apply? Presiding Officer, there are a whole range of policy opportunities for us, given our departure from the EU. And yet, rather than take those forward, rather than be positive about the future, all the SNP Government wants to do is sit on the sidelines and complain and carp. Presiding Officer, Scottish businesses expect the Government here in Edinburgh to do all it can to support the Scottish economy. We on this side of the chamber are positive and optimistic about Scotland's future. Within the UK and outside the EU. I hope that Scottish ministers can find it in themselves to be less dismal, less miserable, less downbeat, less pessimistic, to be more positive, to be more cheerful, to be very hopeful, to show some real leadership and seize the opportunities for the future. That is the point that is made in my amendment today, which I have pleasure in moving. Thank you very much. And I'll call Richard Leonard to speak to a move amendment 15C1.3. Mr Leonard, eight minutes are there abouts please. A little time in hand. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In the wake of the Brexit vote, the Fraser Valander Institute in a survey of 320 firms across Scotland found that 60 per cent believed that the outcome of the EU referendum will have a negative effect on their business. Even more 67 per cent believed that the uncertainty it created was an additional problem. As we all know, the people who will suffer most from any business downturn are those working people who are already on the most precarious contracts, those who already are the lowest paid, those who are already in the deepest in-work poverty. The people living from week to week, they are the victims of any economic collapse as a result of Brexit, and they are the people that this Parliament must speak up for. The cabinet secretary in this motion is calling on the UK treasury to come up with a counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus package, and we support that. But we call on the cabinet secretary to join with us in calling on his own government to do more to stimulate investment. The £100 million stimulus package is welcome, but we know that it is not enough. In fact, when it was announced, even Murdo Fraser was on BBC Radio Scotland arguing that it simply wasn't enough. I don't know whether his summer reading was John Maynard Cain's general theory of employment interest and money, but it seems to have had the effect. I also know his support for state aid of industry as well this afternoon. I want to draw the cabinet secretary's attention to a report, which the National Institute for Economic and Social Research brought out recently, in which they conclude—I know that this is something close to him—that infrastructure spending strengthens the supply side of the economy with the potential to create a permanent increase in GDP around the region of 0.5 per cent, a permanent increase of 0.5 per cent. We are calling today for a new infrastructure investment programme starting with a house building programme and an existing homes investment programme. As I mentioned in the housing debate last week, 16,000 jobs have been lost from the construction industry in Scotland over the past five years. Half of those 8,000 jobs have been lost from the construction industry in the last year. As I said to my colleague the Minister for Housing last week, if his targets have been exceeded, then there was something wrong with his targets in the first place if all those people in that industry are out of work. The times that we find ourselves in demand, the kind of stimulus package that the Scottish Government has called for with infrastructure spend and house building at its core but, in our view, of a greater order. However, it demands not simply a reflation of the old economy, not simply taking the tears out of capitalism, as somebody once described it, but building up a new economy. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is an aspect of our economy that is often overlooked and under played, but which we believe is fundamental to this debate on Brexit this afternoon. That is the question of the ownership and control of the Scottish economy. Figures that we are publishing today reveal that over a third, 34.6 per cent, to be precise, of the Scottish economy is now overseas owned. That is considerably higher than any other part of the UK. So, while the SNP has been fixating on political sovereignty, it has presided in office but may be not in power over an historic loss in economic sovereignty. When the SNP came to power in 2007, less than a quarter of Scotland's economic base was owned externally. Now it is over a third. The speed and scale of this loss of economic sovereignty is huge. I put it down to the fact that there has been no industrial strategy and no serious challenge to this. Yes, I will. I am listening with interest the point that Mr Leonard is developing. Is he arguing that Scottish companies and investors should not be able to invest overseas in companies in other countries to support economic efforts here? Before he answers that, he may consider that Scottish companies have higher levels of investment internationally to integrate and join markets to the benefit of the wider economy. Mr Leonard? Yes, I am concerned about the export of capital as well as the high levels of inward investment and the failure to develop sufficiently the indigenous industrial base. I also say to the member that I thought that this might come up and I checked. The First Minister said to the SNP conference on the eve of the Scottish Parliament elections of 2007. You may remember the speech well. We will stand up for our businesses and our industries. We will encourage them to grow and we will defend them when they are under threat. That is what Governments do, the length and breadth of Europe, and that is what an SNP Government will do. You have singily failed to do it. Those figures prove that you have singily failed to do it. I could mention just maybe three examples of any loss at Grangemouth, Prestwick airport, and Tata Steel. It is the case that this Government has protected indigenous investment in indigenous businesses. Is he trying to say that there is no link between political sovereignty and economic sovereignty? Mr Leonard? No, there is a very strong coincidence of link between political and economic sovereignty. However, if I can return to my point, which is to look at the position of Scotland compared to other parts of the UK, the Scottish level of external ownership of the economy stands at 34.6 per cent. The next nearest part of the UK to that is the west midlands of England with 30 per cent. London has 27 per cent, which is about the average for the UK. Of course, that has huge implications for the way in which the economy functions and where decisions are made. However, it also means—this is the point that is relevant to this afternoon's debate—that it also means that we are more vulnerable to international shocks, like the effects of withdrawal from the European Union and the single market than any other part of the UK. For those overseas-owned businesses that invest here to gain access to the European Union's single market, there is a risk. The Scottish Government's own report, which was brought out in August, said that 79 per cent of investors listed access to the European Union's single market as an important element of the UK's attractiveness for investment. For those businesses headquartered elsewhere in the European Union, there is a risk of divestment. That same Scottish Government report estimated that there are nearly 1,000 European Union-owned companies operating in Scotland, employing 115,000 working people. For those Scottish-located businesses that exist as part of a European Union-based chain of production, there is a danger from tariff barriers and to intra-company supply chains, and not least in those parts of the economy that are to all intents and purposes screwdriver plants, so rail jobs are at risk. The more our economy looks like a branch plant and wholly unsubsidiary economy, the more vulnerable it becomes. I hope that one of the lessons that we take from this, the state of our economy, is the need to invest in through an industrial strategy at the indigenous base of the economy. Instead of control and ownership lying in a minority of hands, often abroad, we should be looking at ways in which we build up our internal economic infrastructure. If I can turn in closing, to a comment that was made last week's Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee by Professor Colin Mason, where he made some telling points. I would recommend all members to look at Professor Mason's evidence to the committee. He said, quote, that having independent, locally-owned, solid, middle-sized companies in Scotland is important, not least because their head offices are in Scotland. So let's use the occasion of Brexit to take a fresh approach to our economy. Let's charge the Scottish Investment Bank with building up homegrown businesses. Let's work with trade unions and businesses in locking in external investment in building local linkages. Let's get an industrial policy, which builds from the bottom up rather than one that is over-reliant on unstable foreign direct investment, and let's look at how we can reclaim the economy so that it is run and its long-term strategic decisions are made in the interests of working people. Deputy Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Leonard. We're now going to move to the open debate. Can I ask all members to make sure that they've pressed the request to speak buttons now, particularly if they've made an intervention because the button goes off then? I call Joan McAlpine, who is followed by Liam Kerr, up to six minutes. Are there abouts, please? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was rather alarmed to read recently in the Financial Times that our fate appears to be in the hands of Chancellor Philip Hammond, who has emerged as the sole voice of common sense in the cabinet holding the thin blue line to protect access to the single market against the three Brexiteers, Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox, who appear to believe that sailing off in the good ships Britannia will sometimes make it all right on the night and that Britain can sail into the sunset without sinking. The challenges of Brexit are far, far more serious than that, and the initial evidence taken by the Parliament's European and External Relations Committee is clear when a number of us visited Brussels, we met with the British Chamber of Commerce, who were striking in their warnings. They in particular made it clear to us the dangers to foreign direct investment in the UK from being outside of the single market. They pointed out that membership of the single market was key to attracting foreign direct investment from outside the EU, from China, Japan and the United States. In fact, the warning from the chamber in Brussels has since been fleshed out, not least by the document prepared by the Japanese Government. The chamber made the point to us that foreign direct investment for investors rather often looked to the UK as the default option for investment in the EU. It made the point that the UK punched above its weight in the EU because it was part of an angle phone area. Of course, we have lost that advantage in the British Chamber of Commerce, said that they already knew of deals that had fallen through as a result of the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Obviously, foreign direct investment is one of Scotland's great success stories. The Ernst and Young, the EUY attractiveness survey in May 2016, showed that in 2015 Scotland attracted more foreign direct investment projects than anywhere in the UK, apart from London. A report by the Fraser of Allander Institute has noted that Scotland's comparative success in attracting international investment could be slowed down as a result of Brexit. Scotland's main business organisations, the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Federation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Financial Enterprise, the Scottish Council Development Industry issued a joint statement on 8 July confirming that Scotland businesses need continued access to the single market to prosper. That was also the clear view of those who gave evidence to the European Committee over the summer. I know that a number of Conservatives have been trying to distinguish between access to the single market and membership of the single market. That is a misleading distinction. As I said last week in the debate, the single market is not a pick-and-mix affair. It is built on four freedoms—the freedom of movement, freedom of capital, freedom of services and freedom of investment. It is all or nothing. You cannot pick or choose, you lose. For example, Switzerland, although it is a member of EFTA, is outside the EEA. That means that the deals that have to be negotiated with the EU do not include services. As we know, services account for a growing aspect of Scottish and UK exports. They are the pillar in which the economies of our great cities, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, are based. Even membership of EFTA and the EEA still puts those countries outside the EU customs union, and being outside that customs union means that businesses have to prove country of origin. Therefore, they are subject to a great deal more red tape than they are within the single market. Indeed, the Fraser of Allander Institute, giving evidence to the committee, suggested that the paperwork for proving country of origin alone would add about 1 to 2 per cent to business costs. Agricultural products from EFTA countries and those outside the EU will be subject to immediate tariffs. On the subject of farming, will the money that the UK saves in payments to the EU come back to Scotland to construct a new system of support for agriculture? Will the payments that come back compensate for that? We just do not know that Scotland can construct a new system of agriculture because we agriculture support, because we do not know how much of the cap payments are going to come to Scottish farmers at the moment. At the moment, cap payments to Scottish farmers amount to 18 per cent way above our population plus share of the block grant that comes to Scotland through Barnett. We have not been told if we will maintain those 18 per cent farm payments. Similarly, with fishing, the evidence received by the committee suggested that control of fishing grounds, because they are part of UK maritime boundaries, stays with the UK Government. Indeed, there has already been speculation that continued access to our fishing grounds could be a bargaining chip in the UK's negotiating position in terms of securing a deal with the EU. That is extremely worrying. I just wanted to conclude by reflecting on a little bit more on trade, as we certainly some of the comments that have been made at UK level suggest that we are heading to a hard Brexit, which will mean a return to WTO rules in the short to medium terms. There are a number of commentators who believe that that will take place, even if the Government's intention is to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, because the article 50 process means that you cannot negotiate those trade deals until the article 50 process is finished, so you will revert to WTO rules even in the medium term. It has already been said by a number of commentators that the UK does not have the skills in that area. What concerns me is that, even when they get up to speed, if they get up to speed in that area, where is Scotland going to be in negotiating those trade deals both at EU level and with countries out with the EU? We have not been told that we are part of the conversation, and we need to hear exactly what Scotland's input is going to be from now on, both in terms of building a UK negotiating position and in the longer term in negotiating the best possible deals for our trade. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Kate Forbes. This debate is called responding to the EU referendum. I was saddened to see the motion from the Scottish Government, which continues to show two clear things. There are the negative reactionary pessimistic and rather unedifying response to the UK's vote to leave the EU, and just how little this Government understands about business's response to the EU referendum, because the thing about business is that it is very good at seeing opportunities and reframing the narrative to the positive. Whenever a business faces an unexpected challenge, they do not do what this Scottish Government appears to do, which is talk of problems, economic shocks, dangers and warnings. They roll up their sleeves and look for opportunities. Only last week, in this very building, I was talking to a representative of a Scottish aquaculture business, who has seen international exports rise substantially following the depreciation of the pound. Direct evidence of what the CBI reported in early August when it found that Britain's SMEs are expected to boost exports by around 10 per cent as a result of the UK's vote. SMEs are now reporting the first improvement in competitiveness in EU and non-EU markets since 2013. Ms Martin. Would Mr Kerr agree with me that basing a business model on the devaluation of the pound is possibly an only temporary thing and is not something to aspire to? I would not agree with that. I am not talking about basing a business model on depreciation of the pound. I am reporting what the CBI was reporting about SMEs. I am talking about optimism, which is something that has been manifestly absent from the Scottish Government's position thus far. Indeed, the Scottish Whiskey Association were claiming that there are exciting opportunities for the food and drink sector as they find new markets and as the UK becomes more competitive. We heard from Murdo Fraser that the domestic tourist industry has had a great summer, and then there is the Scottish fishing industry, who believe that exit from the EU presents a unique opportunity for the UK to re-establish itself as a major fishing nation. Re-establish, the common fisheries policy and the European Commission's interference has decimated the British fishing industry. In the space of just over three decades, the EU has taken a profitable, well-managed resource, providing direct employment to 350,000 people in fishing and processing, and providing 5.4 million jobs in the wider economy and nearly destroyed it. Please leave the central belt, come up and visit McDuff or Banff or White Hills or Port Soy and witness the devastation caused by mandated fleet reductions, cod recovery plans and quota cuts. Yes, sir. Mr Steves, I thought you'd rise. When he mentions Banff, I have to, Presiding Officer. I wonder if the member could answer two questions. How many of the last 30 years has there been a reduction in the value of landings at Peterhead? I'll give him the answer, three. Secondly, what has happened to the size of the Norwegian fleet that is outside the CFP over the period that he refers to, the Scottish fleet? Mr Kerr. Yes, I thank Mr Stevenson for his question. I can answer authoritively on both of those points. However, given that I've only got six minutes, I would encourage Stewart Stevenson to write in and I promise I will give you a full answer that addresses all those points. Peterhead is a very particular answer, which I can answer, and I promise you that I will, Mr Stevenson. When the Scottish fishing industry claimed last week that exit from the EU presents a unique set of opportunities for Scotland to reinvigorate its coastal and island communities and deliver a thriving, profitable and sustainable seafood industry, when the industry says that it offers opportunities and the freedom to explore new markets for seafood in rapidly expanding markets outside the EU, we hear negativity and fear from the SNP. But are we surprised? Are the fishermen of the Bucking Coast of Shetland of Malig surprised? No. For this is the party who promised Scotland's withdrawal from the common fisheries policy until they got into government and then dropped it, who ignored scientific advice and the pleas of the fishermen on the client when enthusiastically implementing marine protected areas, who said nothing when the European Commission signed into law a regulation that allowed Faroes fishermen to catch more mackerel off Shetland than the island's own pelagic fleet. In December 2015, a vital vote took place in the European Fisheries Committee that, if passed, would have introduced cod into the discard ban a full one year earlier than planned, which would have been devastating for the fishing industry. You are quite right, Stuart Stevenson. I wasn't here for that last point. Mr Stevenson, would you like to intervene and see if it will be accepted rather than baracking? Mr Stevenson is right. I wasn't here during that last point. I'm only new in. The SNP were not there in the European Fisheries Committee in December 2015. So it comes as no surprise that the Scottish Government has had nothing positive to say to the fishing industry and the huge opportunities open to it and other industries by the UK's vote to leave the EU. For years, they have hidden behind European regulations that they oppose in Buckingham but back in Brussels. It is time for the SNP to start acting in the interests of all Scotland's industries, which means working with and as part of the UK. For all of those reasons, the motion that is drafted simply cannot be supported and I commend the amendment to the chamber. Thank you. I now call Kate Forbes, followed by Jenny Marra. Ms Forbes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could I just start off the back of that last speech as I constituency MSP with a lot of fishing in my area? I'd just like to quote Will McAllum, head of oceans at Greenpeace UK, who reminded us all that it's the Westminster Government, not Brussels, who's in charge of allocating the EU-agreed fishing quota and who has chosen for years to give most of it to a handful of large corporations, rather than to the smaller fishermen who have most to lose, and that's certainly been the impact in Malig. To the subject at hand, between 2007 and 2013, the Highlands and Islands have benefited from tens of millions of pounds because we are or were or maybe will be a member of the EU. That funding has directly been utilised to teach our children, build our roads, conserve our environment and boost our businesses. I can be more specific. In my constituency of Skye, Lchabr and Badenach, we've received £100 million between 2007 and 2013. I can assure you that that figure of £100 million is not plucked from the sky because I painstakingly went through every European-funded project or initiative in my constituency between those years and counted every penny, and I didn't include the common agricultural payments. For us, the impact of the EU has been local. It's been community-based language assistance, strategic employment projects, it's gone towards Skills Development Scotland to allow them to provide local training opportunities in the Highlands and Islands, it's gone towards projects in the Cairngorms, it's specifically provided £2.25 million for vital Highland roads like the A855 between Portree and Staffan. It's been grants of £20 million each to the University of the Highlands and Islands and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, because Brussels impact can be as close as our front door. In the interests of fairness and touching on a point that Murdo raised, for a region that exports globally renowned food and drink, I welcomed the projected increase in export markets. For an incredibly hospitable region that hosts thousands of tourists each year, I accept that we've seen a huge increase in visitors from the EU to the Highlands this year. To Murdo, who saw the benefits of my constituency, I would say that most would have booked their holiday prior to the referendum outcome. Surely it demonstrates to all of us that a free market for our exports and free movement for our visitors is critical to the future economy of the Highlands and Islands. In Scotland, we're proud of our brand and our popularity. We're proud of our food and drink exports, our university education. In 2014, 42 per cent, or £11.6 billion, of Scotland's international exports, were to EU countries, with six out of 10 of Scotland's top 10 export destinations being members of the single market. We're proud too that people from the rest of the world choose to make their home in our cities and in our villages. The increase in EU membership in 2004 has helped to improve stagnating Scottish immigration figures with increases of around 0.5 per cent, year on year, in the 11 years since. That has ensured that many Scottish businesses, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, who struggle to recruit staff, have been able to fill vacancies within their organisations and have been able to maintain full compliments of staff and provide a service or goods in the Highlands and Islands. As somebody who passionately believes in Scotland's ability to succeed, I have every faith in businesses across Scotland to flourish, whether we're inside or outside the European Union, because the EU is not the linchpin for success for the Scottish economy. However, its great strength is as an enabler. It has enabled capital investment in rural areas such as my constituency. It has enabled us to trade without barriers with our European cousins. It has enabled our young people to expand their horizons. It has enabled our businesses to recruit and retain staff from across the EU in areas of Scotland that struggle to find staff. If the Conservative Party wants to talk about the challenges to our economy, let me remind them that the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates a negative shock of £24 to £39 billion to public finances by 2019-2020 as a result of Brexit. The Fraser of Allander Institute reported that early signs of an improving outlook have been dented by a Brexit vote, and that the UK Government has abandoned targets to achieve a surplus by 2019-2020 because of the Brexit vote. I could almost deal with it if it were a mess of our own making, but the tragedy in all of this is that it wasn't this Government's decision or this nation's decision to leave. Thank you very much. I call Jenny Marra to be followed by Tom Arthur, Ms Marra, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A journalist from the Toronto Globe and Mail was in Edinburgh last week. He gave a talk on the economies of Montreal and Toronto. He cited evidence that the economy of Montreal had faltered as a result of the two referendums in Quebec and has never properly recovered. During that time, Toronto took off and left Montreal in its economic week. The journalist talked in detail about how the governing separatist party in Quebec spent money regularly, injecting the economy with announcements of pots of cash here and there, trying but ultimately failing to compensate for the poor economic and investment environment that its overall political objective was creating. I was reminded acutely of the First Minister's cash injection of 100 million this summer. Much heralded, repeated again here in her legislative statement, but as we all know and the SNP should know, no compensation at all for the economic conditions that the independence referendum two years ago created. I'll take an intervention in a minute. The EU referendum, which added illt's insult to injury and the on-going uncertainty and threat of a third referendum here in Scotland, I'll take the intervention now. Cabinet Secretary. I thank Jenny Marra for taking intervention. I just point out to her that she says that investment flew away from Montreal, from Quebec, during the course of their referendums. Is she aware that in 2014-15 and 2015-16, Ernst and Young demonstrate that we had record inward investment in Scotland during those two years? Or is she unaware of that fact? Sure. There is some record of inward investment. There is no doubt that the reports overall over the last few years have created economic uncertainty, and the Cabinet Secretary has said himself today about the uncertainty that those referendums create. The Tories know acutely well how Brexit has rock confidence, as Murdo Fraser said so himself. I imagine very much regret that they did not have a Prime Minister with more backbone than to bow to pressure from his Eurosceptics, whose votes he would to become Tory leader 10 years ago. He put party before country. I think that historians will judge him harshly for it, and rightly so. The global capital that we refer to in the Labour amendment today will survive. It will fly away, as my colleague Richard Leonard outlined. It will find a home in a more welcoming, calm and stable environment, but the real failure here is for the people who cannot and who do not want to fly away. Working people whose families and homes are here in Scotland but do not have the means or the want to upsticks and find a more prosperous economic climate. Opposite to the First Minister, their economic fears transcend constitutional arguments. I see this fear every day in the families in my region. Fear for their sons and daughters, their economic chances and what paths they might go down if a job, an income or a house are not available to them. Uncertainty, caused by two and maybe three referendums, does not help this at all. That is why I am appalled at the woeful lack of imagination and focus on our economy from the Scottish Government. I think that that is clear from the motion and the opening speech today. The First Minister, in her legislative programme, briefly announced a strategy for decommissioning work from the oil and gas industry. That was very welcome, very tardy but very welcome, at last, nevertheless. I understand that there is a tight timescale for this and it is due to report in late October, November. Any clarification from that on the Government benches would be useful today, but it is right to report soon, because the peak of the decommissioning market is predicted by industry to be in 2019. That is only two years from now. Is Scotland ready to harness those jobs here? I think that the truth is that the Government would like to say that we are, but they have not yet put in nearly enough work to assess our capacity and capabilities. That is why we saw the Merce platform sail off to Norway this summer. That is why Brent is being decommissioned in the north-east of England, sailing past unemployed engineers all the way down the east coast of Scotland past the ports of Montrose, Dundee and Meethel, to be taken apart where regional development authorities have had the foresight to secure this work. Apart from the moral imperative of sustainable jobs, there is another question of equity in this work. Decommissioning is and will be funded to the tune of 60 per cent by the Scottish and UK taxpayer through tax relief. Taxpayers in my city and region have been paying for this work for years and will be for years to come. Is it right, therefore, that jobs directly funded by the British taxpayer go to Turkey and Norway? Would other countries be so utterly stupid as to let this happen? Given our Scottish Government's discomfort with the Scottish people paying tax to London, should they not be outraged that more is not being done by both Governments to secure this work in our communities here in Scotland? I have not heard the First Minister utter one word on this or, indeed, her finance secretary. I wonder why. Indeed, when I asked the finance secretary in this chamber last week if he had spoken about tax relief for decommissioning with the Treasury, he said that it was not his job. Keith Brown, apparently, is liaising with the Treasury. I have lodged a parliamentary question asking Keith Brown about this today, but if he would like to answer on this now, I would be obliged. It seems that he will, cabinet secretary. I am happy to do so. The discussions that Derek Mackay referred to and the discussions that I had with the chief secretary to the Treasury to put the main ask of the industry, which was for long guarantees for infrastructure work, which was well received and I am assured that the UK Government is going to take action on this much quicker than the three years that he talked about in perhaps three or four months. It was successful to that extent. I very much welcome that intervention from the minister and I will be writing to him for a bit more detail on that if that is okay. Yesterday, I held a decommissioning summit meeting in Dundee to bring key stakeholders together to specifically discuss opportunities for our city. It was a very useful meeting with fourth ports liaising with key players like Shell and Acom to pin down details of opportunities for our port. I would very much like to see the Government's economic agency doing detailed, localised work like this all over Scotland to really spur on economic possibilities. Because, while the constitutional discussions rumble on, families in Dundee still worry about jobs for the future, while our future jobs sail to shores beyond the EU. Brexit, or no Brexit, the Scottish Government should be getting on with the day job. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the chamber that the First Minister has appointed me as parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary for justice. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Michael Russell to his new position. His job is one that requires skill, both political and intellectual, matched with tenacity and determination. I am sure that the chamber would agree with me about all those attributes that Mr Russell is preeminent. That is the first opportunity that I have had to address the chamber since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. I am proud that an overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, along with a majority in Northern Ireland, voted to reaffirm our bonds of solidarity and shared prosperity with the world's most important political and economic union of independent nation states. It is a matter of regret that we were not, however, able to persuade a majority of our friends and neighbours in England and Wales of the merit of our position. Consequently, we find ourselves in a situation not of our own making and quite unlike any other in modern British political history. As one who sincerely and honestly believes that Scotland's long-term interests would be best assured by assuming the responsibilities of statehood, I naturally feel a great sense of unfairness at both I and my constituents in Renfisher South, now faced being stripped of our European citizenship as a consequence of a decision taken out with Scotland. However, for those who share in this disappointment, our frustration must be tempered by the acceptance that this was a decision taken collectively by the United Kingdom, which Scotland, for now at least, remains a part of. Therefore, the immediate task that we face in this place is to obtain the best outcome for Scotland and to maximise Scotland's participation in the UK negotiations as member states. It is, I would proffer Axiomatic, that the best outcome for Scotland is that the UK as a whole retains continued membership of what is commonly understood as a single market, i.e., the internal market of the European Union as defined by the four fundamental freedoms. Retaining full membership of the single market is of vital importance in realising what I hope is our shared ambition for the increased internationalisation of Scotland's economy. The key strategic objective is surely best achieved through continuing membership of the single market. Outside of the single market, we lose not only direct access to a market of over 500 million people, we also lose the clout and trade expertise of an institution that can parlay as an equal with both the United States and China. While the other countries of these islands will continue to be important trading partners, we must continue to expand our horizons and not allow our ambitions to be bounded or confined to trade for dominated by the nations with whom we shared this Atlantic archipelago. Although the UK is now set to leave the European Union, that does not preclude the possibility of continuing membership of the single market. That could potentially be achieved through UK membership of the European Economic Area as membership of EFTA in conjunction with bilateral agreements or perhaps through a new bespoke set of treaties. Although all such options merit serious consideration, what there seems to be a little prospect of is the UK enjoying continuing membership of the single market without acceptance of the four fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement. It is therefore with concern that when we are now faced with this reality, it appears that the UK Government is edging towards surrendering the UK's membership of the single market so as to substantially reduce the intake of migrants upon whom our future prosperity and the sustainability of our public services depend. The prospect of withdrawal from the single market coupled with denying access to those who would seek to come and contribute to this country would, at best, be a gross abdication of economic responsibility and at worst potentially the greatest act of self-inflicted harm committed by a British Government since the Suez de Bakle. Therefore, we must do all we can to persuade the UK Government not to pursue this reckless course. It is incumbent upon all members in this place that we give effect to the will of the Scottish people, as expressed on 23 June. That means pushing the UK Government to demonstrate that it too respects the clearly expressed wish of the Scottish people. If it is unwilling to secure and ensure continued single market membership for the UK as a whole, then the UK Government must strain every sinew to secure continued membership for Scotland. Perhaps we are some form of reverse Greenland or one country, two systems model. That would require an unprecedented boldness of vision but would demonstrate a willingness to make the UK a genuine partnership of equals. It should be evident to all that this is a debate of the greatest importance both to the future of Scotland and indeed to the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, however, it appears from over the summer that we have seen a UK Government that is asleep at the wheel. With Tory members in this place and in Westminster muttering sombrant drivel about empire, the world being our oyster, and even calling for the recommissioning of the Royal Yot Britannia. Although the UK Government may not know what Brexit means, we in this Parliament must take our opportunity to define what it will mean for Scotland. In my view, that means retaining full and uninterrupted access and crucial membership of the single market. Should the UK Government deliver, it will have demonstrated a willingness to treat Scotland as an equal partner. Should they fail when it may not just be one union that they lose? As Murdo Fraser stated, the front page of the Sunday Herald may point out why confidence in Scottish businesses is not recovering like elsewhere in the UK. For the front page of the paper quoted the First Minister, the case for self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, national wealth and balance sheets, and of passing political fads and trends. When the UK decided to leave the European Union, the Scottish National Party Government took that as an opportunity to revisit a constitutional question that, as we, as a nation, had already settled, it is clear for all to see the uncertainty that comes with constantly questioning Scotland's place in the United Kingdom and not accepting the result of referenda. We must remember that domestic trade with the rest of the UK is worth four times more than that of with the EU. What sort of message is Nicola Sturgeon giving to our country? Let us not forget about our current economic situation. Scotland stands at a crossroads. Our economy is not matching that of the UK growth. Falling global oil prices haven't helped, the construction industry is struggling and Scotland has a £15 billion deficit. If Scotland had become independent, every woman and child and man would be £1,600 worth off. That simply cannot be ignored. Professor Michael Keating, the director of the economic and social research council centre on constitutional change, has warned that free trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK would end if one nation was in the EU's single market and the other was not. Independence would ultimately lead to an economic barrier, a barrier to free movement, a barrier to goods and probably services as well. I haven't got very far, but yes I will, Gillian Martin. Ms Martin. Would that mean that if we are not in the EU, we can't trade with anyone in the EU? I'm getting a mixed message here. I'm talking about what Michael Keating suggested and this particularly refers to the domestic market. As Liam Kerr said, we will need to show the same resilience as we move forward into the unknown. Maintaining current relationships or developing new ones within Europe and the wider world will require skill and tenacity. The process will also require intensive government intervention and support. In this regard, the Scottish and the UK government must work closely together to help to deliver what is best for Scotland and best for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is now time for the Scottish Government to look ahead and do right for Scottish business. We've heard from Murdo Fraser the damage that business rates are causing and, indeed, the damage of repeating the same constitutional questions. We could however be focusing on how to help Scottish business. If we take the tourism sector, for example, here we have a sector that has reported a boost since Brexit, as already mentioned, it is a sector that we should focus on to encourage continued growth. Tourism is the buzzword on everybody's lips and is of vital importance to the Scottish economy. Spending by tourists in Scotland generates around £12 billion of economic activity in the wider Scottish supply chain and contributes around £6 billion to the Scottish GDP. That represents about 5 per cent of the total Scottish GDP. A strong visitor economy helps to position Scotland on the world stage. The economic impact of visitor spend spreads out from the traditional component parts of the tourism industry into other sectors such as arts and crafts, food and drink, cultural activities, sports events and retail. There are around 14,000 tourism-related enterprises in Scotland. Job creation has been steady. Employment in the tourism-related industry sector accounts for 7.7 of employment in Scotland. However, we are experiencing a skills shortage, and this, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, is one of the biggest threats to the tourism business. EU migrants currently make up a large proportion of the tourism sector, and future workforce planning will be key to ensuring the success of this industry. Perhaps by bringing more of our own school leavers into this sector and helping employment growth, we can make some progress. We must look forward to the future, identify future problems or just listen to Scottish businesses. What do they tell us business rates are causing insurmountable pain to many? There is a skills gap due to college places being cut. There is an unwillingness to invest in Scottish businesses because the Scottish Government persists on revisiting the same constitutional questions. Those are all problems that the Scottish Government can fix. Stop increasing rates, stop cutting college places and stop revisiting these questions. To conclude, the Scottish Government must work closely with the UK Government to identify what kind of European legislation might work for businesses. Let's drop what doesn't work and let's pick up what does. We need to be clear about how legislation will impact, not just on tourism, but on all industries. That will require many more meetings between David Davis and Mike Russell as we move towards an exit that suits our nation as a whole. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I may be wrong, but I think that I heard nation singular at the end of that speech. I must be mistaken. I will check the official report tomorrow. I welcome the debate and also welcome the central argument in the Government's motion that a change of UK economic policy is urgently needed to support the economy and our people instead of yet deeper austerity. The decision that was made on 23 June will have profound consequences. Whatever happens over the months and years ahead, the willfully dishonest leave campaign and the utter lack of preparedness within the UK Government can only exacerbate those consequences. The nature of the consequences is not yet clear, as the Fraser of Allander Institute told us the other week. Perhaps the most immediately obvious impact will be on those people who have exercised their right to move within the single market. Over many years, there has been an on-going debate about the benefits and costs of immigration to our economy. Like most members of this Parliament, I have always been convinced that the net effect is clearly positive, yes for our economy but also for our people. The ugly tendency for many in politics and the media to manipulate this issue with racism and xenophobia has been shameful, but the objective evidence about the economic benefits has only grown clearer. There have undoubtedly been stresses and pressures. Those are felt most keenly, in fact, by the very people who are forced to move in desperate circumstances, far more so than those pressures are felt by people living safely in the UK. Aside from economic impacts, migration is not something unnatural. It is a human norm, always has been part of our story. The failure to plan and invest in the housing, services and infrastructure that is needed is a failure of government, made dramatically worse by the UK's austerity policies. The impact of Brexit on many people is clear. The first example in modern times of a political decision has left so many people uncertain about where they will even be allowed to live. The impact on our economy is not yet clear. Our public services, our universities and industry all depend on the ability to attract talent and to make use of people's creativity and energy. Overwhelmingly, we know that those people are more highly educated than most of the population, less likely to claim tax credits, benefits or to live in social housing than the rest of the population. Bizarrely, there are still people on the right of the political spectrum who insist that the UK can be part of a single market while simultaneously demolishing one of its essential pillars—free movement. For most people, their labour, selling their labour and using their spending power are the main things that people can trade in a market. If they are not free to move within a territory, that territory cannot be described as a single market. Most of us here might agree that it is desirable, even essential, to retain full access to that market. However, the reality is that we have very little say. Just as Scotland's view has been overridden in the referendum result itself, the new reckless faction of hard brexitiers on the Tory benches at Westminster has no interest in what we have to say about the value to Scotland of retaining access and membership of the single market. They are pursuing a fundamental structural change in the UK's economic relationship with the rest of the world, and lacking any evidence base for their position, all they have left to fall back on is their own hard-right ideology with an added tinge of post-colonial entitlement. Keith Brown I thank Patrick Harvie for taking intervention. I entirely agree with his description of the hard brexitiers in the UK Government. Will he now acknowledge that the Scottish Tories have joined those hard brexitiers, given Murdo Fraser's statement that he does not believe that it is essential to remain part of the single market and that we should have access to it? Patrick Harvie Indeed. If I have saved myself enough time, I will come on to the conservative contribution to the debate in a moment or two. The hard brexitiers may only be one group within the Tory ranks, but the UK Government itself, the front bench, is giving no clarity about what it is even seeking to achieve. The defenders of that Government have claimed that it should not be expected to show its hand before the negotiations begin. That is not about showing its hand, it is simply about naming the game. What does a win even look like? What are they seeking to achieve? The Scottish Government is in a difficult position. I respect that and recognise it, but it is going to be clear, whatever comes down the line from the autumn budget statement, that Scottish Government responses with devolved powers are also going to be necessary to protect investment in housing, in the infrastructure programme such as the energy efficiency programme, in wide general access to public services and public sector pay will also have an impact on economic activity. Private sector investment uncertainty is a huge barrier to that, but it also needs ethical context. The Scottish growth fund could contribute to that not just by offering a free-for-all but by giving specific support to the kind of businesses that we want to see grow in Scotland. We are also going to need to have a more creative approach to taxation than the Scottish Government has yet set out. The emphasis in the Government motion is not quite as we might have written it in the Greens and Labour's call for further action in their amendment is not specific. We might have different ideas about what that further action might be, but on balance, both of those positions have much to commend them and we will be supporting both. On the Tory amendment, in closing, there are three main points, it seems. First of all, echoing the eternal whining for lower taxation. Despite decades of continual cuts to corporate taxation, businesses should not be expected to pay their local taxes either. Secondly, returning to their obsession with the constitution and the blinker desire to prevent Scottish voters from even considering the option of independence. Thirdly, utterly abandoning any credit that Ruth Davidson gained during the Brexit debate. One minute, the Scottish Tories are facing down Boris and the Brexiteers predicting leave as a disaster, and now they have rolled over ignoring their own convictions about Scotland's interests. Murdo Fraser accuses the Scottish Government of sitting on the sidelines. Well, if all that Government was doing was sitting back and letting Brexit roll over us, I would have no confidence in them. However, while there is still a chance to protect Scotland's place in Europe, our economy's access to the single market, the Scottish Greens will continue to hold the Scottish Government to its duty to do all that it can. When surveyed in the months before the EU referendum, 76.5 per cent of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce respondents said that they would vote to remain in the EU. If Britain left the EU, around 40 per cent of respondents believed that there would be a negative impact on their company's profitability and their import-export strategies. Many feared the impact on staffing if they no longer had the labour pool produced by the freedom of movement. A report produced by the chamber last month stated that, the prevailing theme is a request for clarity on the political and constitutional process of Brexit. If Mr Fraser wants an answer to the so-called lack of confidence, I suggest that that is it. Right now, those businesses, of course, have no option but to carry on with the day-to-day operations in an already challenging economic climate. However, as Richard Leonard pointed out, that when the impact does hit, the people who feel it first and most keenly will be the people in employment of those businesses. The principles of the two universities of Aberdeen, which are world leaders in research and innovation around energy, ecology and bioscience, are heavily dependent on EU and international funding and, in turn, providing skills resources and generating opportunities for many of the companies in those fields in the north-east and removing heaven and earth to minimise the already worrying impact of the Brexit decision. That is before the EU funding is even withdrawn. Already, our universities are finding themselves left out of future plans for collaborative research across the globe. Yes, not just from collaborations with their EU partners but their global partners. Both universities generate millions of pounds for the north-east economy and a lot of that is a result of EU membership through grant support that funds much of their work or the EU talent that they make up their teaching research and student body that also live in the area. Frankly, the decision to leave any Scottish universities out of the post-study work visa pilot is scandalous and compounds the damage potential of Brexit. Outside the city, in the middle of harvest time, many growers, particularly in soft fruit, will be wondering if they can rely on up to 1,500 EU nationals who are employed seasonally to pick and pack the fruit as years progress. Issues around workforce similarly affect the hospitality sector, and I am interested to hear that Rachel suggests that perhaps EU nationals will be replaced by school pupils. Of course, my friendly colleague Stuart Stevenson has mentioned the issues with north-east fish processors, one of which is in my constituency in mint law, who rely on EU nationals who work there to satisfy their orders in business. It is also estimated that 50 per cent of meat processing workers are from outside the UK. Not only are those people facilitating our industries, they are also paying income tax and spending their money locally. Where are the guarantees to the current UK taxpayers who may be forced to leave if freedom of movement becomes a thing of the past? Where is the evidence of the so-called opportunities that the leader of those Tory benches now suddenly thinks are out there when she previously spoke so passionately against leaving the EU? I must confess that I am not convinced by the new script handed to the Tory benches by the new boss. It is somewhat odd with the majority of their contributions to the EU debate in early June. If those opportunities are solely because of a temporary reduction in the value of the pound due to the money market shock at our decision in June, I will need a bit more persuading on the long-term value of those so-called opportunities. It is a little like saying that the devaluation of the German mark in the 1920s Weimar Republic was good for suitcase and wheelbarrow salesmen. I will make this point and I will make it strongly. In 2012, when constitutional change was up for discussion and a referendum vote, the SNP Government published a 700-page blueprint outlining how we saw Scotland operating after a yes vote. For many of our opponents, that still was not detailed enough. Yet when asked to vote in 2016's constitutional decision of a seismic magnitude, the public had nothing in print to refer to about how a post-Brexit Britain might work. Slogans on buses do not count, apparently. Now in the aftermath, there is still nothing that gives our public services, businesses, education sector and citizens any idea of what Brexit will mean economically. What now that we are in this situation that Scotland did not vote for and that nearly every parliamentarian across the parties in this chamber spoke against, will appear that it falls to the Scottish Government to roll out economic stimulus packages as evidence in the cabinet secretary's speech. It is time for Westminster to step up to the plate and take their economic responsibility for Scotland seriously and do the same. Informers of and involve us in the detail of any negotiations to guarantee our business access to EU markets, guarantee our workforce will not be stripped of the thousands of EU nationals, and provide our world-class and local economy-powering educational establishments the promises they need to reassure their partners, students and staff that they have stability beyond 2020. At the moment, it feels a little bit like the Tories have crashed our car and are now sending us the bill for the damage. Alexander Burnett, followed by Stuart Stevenson. I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak on Scotland's economy and how it responds to the EU referendum. Firstly, it is important to note that Scotland voting to remain did not at any point give the SNP any right to hold a second referendum on Scotland's independence. By their action now, the SNP are putting Scottish energy firms on the back foot with dwindling levels of foreign investment compared to the rest of the UK. Whilst not everyone in the United Kingdom may have been happy with the result, we must start making a success at Brexit. The SNP need to realise that Brexit is a great opportunity for our energy sector. From creating a specific flexible energy system to being freed from the shackles of EU energy directives, the Scottish Government should be ready to support an industry ready to grow and welcome the opportunities ahead. Patrick Harvie. I would be interested if the member could give examples of specific EU energy directives that he wants repped up. Alexander Burnett. Whilst the north-east is a global hub of oil and gas companies, it is just that, global. For many companies in Aberdeen, the North Sea provides only a fraction of their business and a weaker pound has greatly assisted export revenues. Take Balmoral Offshore Engineering, a company that I visited only a month ago, where 90 per cent of its business in buoyancy and insulation products are exported to emerging markets as far afield as South America. It is essential that we seize this break for our export market and allow them to boost our Scottish economy. In dire need of investment after nine years of SNP rule. I can only hope, unlike fracking, that this is an opportunity that the Scottish Government won't miss. Brexit also gives us the opportunity to rid ourselves of overreaching EU policy makers and preventing our remote communities from getting their specific energy requirements as a result of breaching state aid rules. Currently, the UK Government is unable to target our Scottish islands with specific energy policies as they contradict energy market rules set by Brussels. The opportunity of Brexit gives us the chance to create a tailored Scottish energy system, where we can ensure that all Scottish consumers get reliable, clean and affordable energy. Bureaucratic EU procurement laws also mean that we can't favour Scottish energy companies for contracts. Instead, we force our companies to compete with a continent where other countries still support state enterprises and have a very different view to state aid rules. Rules that, even when broken, are proved so long after the fact that the damage has already been done. On energy security, another key point to make is that, whilst we may have left the EU, we certainly haven't left Europe. Our energy security does not rely on our membership of a single market either. We haven't holed up our anchors and sailed away, quite the opposite, for we are tethered to the continent through a vast series of interconnectedness. A majority of those in the North Sea connect us to Norway, one of our major energy suppliers and a non-EU member, and a clear demonstration of the lack of reliance the UK has on the EU for energy demand. I would also welcome the plan for a further interconnected with Iceland, a country of 300,000 people, again a country thriving outside of EU energy. Mike Rumbles I'm a little confused with his argument. I just wanted to make it clear, are you as an individual in favour of remaining in the single market or your argument seems to be saying that we should be leaving it? Which is it? Alexander Burnett I think that. That question has already been answered earlier by my colleague Murdo Fraser. It's not the membership of a single market which is important, it is the access to the single market which is important, and that is the basis for which we will be negotiating. I would have thought if a Scottish Government got on board with that and ensured that we had the best access to whether it would be energy or other goods or products or services, we would be stronger co-operating with all parts of the United Kingdom. However, on a more global issue such as climate change, whilst our environment, climate change and land reform committee has raised the question of Brexit several times, not once it has been suggested that the goals for the forthcoming climate change bill will be lowered by recent events. Our climate change goals will not change, they are enshrined at a national level rather than an EU level, and we should be proud of the progress that we have made. On a more topical source of energy given recent events, the SNP will also be pleased to hear that our main supplier of imported shale gas, America, is also a non-EU member. My only displeasure with this trade is that it is coming at the cost of Scottish jobs and our economy. Ineos, who operate the Grangemouth plant, will celebrate the first shale gas shipment arriving in Scotland next week. They say that shale gas has helped safeguard the future of the plant and created new jobs and investment. However, the Scottish Government has snubbed the event, prompting suspicions that it does not want to be associated with fracking. This is a childish approach that would not be replicated across the world, and it is time for nationalists to recognise the value of shale. Whilst a weak pound is good for our exports and manufacturing businesses, it is certainly not the time to be spending harder and foreign exchange on fuel that we could be producing here. It is clear that when it comes to the United Kingdom's balance of payments, the SNP would rather put self-interest before the economic interests of the country. I think that we can all see now that the SNP will only see Brexit as an opportunity for self-interest and never for the opportunities that Scotland's economy demands. It is vitally important that the SNP starts to make Scotland a global leader in energy and put that ideological need for a further independence referendum to bed. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me just pick up a couple of points that there are in particular in Liam Kerr. Let me start with a point of agreement with Liam Kerr just to set a favourable tone. Change is certainly an opportunity for those who have the energy and the ideas, but it is also a challenge that we also have to respond to. That is always the case for whatever the nature of change, so at least I start with that agreement. I am just going to briefly pick up the point that the Government has never said anything about the feros and the fishing. 10 August 2010, Richard Lochhead condemned Icelandic feros. Parliamentary answer 10 February 2012, I will give you the numbers so that you can write it down, S4W-05594 to Jeane Arkart. No access to feros waters regrettable. In 2014, the First Minister met the Faroese Prime Minister to discuss the subject. 9 December 2015, Richard Lochhead said that the fisheries, the own relation to the feros, is unacceptable. If I had had as much time researching his false claim, as I have spent rebutting it, I could have come up with a thousand-page book, I suspect. No, he will not, because he is now going to move on to Murdo Fraser. Murdo Fraser made reference to state-aid rules. Of course, he is correct. If you are outside the EU, the state-aid rules of the EU are not binding upon the UK. That is probably a fair comment. However, abandoning the state-aid rules is not without pain if you wish to trade with the EU. You will find that you are unable to do so. Let me pick up the point that has emerged in the debate, having access to the single market or being a member of the single market. In particular, I use Switzerland as an example that has access to the single market but is not a member of the single market. What that means in practice is that they can trade in goods across the border, by and large, but there are significant restrictions on access for agricultural goods, very little access for professional services and virtually no access for financial services. That is not trivial matter. 12 per cent of the UK economy is financial services. It is put 12 per cent of the economic output of the UK. In considering whether we should be a member or merely have access, do not imagine that they equate to each other. Their choices can be made, that is perfectly proper, but they are not the same thing that Switzerland tells of that. I have been talking about banking. I should declare that I voluntarily set in my register of interests that I have shares in Lloydsbank below the declarable limit. I want to talk a bit about the area that I represent, Aberdeenshire Council and Murray Council, in my constituency. A study that Aberdeenshire Council undertook suggests that there might be £11 million at risk. That will be repeated across Scotland in different ways, in particular at the North East Scotland Fisheries Local Action Group through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund are likely to lose money. The North East farming sector receives between £75 million and £100 million in EU subsidies. They appear to be guaranteed for some period of time, but the long-term is very uncertain indeed. I want to talk a little bit about technology generally and how leaving the EU and being outside the European single market might affect them. In particular, the Unitary Patent Court. At the moment, if you wish to register a patent in the EU, you can do so once. Outside the EU, outside the Unitary Patent Court, which is a creature of the EU, you will have to register your patents 38 times. That is a significant burden on innovation in Scotland, which, of course, invented most of the modern world, but in the UK as a whole. Of course, we will have far less influence over patent law. We will also be shutting ourselves off from the European digital single market, which provides data protection, better access to products and services that reduce costs and is driving acceptance and innovation of digital services by setting pan-European standards—for example, the debate around the prospective 5G mobile phone communications. That is important to Scotland and to the UK. Some constituencies will be more effective than others, it is fair to say. A constituency, for example, that has the headquarters of Tesla Motors in the EU is the headquarters to Hutchison 3G, Informatica, Adobe, which are products that we use every day, and Quest software and a huge number of others. Where are these particular companies? They are in Maidenhead. Those of you who may know a little bit about it are the constituency that the Prime Minister represents. I hope that, when she sits down with these companies and looks at the problems that innovators and technology companies are going to experience as a result of the policy that her Government has put in place, it will find that she is challenged. I hope that that leads to her realising that we have to minimise the adverse impact of leaving the EU by ensuring that we stay not simply having access to the single market but members of the single market. Finally, a survey of 1,000 Europeans working in the UK by total jobs suggests that 25 per cent of them are prepared to reconsider career options outside the UK. If we do not have free movement of people, another hammer will blow. David Stewart, to be followed by Tavish Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome Mike Russell to his new post. I wish him well in his negotiation with Westminster. Whatever side we are in the Brexit argument, there is one issue that unites both sides of this debate, that the referendum result is thrown the UK into deep and uncharted waters. No complete member state has ever left the EU, the world's largest single market, with 550 million people, where 50 per cent of the UK's experts are sold tariff-free with no trade barriers. Even, Presiding Officer, the ancient Highland mystic, the brand seer, would struggle to predict the economic health of Scotland and the UK post-Brexit. Former US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld famously talked about known knowns. What do we know about Brexit and what are the known knowns? There is not a lot, Presiding Officer. We know about of course article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. The section that allows a member state to leave the EU seems to me to be drafted as an afterthought to a redundant section that was never designed to be used. We also know that only the UK can invoke the article for our country, that there will not be a vote in the commons prior to invoking the article, there is no evidence that I can see of a second referendum notwithstanding the petition of more than 4 million people who have signed calling for one, nor any evidence of an early general election. Article 50 specifies that all other 27 countries in the EU will negotiate with the state that is leaving, and that is up to two years, unless extended, to sort out trade negotiations. One trade negotiation that I want to highlight, Presiding Officer, is the EU internal market, which formalises restrictions on productions and protects geographic indication. As you would guess, I have a local issue, which is that Stornoway Black Pudding is protected by this designation. Clearly, if we leave the protection for excellent Stornoway Black Pudding and, indeed, whisky in America, which is also protected by its designation, it would fall. Once the timetable has expired, the default trade position is that we rely on basic world trade organisation agreements. The world trade organisation chief executive, Roberto Axvedo, said in the Guardian back in May this year that Brexit would bring back trade barriers of £9 billion a year to British consumers. He went on to say that the UK will be forced to negotiate trade deals with all 161 world trade organisation members, akin to joining from scratch. He said in a quote, Presiding Officer, that the consumer in the UK will have to pay those duties. The UK is not in a position to decide that I am not charging duties here. That is impossible. That is illegal. How realistic is the two-year timescale for Brexit? Let us look at a comparison. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, between the EU and Canada, is a negotiated and bilateral agreement that has been on the table for, wait for it, seven years and is still not in force. However, I would like to focus on the impact of Brexit on the Highlands and Islands, my region. Historically, the Highlands and Islands has faced economic and social challenges, depopulation, lower economic activity than the rest of Scotland, seasonality, perfality, poor transport and infrastructure, and the loss of young people. Only recently has this been reversed, and the EU regional territorial cohesin policies have been the key transformation agent. The Highlands and Islands are the Scotland's only transition region, and although the main money to me is the loss of European structural and investment funds, there are other concerns on the rise, and I would like to flack up as well. The loss of inter-egg, the loss of horizon 2020, the loss of Cosme, which is the business support, and the loss of Erasmus+. Can the minister in the wind-up confirm if the funds allocated to ESIF will survive once the funds are repatriated through the co-financing objectives? A present emphasis on regional policy that takes into account the different challenges that affect regions that Hans Nylans is not just in place across the UK, and its own three funding support and policies from the EU that factors like population and workforce planning, communications, distance from markets, and the higher cost of doing business in remote areas is being addressed. Presiding Officer, I am concerned that, unless the impact of the EU's support and policies to Hans Nylans are too recognized and understood, Brexit will have a calamitous impact on the future economic growth of the region. Of course, I understand that some might argue what has Europe ever done for us in the highlands and islands. I would say that look at the funding for the university of the Hans islands, look at the funding for the European Marine Industry Centre in Orkney, the funding for the marine centre in Oban, the Department of Lithuodonics in the Venice, ferry terminals in Stornoway, Scrubter and Stromness, the Western Isle Spinal route, air terminals, business support and let's not forget the Keswick bridge. Losing the support and finance of the EU will not be made even more bruising to the region if Scotland loses access to the single market. The Hans Nylans, as members will all know, is a significant exporter to the rest of Europe, particularly in the nation's excellent food and drink sector, mostly whisky and seafood. Having to pay for access to the market will cause Scotland to lose a competitive edge and lead to the loss of much investment. Certains around issues such as those are already having an impact in investments with many plans being proposed or cancelled altogether. I think that the cabinet secretary referred to the high report, which flagged up that very point. Additionally, the work of CAP can't be underestimated to the Hans Nylans economy, with so many people in the region reliant on agriculture both directly and indirectly. In conclusion, I believe that that is the most important issue for the future of the Scottish economy. The pathway ahead is not clear, but in the words of the celebrated code breaker, Alan Turing, we can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty of things there that need to be done. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is the second Brexit debate in a week, and we're due another one next week, I'm told, as well. I've been puzzling as to why that would be, but it occurred to me just now, because I see Mike Russell's going to respond on behalf of the Government today. I feel a bit sorry for Mike Russell, because there's no process yet in place, and there is, of course, no negotiating position yet to negotiate on. So, they've decided to fill poor Mike Russell's diary with endless debates about Brexit. I think we'll have to bring Jamie McGregor back and debate nephrops in Brexit before very long. Keith Brown started his, or during his remarks today, by challenging the chamber to come up with some ideas and proposals around what would be helpful for the Scottish economy, which I thought was an entirely fair charge. So, four things came to me as he offered that challenge to Parliament this afternoon. The first is the report that the Fraser of Allander Institute published last week, which for all of us, irrespective of where we are and the political spectrum, must be the most seminal piece of research done on public spending in recent years. It suggests that we face, by 2021, a 1.6 billion or 6 per cent cut in public spending. They suggest that one of those areas may be local authorities who could face a cut of £1 billion again in their spending over the next number of years. My first suggestion to the Government would be to publish even a draft budget, because one of the aspects that all businesses, the voluntary sector and local authorities, who need to ensure that they look to the future number of years and how they can react to both the public spending squeeze that we face but also the economic circumstances that will at some stage be caused by Brexit would be to have a budget not left to the last minute, as I fear we may be heading for, but instead published in very short order indeed. I encourage the Government to do that. The second is to take up Jenny Marr's point about decommissioning. The only point that I disagreed with Jenny Marr on was that there were options for Brent. One of them was Lerwick, and they bypassed that, as she rightly said, to take those oil, or they are currently taking some of those top sides down to T side. From my point of view, at least those jobs are in the UK. She made a fair point about Merce going to Norway. What I hope the Cabinet Secretary, the Economy Secretary, might again stress to the Treasury is he made a fair point about the importance of loan guarantees in which I agree with. I, like Jenny Marr, want to see tax relief that is provided to the oil and gas sector tied to the jobs being held in the UK. I'd like them all in Lerwick, Jenny, we'd like them Dundee, we'd all like them at least in our country. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will take that as a second example. The third example is on fishing. A number of members have raised that. The only point that I disagree with Stuart Stevenson on that is that he cited all these PQs and various other things about the fairways. The fairways won that argument, as he well knows. So, we all lost that one, and it doesn't matter. The UK Government and the Scottish Government were in the same place on that, and that is one of the reasons that the Scottish fishing industry and the pelagic industry in particular detest the common fisheries policy and don't have a lot of time for the European Union as well. So, for my other suggestion on this to the Government is that I believe that they need to instruct civil servants to move ahead with a new fisheries policy for Scotland. They need to do the same for agriculture as well, because one way or another we are going to have a different kind of agriculture policy. I hope that they would take up this challenge of however many years we may now have before this comes to fruition to work on that, because I suspect that many of us across politics would agree about the need for something very different than we have at the moment. My final example is on developing Scotland's Young Workforce. If there is something that I want to see in this Parliament, it is that we value the vocational routes into work as business want, as Ian Wood's commission made so clear three years ago. We value the vocational routes into work and embed that in schools at a much earlier stage than always the pursuit of academic performance and academic statistics and, in other words, the pursuit of just an academic route into work. That would be my other suggestion for the Government, because I fear that now that they have mainstreamed to use that terrible word that we all use—that spending—there will not be the same focus around developing Scotland's Young Workforce as when Sir Ian Wood produced that report, and the Government rightly took it forward. The final suggestion that I have got for Mr Bryan, as I suspect that he will not take up, is that I also think that he should drop any suggestion of bringing back a second referendum on independence. I do not think that that would be helpful. Business does not believe that it would be helpful. What we could do is as much stability as we could possibly have in Scotland to contrast with the uncertainty that we have got south of the border. I must confess that all the Tory speeches today have sounded even more Eurosceptic than the last lot, but Mr Bryan cited a study that said that everything is fine. I have to say to him that the Chartered Management Institute—I have to confess that I had not heard of the Chartered Management Institute. I am sure that it is a very learned body—produced a report that was published yesterday in which it cited that most bosses—this is across the whole of the UK—predicted slowing growth over the next 12 to 18 months. Only a third of those bosses saw Brexit as paving the way to better times over the next three to five years. The chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute said that Brexit uncertainty has made many managers deeply anxious about growth, finance and access to talent from EU countries. We need to get some balance into that, and that is supported by Highlands and Islands Enterprise's survey of companies. Although David Stewart has just mentioned the importance of business in the Highlands and Islands, I would accord with that view. The findings of their latest survey of major companies in the Highlands and Islands show that 55 per cent of businesses said that the result—i.e., the Brexit vote—made them feel less confident in the future of the Scottish economy. For every study that is cited from the Conservative benches saying that the world is wonderful and there are huge opportunities, there are far more from business—not from those of us who may actually believe in the European Union but from business—saying that this is not the best way to be. I just want to finish, if I may, Deputy Presiding Officer, with Theresa May in New York today. Last night, I read that she met Wall Street bankers to try and convince them that Brexit—whatever Brexit means to the Prime Minister today—will not mean that they should leave the city of London. As I have tried to argue before, I think that the city of London is the most important aspect in the UK sense of why this is so damaging for the future of the UK and for the future of Scotland. The fact that the Prime Minister had to spend time drinking wine with city bankers in New York last night, for me, says it all. A key element of our continued relationship with the EU must be to remain as a member of the EU single market. Today's debate has certainly underlined the importance of that, but getting the right deal for Scotland in circumstances, not if we were choosing, must be the sheer name of every single MSP and everyone in the country, yet almost three months have passed since the result of the referendum, and yet we still have no idea whether or not the UK Government actually wishes to remain within the single market. I think that there is a vital point that has not been highlighted often enough in this debate. Although we have had the result of the referendum, Brexit has not yet happened. No matter what analysis has been published and no matter what we have heard today from the Conservative benches, Brexit has not yet happened, so we have not yet got the full economic implications for Scotland's economy because of that decision that was taken. As the First Minister stated, when launching the programme for government earlier this month, the Scottish Government is determined to build on a economy in which everyone has a fair chance to contribute and share in the benefits of economic growth. The Ernst and Young attractiveness survey of May of this year shows that, in 2015, Scotland attracted more foreign direct investment projects than anywhere else in the UK outside of London. I want to touch upon some comments that Richard Leonard mentioned earlier on—it is a shame that Richard Leonard is not here—but I have a huge amount of sympathy for some of the comments that Richard Leonard actually made. I have a huge amount of sympathy in relation to indigenous companies, but at the same time we also have to be fair to international companies when they come to invest in Scotland. I will give you two examples. IBM has been in Scotland for 62 years, and National Semiconductor, Texas Instruments, has been in Scotland for 46 years. I admit that the numbers of folk working in those two businesses have certainly decreased and that Texas Instruments are going to be leaving, but they have still been here up to now for 46 years. That length of time that has been here has certainly helped to contribute to not just the local economy but the Scottish economy. Certainly, continuing economic recovery in Scotland is, of course, threatened by the outcome of the EU referendum. Tory recklessness in Scotland means that Scotland is facing the possibility of being taken out of the EU against its will, and it could put jobs, investment and economic growth at risk. As I have heard today from the Fraser Vallander Institute, the report noted that Scotland's comparative success in attracting international investment and strengthening exports in recent years has highlighted the challenges that are created by Brexit, which could result in a slowdown and foreign direct investment. Analysis also shows that the next 10 years, the level of GDP in Scotland could be between 2 per cent and 5 per cent lower than it would otherwise have been because of the impact of Brexit. The decision to leave the EU's forecast to have a detrimental impact on long-term economic prospects—investment, household incomes, employment and the long-run supply potential of the economy—could all be lower, although any effects might take some time to emerge. David Stewart in his contribution quoted the figure of some £9 billion across the UK. That is a huge amount of money to be taken out of any economy. Trade could be hit particularly hard, and the EU accounts were just over 40 per cent of all Scotland's international exports, i.e. excluding exports to the rest of the UK. That is more than North America, Asia, South America, Middle East and Australasia combined. I am quite sure that the Conservatives met in their contributions earlier, but the rest of the UK is a more important trading partner. That is certainly in terms of figures that that is there to see. However, why should we put all the eggs in that one basket? We need to make sure that Scotland's economy can withstand a lot—just two seconds, if I may. We need to make sure that Scotland's economy can withstand much of the pressures that might come from international events. Rachael Hamilton Would Stewart McMillan not consider £42.6 billion versus £11.2 billion, which is the difference between the domestic market and the European market, which is not significant? Stewart McMillan I did not downplay the significance or otherwise of the level of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK and elsewhere, but why should we focus and put all our eggs in that one basket? If there is some major shock in that one particular economy, that would certainly have an adverse effect on Scotland's economy. Many companies in Scotland and the rest of the UK are also part of the complex international supply chains. That means that it is not just access to export markets but EU imports, which are important in recent years. Scotland has performed well into national investment, rivaling the south-east of England as a second biggest location for FDI projects after London. It is driven in part by the skilled workforce but also the UK as an access point to the single market. Foreign direct investment has strong links to productivity through the transfer of knowledge, skills, best practice technology and innovation. However, businesses will not and cannot adjust their plans overnight and plant and machinery are immobile in the short run. Moreover, for the time being, Scotland and the UK remain within the EU. In terms of trade, regulation and free movement, nothing has changed thus far. It is likely to be only a matter of time, however, before expectations of reduced integration feed through to day-to-day investment production operations, R&D activities, employment and household spending decisions. On that point about R&D, R&D is absolutely vital for the future of the economy. The example that I will give is IBM in 1999-2000, when the R&D department closed, and then the assembly and manufacturing and IBM in Greenock started to decline. Since the result of the EU referendum, the Scottish Government has lost no time in engaging fully and robustly on all fronts. As businesses continue to face the on-going uncertainty created by the UK-wide vote to leave the UK, our planned £500 million Scottish growth fund is designed to support it, the workforce and the economy to grow. The Conservatives are talking about opportunities, and I am conscious of the time, the Conservatives are talking about opportunities. From what I can see in terms of opportunities for students and the economic impact that they can have, that is going to decrease if there is going to be additional costs placed upon them. The opportunity for tourism, once again, as members will know, I chair the cross-particle on recreational boating and marine tourism. We had the strategy that we launched last year to push and promote marine tourism in Scotland. What is going to happen to the marinas? Are they going to have to have visa access points installed in them for when sailors come in from EU nations? Brexit has not yet happened. There are huge challenges that are going to face Scotland and the rest of the UK, and, despite what the Conservatives are saying, we are in for some bumpy times ahead, and it is going to have an adverse effect upon our economy. As I would like to talk about the rural economy, I would like to declare an interest that I am a partner in a farming partnership in Scotland. The vote that we had on 23 June resulted in a decision that I did not seek, but it is one that I totally accept, because it is a democratic choice of the United Kingdom, and we are part of that United Kingdom. Whilst in Dornock, just after the referendum, I visited the newly refurbished coffee room in the old jailhouse. Firstly, I would like to encourage you all to go there and to visit and see if you can resist the temptations, the edible temptations that are on offer. I could not. Secondly, I would like to share with you the resolve that it gave me on how to deal with Brexit. Written on the wall was the following saying, If fate hands you a lemon, make lemonade. This sums up to me what we should be doing now, and it sums up what I believe is the stimulus that Scotland needs. Looking at opportunities and making the most of them is what our can-do farmers and rural business expect us to do. What they will never forgive us for doing is not rising to the challenge. Sadly, some of you have been witnessed in this debate this afternoon. Do not share that view and take the attitude that if fate hands you a lemon, throw it back, saying it will always be sour. On 30 August, the rural economy in Scotland turned to us once again and expected the Parliament to start working on what is going to happen post-2020, the date when farm subsidies have been guaranteed until. I will focus you in back that up by saying that, on 13 September, there was a need for stability in the agricultural sector, and I would like to quote him. I am sure that all of us in this chamber can agree that farmers and their families need certainty in these uncertain times. We should be working towards that. I call on the Scottish Government and those in this chamber to look upon the future of Scottish farming and the 65,000 people directly involved in it, and I will give way at that stage. Stuart McMillan I thank Edward Mountain for taking intervention. His point regarding farmers and their families is looking for certainty, but surely every member of the country should actually have that certainty. Edward Mountain Absolutely. Certainty comes from knowing that we are working on things, but I am talking about specifically the rural economy. I want to go back to that, if I may. I would like to put on this on the rural economy and make it on the record, if I may, that farmers in many remote rural areas such as Sir Highlands are the backbone of that economy, providing jobs, food and looking after the environment. They do so sometimes in the most inhospitable conditions, working long hours being the norm rather than the exception. They are facing this year higher input prices, as we know, which are not reflected in farm gate prices. Indeed, many of those farmers this year sold grain and received the same price that they did 30 years ago. That is not sustainable, but it is bearable because of subsidies. Therefore, I strongly believe that all farmers, although they would like to farm without subsidies, realistically it is probably not possible because of the rules and regulations, especially if we demand cheap food. We need now, as a chamber, to start working on the future of agricultural support and how we want to ensure food security. I think that we have a real opportunity, and the opportunity is not asked to squander by saying that I want to remain in the EU and will not consider the alternatives. We will be seen as being petulant and destructive. I want to move on and ask about protecting our markets. For example, we export to the EU some 34,000 tonnes of farm salmon, which, to put it into context, is nearly two salmon for every person that lives in Scotland. It is an important market. Let me be clear that we need to retain access to that market. To those who are already being negative saying that this is not a concept that we can have, let me point out that there are many producers in Europe who will be demanding the same access to our markets, so we need to be constructive and not destructive about opening up markets. Sorry, I have given way once, and I know that the Presiding Officer is particularly... Oh well, if you are going to give me leeway, you said the other day that you wouldn't. Just a little today is a new day, Mr Mountain. Good way to Mr Harvey. In which case I am very grateful, and I would simply like to ask, as he is so concerned about businesses having access to the single market, does he not accept that, to qualify as being a single market, citizens must have access to it as well, not just businesses, and that means the freedom to move? Edward Mountain. That is exactly the point that I am saying and talking about. I am saying the point is that we need to be constructive and look at all the opportunities to make sure that our businesses succeed. I fully accept, as I am sure that everyone else does on the side of the chamber, that we need people to help us get in our harvest in the rural areas, and therefore we should be open to that, as well as being open to exporting food. But just by saying that we have got to give freedom of movement, actually it is not being constructive, it is being limiting. So I want to now just go on, if I may, having answered that question, is to look at trade deals, because trade deals are a real possibility. And I think that we should be looking to working with the UK Government to make those a reality. We have identified areas, and everyone here knows on them, how we can improve on trade deals, reducing the 3,000 per cent duty on whisky imports to Egypt, reducing and getting rid of the ban on beef and lamb imports to the USA. We need to be working with the Government in the UK saying that we are open for business and not just saying to them that we are not going to play in the reforms that lie ahead, which I fear is some people's approach. Now I hope that the appointment of Mike Russell will lead to positive discussions, and not just another chance to seek to do what his party believes in, which is to state the negatives of Brexit and to suggest that the only way forward is by independence. Now there is one other issue that I would like to dwell on, if I may, and that is environmental regulations. For too long, managers, whether they are farmers, keepers, conservation or foresters have had to deal with EU legislation that regulates and restricts what they do. We now have the very real opportunity to look again at those regulations, and we should take that. However, what we should not do is rush blindly into replacing the rules that have been EU-driven by rules that do not serve Scotland. We have got to make sure that the new rules do. For example, earlier this year the EU went through the process of trying to plan glycophosphate, and that failed because we were only given extension for 18 months. It is a vital chemical that we use not only for farmers but for councils and for gardeners. There is no suitable alternative, so to lose that would be a disaster. We should start to welcome the opportunities that Brexit might offer us and review the regulations, but not taking the lowest common denominator. Your extension is rapidly running out, Mr Rownton? I promise not to wear that T-shirt again. Throughout what I have said, I hope that it is possible that you will see that there is a common theme from what I am saying. We have not chosen to be where we are with the EU, but to fight it is not constructive. What is constructive is to seize the opportunities that have been created, run with them as farmers and rural businesses do every day and will expect us to do. I simply say to the chamber that, with our lemons, we must make lemonade and not just continue to make sour-looking faces. My face was in great danger of becoming very sour. Can I call Ben Macpherson, please, the last of the open speeches? Before being elected, I spent several years working as a commercial lawyer at the heart of Scotland's economic activity. In my experience, in that role and in other roles, I have witnessed first-hand just how much of an attractive and stable place Scotland is to do business. Let us remember that, while, of course, there is the need for improvement and we face significant challenges. Our professional services sector is world-class. The depth and quality of our labour market is outstanding. We have phenomenal natural resources, wide-ranging creativity, highly successful established industries and strong growth in new pioneering sectors. In recent years, Scotland's productivity rate has grown at a faster pace than the rest of the UK. As has already been mentioned, inward investment has expanded, and employment levels are up. In the context of the Brexit vote, let us emphasise that Scotland is still very much an attractive and stable place to do business. However, with the Brexit vote, there is no doubt that the outcome of that EU referendum presents significant challenges. That is why I warmly welcome the measures announced by the cabinet secretary today, particularly the £0.5 billion investment from the Scottish Government to establish a new Scottish growth scheme and the move that the First Minister took in the summer to bring forward 100 million of additional capital spending to boost the economy in these uncertain times. Those measures will support start-ups and export growth. They will have a multiplier effect and create demand in our local economies. They will have a direct impact on job creation, and we should all welcome that. The Scottish Government is taking action to support our economy and mitigate the immediate effects of Brexit. What is baffling to me and many others in our communities and in the business community is why the UK Government is not doing similar. In order to support the economy in my constituency and across Scotland and, indeed, across this island, I strongly urge the UK Government to follow the initiative of the Scottish Government and lead at the earliest opportunity and bring forward a set of meaningful measures to stimulate the economy. What is more, we also need answers from the UK Government. As has been highlighted by several speakers today, another week is passing without clarity or comment from the British Government about membership of the single market. We have had no comment in recent times on the legal status of EU citizens. Furthermore, financial services, which are a very important part of our economy, are highlighted by Stuart Stevenson and particularly important here in Edinburgh. Because of that importance, we need clarity from the British Government about retaining passporting rights for that finance sector post Brexit, so that Scottish banks and other financial service companies can continue to operate anywhere in the EU while still based in Scotland. Last week at PMQ's, my colleague Deirdre Brock MP asked the Prime Minister whether she could give any assurances on this matter, and almost a week later, there still haven't been any assurances from the Prime Minister or from the British Government at all. What was interesting last week at Prime Minister's questions when Deirdre Brock asked the Prime Minister on the issue of financial passporting, the Prime Minister dodged answering this legitimate and important question about a hugely important sector with empty words about an independence referendum. Again today, it is the Scottish Conservatives who are going on about another independence referendum. The fact of the matter is that the reason why the Tories are talking about independence is because they do not have answers about Brexit. As I have already said, the Scottish Government has been taking action, noticeable action and meaningful action since the Brexit vote on 24 June. The British Government has done astoundingly little, almost next to nothing. Week after week in the last months, I have heard Conservative MSPs in this chamber or in media interviews that they have done at different points. I assert that the business community is significantly worried about the possibility of another Scottish independence referendum. However, the fact of the matter is that, on the ground and in the boardrooms across Scotland, and in my experience of talking to all sorts of different businesses from SMEs to PLCs, the most significant worry and concern for businesses in Scotland, the big issue is the real uncertainty about Brexit and the lack of clarity from the British Government. The Tories might want to keep trying to avoid talking about Brexit by using independence as a smokescreen, but there is no getting away from the real issues that face us about Brexit. Issues that have arisen as a result of a vote that is contrary to the popular will of the Scottish people, a Brexit result presided over and actively pursued by members of the British Government, a Brexit vote that we have, as Stuart McMillian rightly highlighted, yet to see the full consequences of. In the face of the challenges of Brexit, which we are facing together, I urge the British Government to follow the Scottish Government's example, to follow its lead by investing in a meaningful stimulus package to create demand and growth and by giving clarity on passporting rights for the finance sector and the single market. The people of Scotland are waiting and listening, and they need answers soon. We now move to the closing speeches. Now, I have to say, I was a bit over-generous to some backbenchers, so if we could be fairly tight please in the closing speeches. We have a very indignant looking Jackie Baillie. Seven minutes, not at all. I think that I was sucking on one of Edward Mountain's lemons. Can I welcome Michael Russell to his new post, but he will forgive me if I don't join in? Tom Arthur's very gushing tribute to him. It's perhaps the most gushing tribute I've ever heard in this chamber. Mr Arthur clearly wants a promotion. I do hope that the minister will absolutely resist Edward Mountain's suggestion that somehow we treat our response to Brexit as some kind of great British bake-off with a key ingredient being lemons. I've heard it all today, Presiding Officer. But let me welcome the opportunity to debate the impact of Brexit on the Scottish economy. It is the case that the people of Scotland voted by a significant margin to remain in the European Union. It is important that we respect that, that we reflect on people's wishes as we move forward. The minister would, of course, expect me to point out that it is also the case that an equally significant margin voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and we equally need to respect and reflect their wishes, too. The challenge for us is how we give expression to both. I would encourage the Government to do so, too, because I genuinely believe that the SNP will not be forgiven if they use very positive sentiments towards the European Union simply as a means of achieving independence. Instead, I hope that they focus on getting the very best deal for Scotland and in that we support them wholeheartedly. There is no doubt, Presiding Officer, that Brexit will have an impact on our economy. The overwhelming majority of commentators and economists believe that the impact will be negative. The cabinet secretary referred to an array of statistics that demonstrate that decline in economic growth. Already, though, we have seen signs of decline, but those were evident before Brexit. Scotland is underperforming the rest of the UK across a range of economic measures, and I do not think that any of us believe that that is good enough. On employment, on productivity, on growth, we are behind the rest of the UK, and growth projections have all been revised downwards, not just this year, but last year, Fraser of Allander described the economy as flirting with recession. I believe that we may have gone beyond flotation, and the consequences of that for the Scottish economy would be serious indeed for jobs and for workers in our communities. I would be pleased to hear what the Scottish Government will do about that. Keith Brown I am not sure whether I can thank Jackie Baillie for taking intervention and not going to beyond flotation. In relation to employment, the simple fact is that the Scottish economy is outperforming the UK economy. Not only that, it is outperforming every year of the Labour Liberal Democrat administration as well. Jackie Baillie I say that it is welcome that on that particular statistic we are now moving in the right direction, but one-quarter of improvement does not, in my view, is enough to deal with the under-performance of the Scottish economy. I hope that the cabinet secretary will be more ambitious. Let me echo some of the points that Richard Leonard made, because I think that they are important. They demonstrate how precarious our economy is. It is the case that, between 2007 and 2015, the size of the Scottish economy, which is overseas-owned, grew from 23 per cent to 34 per cent. That is quite a staggering increase in an incredibly short space of time. On the face of it, that seems like positive news. The Scottish Government itself concluded that Scotland outside the EU makes the country a less attractive location for overseas investors. We know that there are 1,000 EU-owned companies in Scotland employing something like 115,000 people. There are others outwith the EU that invest here to gain a foothold in that single market. Richard Leonard is right. We are more vulnerable to economic shocks as a consequence of our over-reliance on overseas-owned companies. Stuart McMillan should not misunderstand that. Of course, inward investment is welcome, but we are more vulnerable because of Brexit and it needs to be balanced against growth in our indigenous industry. The statistics tell us that we are much more exposed to the negative impact of Brexit than any other part of the UK. I want to turn to the Scottish Government's response, but before I do, let me make an observation. The SNP points to the UK Government and says that it must do something. The Tories point to the Scottish Government and say that it is the Scottish Government's responsibility. Frankly, that is the politics of the playground. The people of Scotland expect both Governments to work together to protect our interests and enhance our economy. I agree with the Scottish Government's view that there should be measures outlined in the autumn statement and that we really need more than a slogan and an empty Brexit means Brexit to take the country forward. That said, I think that the Scottish Government can and must do more itself. The £100 million capital stimulus is welcome but wholly inadequate. A point that Jenny Marra made very well is underspend from last year. I was told in a PQ today that that money is expected to support 800 jobs, half of them in construction. That is great, but I have to say to you that when you set this against the scale of the challenge that we face, 8,000 construction jobs lost just in the last year, analysis by Fraser of Allander Institute suggesting that unemployment will rise by more than 10,000 in the next two years. When faced with those challenges, do you really, really think that that is ambitious enough? I have to say that the £500 million business growth scheme is again welcome, but has it yet been agreed with the Treasury? It is a loan guarantee scheme. There is not actually £500 million on the table. I have to say to you as gently as I can that you will not be forgiven for announcing something where the detail has not been worked out, marching businesses up to the top of the hill and then abandoning them when you get there. I expect more from the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary invited suggestions, and I will do so very quickly, but could I maybe make the suggestion that they look particularly at different economic sectors because economists say that the impact is likely to be variable, dependent on the sector, so understanding that will be important in informing our response. Scottish Labour set out a range of measures in our Brexit action plan, which was published at the start of the summer, and I commend that to the cabinet secretary. In closing, finally, let me quote the Fraser of Allander Institute, quoted by many in the chamber already. It said that economic strategies' priorities have been turned on their head by Brexit. It is simply not possible for policy to continue as normal. It is absolutely not business as usual. I would encourage the Scottish Government and the UK Government to get serious about this, to get beyond business as usual, to address the challenges that are facing our economy, our businesses and our people. Mr Lockhart, we are very tight now. Under nine minutes please. I understood. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me start by welcoming Mr Russell to his new role, and I also welcome the opportunity to be involved in a debate with Mr Brown, despite the fact that he never really answers questions we ask him. As you would expect, we have had a lively and interesting debate in the chamber this afternoon. During the debate, a number of members, especially on this side of the chamber, highlighted the opportunities arising from Brexit and others have discussed the policy response required to help to stimulate the economy. Before reflecting on those contributions, I would like to consider what does Brexit mean economically for Scotland. First of all, let me start by making it very clear that Brexit is not to blame for the current underperformance of the Scottish economy, as suggested by Mr Brown. If you look at the longer-term figures, it is clear that the underperformance in the Scottish economy has been a central feature of this Government's track record. Let me give Mr Brown just one example. The current size of the Scottish economy is only 4 per cent above pre-recession levels of 2008, whereas the rest of the UK has grown 23 per cent in that same period. How is that being stronger for Scotland? Just to remind Mr Brown, that includes periods when the oil price was above £110 a barrel. Mr Brown has also failed to deliver on the Scottish National Party's productivity target to have Scotland's productivity levels in the first quartile by next year. Keith Brown In his view of the Scottish economy, does he accept, as David Mundell appears to do, that there are two Governments that act in the economy, or is it simply the case that everything that he wants to derive about the Scottish economy is the responsibility of the Scottish Government? Is it two Governments or one? Dean Lockhart The divergence of the Scottish economy has been shown to be caused largely by uncertainty caused by the independence referendum. It has been shown. Business rates in Scotland with a large business supplement are twice the rates of England against what Mr Swinney said in the last Parliament. Perhaps that is another reason why the Scottish economy is underperforming. Let us be clear on this point. Brexit is not to blame for the economic stagnation that we are facing in Scotland. It is the SNP's mismanagement of the economy, the failure of policy implementation and the constant agitation for the second referendum on independence. In considering what Brexit really means for the Scottish economy, we need to look at our export markets and how we generate wealth. Our exports fall into three main categories. Exports go to the rest of the UK, which account for 64 per cent of our exports, making the UK by far our largest customer. Exports go to the European single market, accounting for 15 per cent. And exports go to the rest of the world, accounting for 21 per cent. There is one thing that is crystal clear in all of the post-Brexit analysis. Our economic and financial relationship with the UK is more important than ever. A membership of the UK single market is worth four times, as a number of my colleagues have said, is worth four times as much in terms of exports and jobs as the EU. Financially, as was highlighted by the GERS numbers, we benefit significantly by being a member of the United Kingdom to the tune of £15 billion. Alasdair Allan I thank the member for giving way. I am glad that he acknowledges the importance of the European single market. Does he draw a distinction between the two issues that one of his colleagues failed to draw a distinction between, which is membership of and access to the single market? Dean Lockhart Yes, I think that we have made our position quite clear. If you allow me to answer, the real issue is the level of access to the single market and the terms upon which that access is negotiated. That can be a bespoke agreement. The United Kingdom is the second largest economy in Europe, one of the fastest, if not the fastest growing economies in Europe. Europe exports more to us than vice versa, so I am pretty sure that we will have a strong negotiating position. The SNP's plans for Scotland to leave the UK and then try to rejoin the European Union, although a number of member states have said that they would veto that, make no economic sense whatsoever. However, we now know that the economy is a second consideration for the SNP. The First Minister of the weekend has told us that the case for independence ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit of oil and national wealth. Well, Mr Brown, try telling that to the 120,000 people who have lost their jobs in the North Sea. In the two-year period after the SNP white paper said, the oil price would remain above $110 a barrel. Small consolation. Let me now turn to the opportunities arising from Brexit, because they are extensive and global, and they have been outlined by my colleagues on the side of the chamber. Across a number of different sectors, farming, fishing, energy tourism and manufacturing as well as other exporters, the depreciation of sterling has resulted in a boost to our exporters, including the food and drink industry, the largest exporter in Scotland. I'm terribly sorry, I just had one of these blanks. I know that's fine. Great. Mr Lockhart and the rest of the chamber joined me in welcoming the news this afternoon that the Home Office has granted my constituents, the brain family, the right to remain in Scotland. Would Mr Lockhart agree that it's about time that his party gave the rest of the EU citizens who are resident in Scotland the same assurance that they can remain? Dean Lockhart We've said that that's going to be one of the priorities in our discussions with our European counterparts, and I welcome the news of your constituents. Thank you for that. There are challenges arising from Brexit, but when we talk to businesses, business tellers, there are challenges in business every day, and you know what they're getting on with it. It's now time for Mr Brown and his colleagues to follow the leadership shown by the Scottish business community and get on with the day job and take advantage of the opportunities that we have outlined in this chamber. In terms of policy response, what steps can the Scottish Government take to stimulate the economy? First of all, it is clear that it can do much, other than blame Westminster or Brexit. The Fraser or Valander Institute described the new powers coming to Hotherwood as fiscal devolution of a scale that is largely unprecedented internationally. Do something about it, you've got the powers. What can the Scottish Government do in the short term to use those powers? First of all, Mr Brown, you could listen to business for a change. For example, the letter sent to the Government from 13 leading business organisations earlier this month, before your programme for government was published, asking, demanding in fact for the large business supplement to be abolished. A tax that punishes businesses that want to expand and a tax that has forced the closure of many long-standing, otherwise successful businesses such as mackerees in your neighbouring constituency. In addition, my colleagues have listed a whole range of global opportunities and steps that can be taken. If the SNP does not want to listen to us, perhaps it can listen to the views of the various business leaders who have been setting out the opportunities. Most fundamentally, the SNP should listen to their own pro-independence business leaders and take off the table the prospect of another independence referendum. Instead of listening to business, however, the SNP last week set out in the programme for government a list of economic measures that amounted to nothing more than repackaged policy announcements and old money dressed up as new. The headline announcement of the new Scottish growth scheme has been, frankly, an omnishambles. It has caused confusion in the business community. Businesses are asking, how will this help be? Is it in the form of loans? Is it guarantees? How does the guarantee scheme work? Who will administer the scheme? What will be the criteria? Have the banks or the investment community even been consulted, let alone the UK Treasury? It is interesting that, in its programme for government, the SNP admits that, in order for this scheme to work appropriately, we will discuss in detail with business organisations, the Scottish Parliament and the UK Government. Perhaps going forward, Mr Brown, you can consider having proper consultation going forward on an important economic policy and listen to the views of business in advance of announcing policies that no one knows how they are going to work. Let me conclude by saying that the First Minister recently also said that we are facing a lost decade as a result of Brexit negotiations. You must conclude, Mr Lockhart. The people of Scotland know only too well what it feels like to suffer a lost decade, and that is a lost decade under this Scottish Government. The Conservative Party is nothing if not on message. Yesterday, Theresa May, in a briefing from Downing Street, let the telegraph understand that the problem with the Scottish Government is that it is allowing the ideology of independence to be more important than the economy. That is the message that we have heard from the Tories today. The reality of this debate is something different. The reality is that the Tory party allowed the ideology of Brexit to be more important than the economy. That is what we are now seeing. That is what Scotland potentially could suffer from, and our job is to make sure that that does not happen. During the course of this debate, I have to say that there were two people that I agreed with most—neither of whom are on my own benches—and I am sorry that I have to say that. Although, of course, I agreed with all our benches and particularly the wisdom of Tom Arthur, whom I thought made a particularly fine start to his speech. However, I do want to say that I thought that Patrick Harvie and Tavish Scott made very important points. Patrick Harvie is absolutely right to say that the Scottish Government will need to have clear positions based on clear principles. The Scottish Government will have to articulate them and be prepared to negotiate hard for them. Now, one of the two of those is already clear. The single market, based on the four freedoms, based on free movement—because we are all descended from migrants of one sort or another—based on free movement is vitally important. There is a very limited understanding in this chamber of what that means, because free movement is not negotiable. The talk that in some way could be negotiated away is nonsense, and we saw that from the Bratislava summit this weekend. Our policies will also require to be fact-based, and they will have to make sure that they give us good foundations for future success. The disappointment this afternoon was in the Tory refusal to be where they were immediately after the referendum, to take the positive view of ensuring that there was a Scottish approach that benefited Scotland, because the Tories have become born-again Brexiteers. The other contribution that I thought was important was Tavish Scott, not because he defined the purpose of these debates just to give me something to do in my afternoons, which is not true, but because he defined the purpose of the debate to encourage a positive approach and to give ideas. Then, unusually in this debate, he went on and gave some ideas. I do not agree with all the ideas that he gave, but I thought that it was very positive to do that. It was a change from some of the other rhetoric of the debate, particularly for Murdo Fraser's reasons to be cheerful. Murdo listed those reasons to be cheerful, but he sounded more to me like whistling in the wind. Murdo Fraser is never short of chutzpah. He wants the UK Government to be in the lead on absolutely everything, except when it is rudderless and drifting. Then it is the SNP's absolute responsibility to be in the lead on everything. That is an admirable approach. It is just very, very silly, I have to say. Of course. Murdo Fraser. I am most grateful to the minister for giving way. I wonder if he could answer the question that none of his colleagues could answer. Why does he think that it is the case that business confidence has recovered post-Brexite in every part of the United Kingdom, apart from in Scotland? What is it about Scotland uniquely that means that business confidence here has not recovered? I think that it is very important that we study that, but let me give you a suggestion. The suggestion might mean that Scottish business is wiser than business elsewhere. It realises that we have not had Brexit yet, and the worst is yet to come. It could be that. Let me turn to the Tory party, because we are sort of used now to the Tory party of being constitutional anoraks. That is what they do, but they are born again Brexiteers. Liam Kerr said in an interview in The Lawyer that, just after the referendum, we need to take stock of the referendum result. They certainly took stock, but they are now 100 per cent in favour of it. Success, according to the Russian proverb, has many parents. Failure is an orphan. It is difficult to find anyone on the benches who do not now believe that Brexit is not only the right thing to happen, but the Scottish Government should embrace it with such enthusiasm as if we were a favour of it all the time. Jumping on the bandwagon, however, is a dangerous thing to do. I hope that the Lib Dems are not jumping on the bandwagon, too. That would be a big disappointment having been so nice to Mr Scott. Jumping on the bandwagon is a dangerous thing to do. The bandwagon is careering downhill. It is not possible to steer it. It is knocking down all sorts of valuable things. The question is not how are the SNP going to get it under control. There are much better questions to ask. How can we, for example, together create an approach based on what is best for Scotland? How can we find the right option for Scotland? How can we ensure that, in those situations, we benefit business and we benefit Scotland and do not disadvantage it? Those are good questions, but we have not had the answer to them from the Tories today. We had a sort of answer. We had an answer from Edward Mountain, who told us in a sort of mystical way that we should all be given a lemon. Let me give him the classic economic theory of giving everyone a lemon. If you give everyone a lemon, there is a collapse in the price of lemonade and a penury for lemonade manufacturers. That is the reality if everybody has a lemon. What we need to do is to find a way that we can come together as a chamber and debate the ideas. That is why Mr Scott's contribution and Patrick Harvie's contribution were so important. There needs to be a contribution of ideas in this debate. Let's start with the idea of what the single market actually is. The Parliament voted for a motion last week, stating that the key objective must be for Scotland and the UK to remain inside the single market. There is a fundamental difference between membership of the single market and simply having access to it, in line with the terms of what would be called a free trade agreement. The latter outcome would risk what the First Minister has termed a lost decade, undoubtedly, and even more. Strangely enough, the single market as it presently exists and, of course, it needs reform, is a creation of the UK. Under the leadership of Jacques Delors, it was the UK commissioner who led work on the ambitious programme of 272 measures to break down the non-tariff barriers to the delivery of an integrated European market. By aiming for that free movement of goods and services, the single market is much more effective than a simple free trade area. That is particularly true in the case of services. The Scotch whiskey industry benefits, yes, but the Scottish financial sector even more, because a fundamental element of the single market is passporting. The right of a financial service firm incorporated in one member state to establish a branch or provide services remotely on a service basis in another member state, solely on the basis of their authorisation and supervision by the state of incorporation. That is a fundamental provision. You cannot have that without accepting the principle of free movement. I noted papers reporting at the weekend that the chancellor thought that that could be negotiated for the banking sector and for nobody else. Brexit means free movement for bankers but not for workers. That does not appear to be a sensible way to go ahead. I return, Presiding Officer, to where we started in this debate. There is a key set of issues that need to be discussed in the economy. Future debates are going to discuss issues in other sectors, rural economy, environment, education and justice. If we are going to do justice to that debate, members need to come to the chamber with the ideas that they can put forward. We all know what we think about each other politically. What we do not know is the way in which every sector in Scotland will be affected. We do not know the positive nature that we might take and the negatives as well. Until we have that discussion in that debate, then we will not be much further forward. We have decided, I have to say, despite no Labour speech being in any way complementary about the Scottish Government with the exception of David Stewart—I make an exception for him as ever—despite that, we have decided to accept the Labour amendment and would have accepted the Liberal Democratic amendment had it been called. Both those amendments are in the spirit of saying that we have to get the information together, we have to be positive, but we cannot disguise the difficulties ahead. Unfortunately, the Conservatives today want to disguise the difficulties ahead. Nobody—especially not the business sector—will thank them for that. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on Scotland's economy. We now move to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business, and I wish to remind members that, if the amendment to the name of murder phraser is successful, the amendment to the name of Richard Leonard falls. The first question is that the amendment in the name of murder phraser, which seeks to amend motion number 1531, the name of Keith Brown, on Scotland's economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1531.1 in the name of murder phraser is as follows. Yes, 29. No, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 1531.3 in the name of Richard Leonard, which seeks to amend motion in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1531.3 is as follows. Yes, 87. No, 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment to the name of Richard Leonard is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 1531 in the name of Keith Brown, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1531, in the name of Keith Brown, is as follows. Yes, 87. No, 29. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes the decision time. We move now to members' business. I will take a few minutes to change seats.