As we are concerned, that is a matter for the individual policy area within which any tribunal emanates. Many thanks and that concludes portfolio questions and we now move to the next item of business, which is a European and external relations committee debate on its inquiry into the Scottish Government's proposals for an independent Scotland membership of the European Union. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Christina McKelvie to open the debate on behalf of the committee. You have 14 minutes, please, Ms McKelvie, when you are ready. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When the European and external relations committee started out on its inquiry into the Scottish Government's proposal for EU membership in December last year, I was very keen, as was the committee, that the inquiry should provide a source of valuable information for voters on the subject of EU membership. I recognise that some would be more persuaded by some arguments than others, but my key objective was that the report would help voters to understand more about the EU and what EU membership would mean for an independent Scotland. I did not expect the committee to agree on a number of the issues under consideration, but I did hope that a report would allow voters to find out more about EU membership and to make up their own minds. All of the members of the European and external relations committee have seen vast amounts of evidence and listened to many, many excellent speakers, academics, European commission representatives, former senior civil servants and representatives of EU institutions across Europe. The evidence has been distilled into the committee's second report, published on 23 May, with which my colleagues will, I am sure, be very familiar. The committee's inquiry lasted from December last year until April this year and involved taking evidence from a wide range of experts on EU, including former officials, academics and lawyers. We heard from those who supported the Scottish Government's proposals and those who did not. We heard evidence on a considerable range of issues related to the three themes of an independent Scotland in the EU. Those themes were the road to EU membership, the small states and their impact in the EU. Indeed, our approach was so comprehensive that I was very flattered to note that the House of Commons, the Scottish Affairs Committee drew significantly on our evidence for its own report on Scotland's membership of the EU. That committee sat for one day on this topic. Our membership of the EU is not, by any measure, a lightweight subject. I think that we have all learned that over the past months and the historic challenges of accusations that there is too much bureaucracy, waste of money and effective policies and overpaid civil servants continue to blight the more intelligent debate around Europe. I would like to thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, many of whom travelled from other EU member states to appear before the committee. I would also like to thank the organisations and individuals who submitted written evidence, which we have a great many of to the inquiry. They helped to ensure that there was a rich seam of evidence on which the committee could draw. Finally, I would like to thank the committee's adviser, Dr Daniel Keneally, for his expert advice and briefings. Further, I would like to thank our clerks, Kate Clair O'Neill and Jenny Goldsmith, ably led by Dr Katie Orr, who put in an amazing amount of work using up some of the weekends to bring about the inquiry and organising everything that we needed to inform our report and a very comprehensive report it is. It is very topical that this debate is being held so shortly after the European elections, which saw the election of a large number of Eurosceptic MAPs from a number of countries across Europe, most notably in the UK, France and Denmark, but also in Austria and the Netherlands. In light of the European Parliament election results, I would like to turn to the first theme of the inquiry, which was the value of EU membership to Scotland, which was one of the three key themes explored by the committee as part of its inquiry. The evidence heard by the committee was overwhelmingly in support of an independent Scotland being a member of the EU, regardless of the views of the witnesses on independence because we had many from both sides of the argument, but they all generally agreed that being in the EU was a good thing. The reality of the EU is the main destination for Scotland's international exports, accounting for around 46 per cent of Scotland's international exports in 2011, with an estimated value of around £11 billion. Those exports support a total of 110,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Can I draw your attention to the importance of free movement and free trade that helps to protect jobs in Scotland and the massive economic benefits that the free trade and a market of more than 500 million people bring to us? Many witnesses brought up all of those topics, many of them stressed the importance of EU membership in a very interconnected and globalised world. For example, Jim Corry, a former European Commission director general, stated, "...we live in a very interconnected world in which one's interests, whether they relate to trade, environmental standards or anything else, really depend on being part of something bigger, particularly if one is a small country on the edge of Europe, notwithstanding that many, many of the small countries on the edge of Europe are all small independent countries." Other witnesses stressed the value of the European single market, which provides for the free movement of goods, people's services and capital within the EU, giving individuals the right to live, work, study or retire in another EU member state. The impact of the EU single market in Scotland can be seen in a number of areas. There are now 160,000 EU citizens from other member states living in Scotland, a number that has helped to reverse Scotland's population decline, as well as making Scotland a more vibrant country. Students from all over the EU are attracted to studying Scotland's 19 world-class universities. For Scottish businesses, the EU represents the main destination for Scottish exports, with an estimated value of £11 billion and 110,000 full-time equivalent jobs.  That is notwithstanding some of the challenges that have been raised with the transatlantic trade agreement, which is maybe something that we will look at at a later date. We should not forget the contributions of the EU in terms of its social agenda either. The principle of equal treatment guarantees EU citizens minimum standards in legislation in relation to employment, with parental leave and sustainable working hours underpinned by EU legislation. The social chapter is its more common term. There is also the commitment to non-discrimination, which is enshrined in article 19 of the treaty on the function of the European Union. It states the EU will, and I quote, combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. All of the issues that, as you know very well, are very close to my heart. Finally, we should not forget the benefits that the EU funding has brought to Scotland over the years. I am sure that everyone in this chamber is familiar with projects that have been funded by European monies, whether it be employability projects, infrastructure research projects and the last funding period between 2007 and 2013. Scotland received 4.5 billion euros in common agricultural policy funding and around 800 million euros in European structural funding. During the course of the inquiry, we were also reminded how the European Union has brought stability to Europe. As Professor Sir David Edward told the committee, the European project was initially related to the prevention of European wars and bringing stability to the continent. Many witnesses raised an interesting proposition that, as individuals within the EU, we have rights that are conferred on us as EU citizens as well, a separate scene that should be investigated a bit further. The committee also sought to explore public attitudes to EU membership in Scotland, with a view to establishing whether Scots were supportive of EU membership. I would like to draw on the 2013 social attitudes study to consider that question. I asked respondents whether, in the event of independence, Scotland should be a member of the EU. 34 per cent said that Scotland should definitely be a member of the EU, while a further 34 said that Scotland should probably be a member. 12 per cent suggested that Scotland should probably not be a member, while only 12 per cent considered that Scotland should definitely not be a member. That would seem to provide clear evidence of support for EU membership in Scotland. Considering the value of EU membership to Scotland, we did not neglect to take evidence on the alternatives. We heard from officials from the European Free Trade Association on membership of the European economic area. The evidence was very interesting, and most of it was taken by video conference. Some of the officials came over to Scotland as well, which was great to explore what EFTA means and how we can understand it and how it is applied. The evidence, in addition to the views of other witnesses, pointed to the lack of formal opportunities for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to influence EU decision making, despite the fact that they need to implement large proportions of EU legislation to address the single market and contribute to the EU budget. Thus, being a member of EFTA and the European economic area does not represent a desirable alternative for independent Scotland. I am sure that there are others who will disagree with that, but the weight of evidence seems to suggest that that was not desirable. The second theme that the committee considers as part of its inquiry was the road to membership, probably the hottest topic in the inquiry, how Scotland would become a member state in its own right. That was the theme that was the subject of the majority of the evidence received, and also the one that had the most divergent views. As one of the witnesses joked, if you get four lawyers in a room, you will get eight different opinions on what might happen. Much of the discussion therefore focused on whether article 48 or article 49 of the treaty on the European Union provide the legal basis for an independent Scotland's membership of the EU. However, there was also a considerable amount of evidence that was suggested that the legal route would be tailored to the situation at hand. Many, many witnesses suggested that the EU find a way to sort out problems that are very pragmatic and they usually find a way. For instance, Professor Laura Cram argued that the lawyers will come up with a compromise. We may have an article 49 process, in practice looks more like an article 48 process. That was a quote from her. I suspect that the legal route for membership will be a key focus of the debate today. I will leave other members to debate this, but I think that it is important to be aware of the many examples of pragmatism in the history of the European Union. I draw that to your attention to evidence that Professor Mr Graham Avery gave to our committee and to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, where he said, that it is absurd and unlikely that an independent Scotland would have to go through the same EU accession process as a non-member state and proposed outline a common sense approach to Scotland's accession to the EU. The third theme that the committee took evidence on as part of the inquiry was the role of small states in the European Union. We had an evidence session with the member of the house of the joint committee on the European Union who provided examples of success that Ireland had over the years in influence EU policymaking, particularly when it held the presidency of the European Council. I am sure that there are very, very few people across Europe who will not describe their holding of that presidency as a very, very successful presidency indeed, when many things that had taken a while to come to fruition were finally solved. We also heard examples of the ways in which small member states had successfully focused their efforts in order to influence EU policy. We heard very, very clearly of working relationships with small states in order to solve problems that maybe the smaller state could not solve on their own, but working together. There was a lot of collaborative working, but maintaining the independence and the policy of pragmatism of that state as well. For example, how Denmark had pursued the development of labour market policies or how Luxembourg's priorities were linked to the financial sector. It was suggested that Scotland, as a member state, could contribute in the fields of research, agricultural policy and energy policy, particularly in relation to renewables, which held a lot of attention for the witnesses that we had at our committee. They were very keen to point out the very, very clear benefits and the very, very clear areas where Scotland is leading the way and how we can continue to do that. Closing, I hope that I have given you a taste of some of the evidence that emerged from the inquiry. I would strongly recommend the committee's report to anyone who is interested in learning more about an independent Scotland's membership of the EU. The report is comprehensive, but I think that it is very straightforward. If I can just thank everyone who has been involved, not all the colleagues on the committee, all the clerks in the committee and certainly everyone who gave evidence and our adviser. I commend the report to you all today. I now call on Fiona Hyslop, cabinet secretary. Ten minutes or thereby please. Just a few weeks ago in this chamber we debated Scotland's voice in the European Union and recognised the importance of engaging with the EU to preserve the achievements of the European project. We recognised that not only has the EU brought us peace and stability for over 40 years, our social, economic and cultural landscape is all the richer for our being a part of it. I remind that I would like to thank the European and External Relations Committee for its efforts to streamline EU issues across the Parliament and inform the public about European matters. A particularly important element of this work has been the committee's Scotland in the EU inquiry, which has brought together a number of eminent EU experts to explore the proposals made in the Scottish Government's Publications, Scotland's Future and Scotland in the European Union. I commend the committee for ensuring that a diverse and balanced array of specialists from a variety of backgrounds has been able to give views on those proposals and contributing to a very comprehensive, accessible and detailed report, which was published on 23 May. A key message heard by the committee was the overwhelming support for an independent Scotland being a member of the EU and that our EU membership would be in the best interests of Scotland and of other EU member states. Elaborating on the reasons for that, the committee's report cites on pages 4 to 9 a number of benefits of our membership of the EU, such as access to a single market bilateral free trade agreements, free movement rights and access to structural and competitive funding. I am encouraged that a number of witnesses in the inquiry agreed that it would be absurd to say that the people of Scotland would stand to lose those benefits simply by virtue of exercising their democratic right to choose a new constitutional settlement. The Scottish situation is entirely different to a new state being formed by annexation, merger or unilateral declaration of independence. Our independence will come about as part of a consensual, democratic and participatory process. That will be entirely consistent with the treaty on the European Union, which states that the EU is founded upon the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. As Sir David Edward highlighted in his evidence to the committee, cited on page 29, the EU treaties quote, create a new legal order of international law. That differs from conventional international law in that the subjects are not only member states, they are citizens. Why then would anyone suggest that 5 million of them should be removed from the European Union for exercising their right to self-determination in a democratic process that exemplifies the EU's finding values? All of what the cabinet secretary has said is very interesting, but it's an assertion, isn't it? It's an assertion just like anyone else who makes an assertion of what might happen is saying, because there's no certainty in this. Is there? Two points on that. What I've just reflected is the evidence that's been provided across a number of witnesses to the committee's inquiry that we're currently discussing. If he really wants to look at uncertainty, look together with your colleagues embedded together, look together with the Conservative Party and look together at the in-out referendum. Your support for the union will deliver for the people of Scotland, and an exit door to the European Union is what your togetherness will provide for the people of Scotland. The minister will be aware that the treaty that covers how the union operates has section 50, where a state may apply to leave, and that's the only provision there is. Is she aware that, under section 5, competencies are given by the member states to the European Union and only those competencies can operate? No compensation appears to have been given to the European Union to allow it to expel citizens or territory. Is that the understanding of the Government? I think that the member makes the point that there is no provision under the European Union currently for citizens that are currently members to leave that. I think that in terms of the arguments that were being made, it makes quite clear common sense that the stability, the continuity, the proposals that we're setting forward about continuity of effect makes sense from everybody's point of view. The ERC's inquiry shows that it's not just the supporters of independence who are questioning the arguments of how and if it would be possible or even desirable for the Scottish people to be left in that situation. The balance of evidence that was heard by the committee from Professor Laura Cram and Jim Currie, for example, accepted that Scotland would of course continue its EU membership post independence and highlighted that a pragmatic and common sense solution could be found. Even David Martin, Labour's most senior MEP, Dr Ian Duncan, who has recently been elected as a Conservative MEP for Scotland, and Sir Graham Watson, who, until the recent Liberal Democrat Wipeout was the president of the European Liberals, have recently acknowledged that an independent Scotland will be welcomed as an EU member. It is noteworthy that not a single witness to the committee considered that Scotland being cast out of the EU would be a desirable outcome. The hiatus in our membership was described in page 3 of the report as absurd, which would abridge the rights of Scots and citizens of other member states. With that in mind, it is clearly in everyone's interests for the Scottish Government's timetable for EU membership to be met. We are confident that our proposals to negotiate membership from within under article 48 of the treaty of the European Union represents the most pragmatic way of doing this. I am pleased that Graham Avery, the European Commission's honorary director general, has recognised the timeframe that we have proposed as realistic on page 63 of the report. I also recommend Mr Avery's recent European Policy Centre publication, which highlights that the EU will look at the case of Scottish independence in a flexible and pragmatic way. Willie Rennie. She has not addressed the terms of membership of an independent Scotland joint of the European Union. Could she address some of those points? I am glad that the member recognises that continuity and membership within the timetable is the right way forward. Therefore, any issue becomes one of the terms of that negotiation in terms of membership and indeed budget. That is why the continuity of effect is satisfactory for both the rest of the UK and the other members bearing in mind, for example, that the budget will have been in operation for a number of years—a budget that has been negotiated very closely over the recent period. So, continuity effect is an important part of the process of saying how we can deliver that to the best effect, not just for Scotland but for other members. The members of the EU are also heard from their Irish colleagues. They provide examples of the successes of Ireland, for example, in negotiation in the budgetary talks that we have just referred to and also on CAP. Of course, Scotland currently receives the lowest average payment per hectare of rural development funding. An independent Scotland would have benefited from EU minimum rates of 196 euros per hectare, and that would have meant an extra £1 billion of support over the convergence period. Ireland also successfully enhanced its key priorities in what was, as Christina McKelvie has referred, an international-claimed presidency of the council. Of course, Ireland has dedicated significant time and resource into building relationships. By the very nature of EU decision making, all member states, regardless of size, form coalitions to achieve their objectives. The shift to a double-majority system of council voting this year is highly significant and improves the position of smaller states. It now means that at least 55 per cent of member states and 65 per cent of the population of the EU are required for a qualified majority in the council. The new voting procedures are more likely to protect and enhance the advantages enjoyed by smaller states and the co-operation and alliances at the agenda. Those states compress for their interests on every occasion. The fact that we cannot do so is unacceptable. With a direct voice, we would be able to address that. Currently, we are forced to accept whatever deal is negotiated for us by the UK. The case for Scotland's future being in Scotland's hands has never been clearer. The election results across the EU send a clear message that citizens want a refocused reformed more accessible Europe in which decision making is brought closer to the people and the local interests that the EU exists to serve. As is set out in our EU priorities for EU reform, the Scottish Government has made a number of proposals on youth employment and social dimensions being brought into economic reform. For example, the living wage and pursuing agendas on energy security, climate change and the low-carbon economy. While there is much that we can achieve as a Government, it is also important to bear in mind the role that this Parliament has to play in informing the electorate about the European Union. The committee has sourced, compiled and simplified a range of information against the backdrop of our constitutional journey. We are forward to the debate this afternoon and urge the committee to continue to compile such balanced and informative information on EU matters. Finally, UKIP's success in topping the poll south of the border in the recent European elections acts as a stark reminder of the threat that people in Scotland face from continued Westminster control. The Conservative Party's promise of an in-out referendum by 2017 reinforces that threat. The real risk to Scotland's membership of the EU is staying with the Westminster Government, which is careering to the exit door of the EU, drawn by a concerted right-wing dogma and drift and a political elite incapable and unwilling to stand up to the pernicious policies of UKIP and instead are being driven by them. The people of Scotland are perfectly capable of thinking and acting for themselves to fight for the self-interest of this country but to do so as part of the international community, co-operating in a peaceful and productive manner. That, Presiding Officer, is the vision of the Scotland we seek. The committee report tells us two things. First, it tells us about the workings of the committee, which produced it, and secondly, and more importantly, about the Scottish Government's proposals for an independent Scotland membership of the European Union. First, I wish to make it clear that the committee was split along the lines of those who want to see an independent Scotland and those who believe that Scotland's best interests will be served by remaining part of a strong United Kingdom within Europe. On the question of what an independent Scotland's position within the EU would be, the evidence showed that nothing is certain. Most witnesses believe that article 49 remains a most likely route towards EU membership and that any negotiations will be tough. The timescale for those negotiations, as set out by the Scottish Government, remains highly optimistic at best. It is also clear that there would need to be amendments to all relevant treaties of the European Union that these would need to be agreed unanimously by all 28 member states. So what is it that will be up for negotiation? The report highlights some of the important areas, such as the single currency opt out. It may be that we would have to commit to joining the euro at a point of entry or at a later time. Given that the Scottish Government is all over the place on the currency and it would not be in an independent Scotland's best interest to keep the pound with no say over interest rates, money supply, the bank's employment targets or crisis measures, perhaps the euro is the nationalist plan B for a future currency. And whether it is the Schengen opt out opt outs for justice and security measures or indeed the rebate itself which would have major financial implications for the people of Scotland on all these matters while there is consensus, tough negotiations would be needed, nationalist ministers still insist that there would be no compromise. That is not the view shared by the many experts who gave evidence to the committee as the report shows. Aiden O'Neill QC stated, one cannot assume that an independent Scotland will inherit all the benefits of negotiations that have previously been carried out on behalf of the UK as a whole. Indeed, the director of the Surrey International Law Centre went further when he said, and I quote, the fundamental flaw in the white paper is that it fails to acknowledge that EU membership of an independent Scotland would require the agreement of the EU institution and member states. They may decide not to offer Scotland opt outs comparable to those that the UK would continue to enjoy. He went on to say that the nationalist government's white paper does not provide a realistic assessment of the probable and foreseeable outcome of accession negotiations. I could continue to quote from many more experts in this field, all of whom say negotiations with the EU would be tough. Are they all wrong? If your definition of wrong is that you disagree with the wisdom of Mr Salmond and Mr John, then yes, I suppose they are wrong. However, there is far too much at stake for all those questions and issues to be brushed aside by nationalists set on independence at any cost. We know that there would be major concerns around the pensions of thousands of Scots due to EU rules on cross-border pensions, but again important issues such as those are just brushed aside. Whether it is internationally recognised experts, whether it is a national association of pension funds, whether it is indeed the president of the European Commission, no matter who it is, if you do not agree with Mr Salmond's grand vision, then you would be wrong. However, this report, even with the amendments of the four nationalists members, which were in my view designed to shift the factual balance, sets out key evidence for the most important issues to face the Scottish people as we move forward to the referendum in September. To summarise the report, there is no clear route to Scotland's EU membership within the EU treaties. The overwhelming legal view is that the correct process for an independent Scotland to follow would be article 49. However, regardless— Stuart Stevenson? Yes, sir. Sorry, could we just sit down a moment, please? Mr Riley, which intervention were you accepting? The gentleman. Mr Mike McKenzie. You're obviously concerned about the possibility of coming out of Europe, but with UKIP winning the elections in the rest of the UK just last week, don't you think that there's a very high chance indeed that the rest of the UK will be coming out of Europe? Alex Shiley? I think that there is widespread consensus that it is in Scotland's interests whether it's party United Kingdom or if the yes vote was successful in September. It's in Scotland's interests to remain party Europe. Where that consensus breaks down and where the evidence that has been given to the committee is absolutely clear is that that would not be straightforward and there would be major negotiations and major risks to the future of Scotland if we were to do so. But if I could move on in terms of summarising this report, the overwhelming legal view is that the correct process for an independent Scotland to follow would be article 49. But regardless of the route taken to EU membership, the agreement of all 28 member states would be required and that I think is important. We need 28 countries to sign up to the agreement. The timescale set out by the SNP are unrealistic as they are continuing off the existing UK opt-outs and rebates. It is clear that the SNP simply dismiss opposing arguments and other points of view rather engaging in the issues. It is unclear what we taught them if the SNP do not get everything they wish for. I wonder, Presiding Officer, if our future in Europe would be less secure under the plans of this nationalist Government and if they are committed to giving the Scottish people an in-out referendum on EU membership if post-independence negotiations are not to go their way. That is a major issue as we move forward. I certainly welcome the report. The report gives a lot of information that people will be able to use as we move forward. I welcome the debate, which comes after almost six months of evidence taken by the European External Relations Committee. We heard from more than 30 witnesses from academics to legal experts, ministers both at a UK and a Scottish level and representatives from other EU countries. We spent over 16 hours in formulating a report following the inquiry and while I believe the inquiry has been comprehensive, I am disappointed with the final report. I have no hesitation in praising the clerks with their initial draft report. As a team, the clerks provided us with invaluable advice and put together a balanced platform of witnesses and reporters in a balanced and fair manner. That is why I am disappointed that I have to start on a slightly sad note. I believe that the first draft of the findings of the inquiry contained in the clerks report was a true, balanced and fair record of the evidence that we received from the witnesses who contributed to this inquiry. Under the code of conduct for members, it would be remiss of me to go into detail as to what that first draft contained, in particular its final conclusions. But let me say that I do not believe the final version of this published report to be an evenly balanced reflection of the evidence presented to us. Members will note on page 82 of the published report, Alex Rowley argues that the committee should agree the draft report without any proposed changes. This was supported by myself and Hans Arlemallick and further to that on page 89 of the final version of the report, members will see that Hans Arlemallick, supported by Alex Rowley and myself again, argued that the original draft of the report on the 24th of April should be included in an annex as a view, as a private, as a different view to the report. Both suggestions were voted down by the SNP members on the committee, thus suppressing the views that had twice been expressed. The convener says that she wants evidence to be available to the public about Scotland's membership to the EU. Then why suppress it then? Previously, the week before this report was published, the Public Audit Committee was allowed to give a minority report to be included as part of an annex. I want to make some progress on this. The treatment shown to opposition members on this committee flies in the face of transparency, which is one of the founding principles of this Parliament, and I condemn it. It could lead people to the wrong conclusions on a vital issue. I would, of course, now prefer to concentrate on the more positive aspects of the inquiry, where many of the witnesses demonstrated an independent mind in what they said. Perhaps we are in danger of repeating similar arguments, which took place only six weeks ago in this chamber regarding the subject, but I am more than happy to reinforce crucial factors as to why there is no automatic right that an independent Scotland could simply accede to membership to the European Union. Not at this point, no. Many of us would previously have been unaware that the entry of independent Scotland to the EU would be based on either article 48 or 49. We heard conflicting evidence from witnesses as to which route an independent Scotland would need to take to accede to EU membership. On my part, I believe that the overwhelming arguments and the legal framework for accession leads us to article 49, which explicitly states that Scotland, or indeed any new state applying for membership, will have to follow the same process. In a nutshell, that means signing up to the euro, agreeing to Schengen, with not even the provisor that we would be accepted, and the timescale of 18 months is unlikely given the fact that it took Croatia almost a decade from applying to being admitted. From the many experienced, influential and key experts who have given evidence to the committee, it is clear that there is no automatic right that an independent Scotland would be admitted to the EU. I think of the contributions to our inquiry. Members, outside the EU that concluded negotiations in 13 months were Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway. That was in relation to the European Commission report, stated 26 April 1994, bearing in mind that negotiation was from outside the EU, and Scotland's negotiations would be from within the EU, and we already comply with the agri-community air. What is your problem in trying to ensure that this is a common-sense, practical and very realistic timescale, as your own Government's legal adviser has said? I think of the contributions to our inquiry made by leading academics such as Kenneth Armstrong, Professor at Law at Cambridge University, who said that the article 48, the so-called fast-track means by which an amendment to the treaties would be sufficient for membership, preferred by the Scottish Government, would be legally implausible and incredibly politically risky. Professor Armstrong went on to say that article 48 is a way of renegotiating the treaties between existing member states, not with some other non-member state, and also are reminded of what Patrick Layden QC said. I quote him, if we decide seriously to leave the United Kingdom, one of the consequences that is reasonably clear and generally agreed is that Scotland will not be part of the European Union. We also need to consider what the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said on Scottish EU membership, and indeed he was supported by his EU Council counterpart, Herman van Rompuy. Only earlier this year, Senor Barroso's deputy, Vivian Redding, wrote to the committee convener stating that when part of the territory of a member state ceases to be part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. But even before these recent comments were made, as far back as 2004, Senor Barroso's predecessor Romano Prodi was saying exactly the same thing. So I reiterate previous comments I've made. Why does this government easily dismiss the views of experts on the EU and respected EU officials? The inquiry looked at three vital themes of how an independent Scotland would have a position in the European Union, as well as the commitment by the Prime Minister for a referendum on the UK's membership of a reformed EU. Let me deal with the last point first. The SNP continually perpetrates the myth that Scots have no desire to take part in the referendum. Despite the fact that, in February, an Ipsos Maori poll concluded that the people of Scotland were more interested in a referendum Europe than in Scottish independence. Figures show that 58 per cent of Scots want an EU referendum. Only 31 per cent want independence. Indeed, 58 per cent are staggering 63 per cent of SNP supporters who believe that a referendum is necessary. I sincerely hope, as a committed European, that we will vote in favour of a reformed EU, but I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept that putting EU membership to the people does not mean, in her words, that we are careering towards a potential exit. We now turn to the open debate. Speeches of six minutes, please, with a little bit of time in hand for intervention at this stage. Annabelle Ewing to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. I am very pleased to have been called to speak in this debate this afternoon and at the outset I would wish to welcome the report of the European Exterior Relations Committee, a committee that I did have the pleasure of being a member of in the earlier part of this parliamentary session. In my view, the committee in its report sets out very clearly the issues under discussion and the views expressed by a number of key players. The report also assiduously references the source documents by way of a plethora of footnotes and, of course, notes the significant number of evidence sessions in the annex to the report. I understand that the evidence sessions ran to some 16 hours with some 30 witnesses being called to give evidence, so I would suggest that this represents a substantial piece of work. I commend the committee members for their hard work and, of course, the clerks. What can a reasonable person conclude from the report? Following a yes vote, Scotland will indeed take its place at the top table in Brussels, where we will be able to speak with our own voice and ensure that our interests are in fact represented as opposed to the rotten deals that we have seen successive Westminster Governments secure for our country and our people. I quote simply the recent CAP renegotiations, where the UK managed to negotiate us to the bottom of the funding table for pillar 1 and pillar 2. Looking to the future, how will it come about that following a yes vote we will be at the top table? Well, the committee report goes through the various stages. We will, as the cabinet secretary said, negotiate our position from the position of within, and that within the 18-month timeframe set out in the Scottish Government's white paper. On the issue of the 18-month timescale for the preparation period following a yes vote to Scotland becoming an independent country on 24 March 2016, it should be recalled, indeed, that it was the UK Government's own legal adviser, Professor James Crawford, who considered such things. That view was echoed by another expert, Graham Avery. We did not hear the no parties quoting for all my wonder why. Graham Avery, of course, is a senior member of St Anthony's College of Oxford. If I could just make some progress, please, is an honorary director general of the European Commission, who negotiated the UK's entry into the EEC, as it was, and who also wrote the membership applications of some 14 other countries. Although the target of 18 months would require intense activity, it is realistic. The next issue concerns the process by which such discussions would ensue. It is clear again from the report that much attention has focused on an analysis of article 48 of the Treaty of European Union and article 49. Again, what a reasonable person can conclude from the lengthy discussions on this point in the report is that a strong case can indeed be made for the article 48 that was proposed by the Scottish Government in the white paper. That reflects the reality of the sui generis situation that Scotland would be in following a yes vote. That is that Scotland will still be, for that 18-month period, a part of the UK. As the member states, Scotland will still apply and be subject to the ACI communitaire, which has been the case for over 40 years. The decisions of Scotland will be deemed to have acquired rights under the EU treaties, as will citizens of other member states, as far as their dealings with Scotland are concerned. Scotland's unique position here has been reflected in the comment cited in the report from one of the recognised architects of the EU, as we know it today. In my view, all the discussion about the rights of states entirely ignores the fact that people here and people who are dealing with us have what are called acquired rights. My view is that the institutions of the EU and the member states, including the UK, have an obligation if there is a vote for independence to ensure that those acquired rights are not abridged or terminated. That imposes an obligation to negotiate before there is any question of separation, before we get to the stage at which there is a new state. I think that that is an authoritative statement from one of the key authoritative figures in the EU legal world, as anybody who knows anything about the EU would recognise as well. Again, somebody not quoted by any speaker from the no parties, I wonder why. The case for article 48 has been that the mechanism has also been supported by Graham Avery, and I point to paragraph 134 of the report. An argument against the formal recourse to article 49 can be found in the comments of Professor Stephen Tierney, who said at paragraph 116, that the lengthy and involved process associated with article 49 might well be considered unsuitable for Scotland's accession, since Scotland is already part of a member state. It meets the Copenhagen criteria and is fully complied with the Ackie community. It is clear from the report that this discussion on the appropriate mechanism must also be seen in the context of the modus operandi of the EU, which is that, as the committee convener rightly said, above all else of pragmatism. Again, we can see in comments from Professor Michael Keating at paragraph 62 that this overarching, pragmatic approach of the EU to dealing with issues is recognised. Perhaps, Presiding Officer, the final question that should be asked, rather, is it in the political interests of the EU to keep Scotland? The answer to that question is quite clear. For the EU is an expansionist organisation based on the rule of law. It respects fundamental human rights, including the right of a people to exercise their right to self-determination. Scotland has 60 per cent of the oil reserves. It has 25 per cent of offshore renewable energy reserves. It has hugely rich fishing resources, top university centres of excellence for research. The only threat to Scotland not being part of the EU comes from the Westminster in-out referendum that is coming. The only way to ensure that we are not dragged out of the EU, taken away from the internal market of 500 million people, is to vote yes on 18 September of this year. Thank you very much. I call Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Willie Coffey. Thank you very much. This is one committee's inquiry, which is more useful for the evidence given to it than for the conclusions drawn by its SNP majority. As with most aspects of the referendum, there are few uncontested facts. Just as the process of secession from the United Kingdom raises a series of questions that cannot be answered with certainty unless or until it happens, so the process of separate accession to the European Union does exactly the same. The report acknowledges that our current access to the benefits of EU membership is a result of the decision that we took collectively as the United Kingdom to join the European community some 40 years ago. The terms and conditions that currently apply are those that are negotiated over time by successive UK Governments. An in-out referendum on Scotland's membership of the UK therefore poses a direct and immediate risk to our continued membership of the EU because our inclusion in the EU is a function of the treaty undertakings of the United Kingdom. As Jamie McGregor reminded us, the European institutions advise that when part of a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. Now it is true that different witnesses took different views about that proposition, but nothing in this report justifies simply disregarding that very clear advice going forward, as the cabinet secretary is clearly keen to do. It took ministers many months to admit it, but nobody now seriously disputes that Scotland would require to negotiate the terms of membership if it was to join us as a separate sovereign state by whatever route. We cannot tell at this juncture what those terms would be, and we have already heard some of the uncertainties regarding membership of the Euro, the Schengen agreement and the loss of access to the UK's Rebit. If it is true that the process of joining the EU is essentially a political one, then any obligation can be waived if the political will is there on the part of every member state to allow a new member to join with a different set of obligations. When his colleague David Martin MEP said that they, the EU, are not going to force us to join Schengen, they are not going to force us to join the Euro, why was his colleague wrong? My colleague was wrong, of course I didn't. If Mr Foam's a use of a listen to me would have heard very clearly that what I said was all of these things can be negotiated as part of a political process, but it's a political process in which every concession on one hand will require a concession on the other hand in order to reach agreement. Each and every member state would have to sign up to all the proposed terms of membership, and the question has to be who would persuade them to do that. At the moment, the Scottish Government's proposition is that an independent Scotland's membership of the EU should be negotiated on its behalf by the Government of the United Kingdom, even while negotiation over the division of assets and liabilities between Scotland and the rest of the UK was still going on. Yet, the United Kingdom would be one of the 28 member states that would need to agree to the accession of a new member state, of course. Does the member recall David Cameron's interview on SCV when he said that he would absolutely support Scotland's membership of the EU? If any trade unionist or lawyer or business leader will tell you that you cannot negotiate simultaneously on the same set of issues with two separate parties and at the same time represent the interests of one of those parties in negotiation with the other, you simply cannot do that. Both parties to any negotiation will have demands to pursue, as well as concessions that they are willing to make in order to reach a deal. The outcome of any negotiation is therefore a matter of judgment on both sides as to what to accept and where to draw a red line. Nicola Sturgeon has already said that her party would regard an opt-out from the single European currency as a red line, which of course means that concessions would have to be made elsewhere in order to obtain agreement to that. Members perhaps think that negotiation is always a one-way street. I can tell them, and I'm sure others can tell them that is not the case. How to balance and make those judgments could only be for Scottish ministers following Scottish independence. They couldn't be delegated to ministers of another sovereign member state to make, nor could UK ministers simply follow a negotiating line laid down for them by the Scottish Government because the primary responsibility of any UK Government would be to represent the national interests of the UK as they understood them, not to represent the interests of any other country, no matter how much they wish to support that country's best interests. Of course, as a supporter of the continuing union with our neighbours, I do believe that the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK are very closely aligned. Those who favour a yes vote do not and cannot believe that, because nobody would vote to leave the UK unless they believed that our interests and those of our neighbours were somehow incompatible. A Scotland that had voted to leave the UK would also have voted for competition with the continuing UK and there would be a whole range of new conflicts of interests that do not currently exist. The proposition that the UK Government could represent Scotland in negotiating accession to the EU and represent the interests of the UK at the same time in dealing with the accession of a potential competitor country simply does not stand up. Only a Scottish Government presumably could negotiate Scotland's accession to the EU and it could only do so once a settlement had been reached on the division of assets and liabilities with the continuing UK and the two states had gone their separate ways. That is why Scotland joining the European Union on the same day as it left the United Kingdom simply could not happen. The point when negotiation over leaving the UK was completed would be the point that would decide when the negotiation on the terms of Scotland joining the EU could start. That question is not answered in this report and perhaps it could not be. Instead, it is for ministers to acknowledge that they cannot negotiate UK c-session and EU accession at the same time and they should set out a realistic time table for both so that voters can make an informed choice in September. Willie Coffey will become the 29th member state of the European Union on Independence Day 24 March 2016 following a yes vote in September this year. It is in Scotland's best interests, the UK's best interests and the EU's best interests for Scotland and our citizens to remain as members during the process of negotiation leading to independence and accession as a new member state. Nobody, not one single witness during the lengthy inquiry undertaken by the committee offered the view that it would be in anyone's interests for Scotland to exit the EU and to apply to get back in at a later date. Yes, witnesses gave differing opinions about the process, the mechanisms of the timetable and many of the issues to be resolved, but no one claimed that there was any benefit for anyone in pursuing a process that would exclude Scotland for any period of time. If the EU is about anything, it's about enlargement and it's a good at finding ways to accommodate situations for which there is no precedent. In 1990, East Germany, which was a communist state that didn't comply with any of the requirements for membership of the EU, joined almost overnight after they were re-unified with West Germany. No treaties were amended and no formal talks were held to consider this, yet the claim by some that Scotland already part of a member state for 40 years and fully compliant with the EU's acroicommunitair would somehow be ejected from membership after a yes vote is surely ridiculous. It's ridiculous for a number of reasons, not least because of the chaos that it would create for the member states, for business and, most importantly, for EU citizens in Scotland and throughout the union. It's ridiculous because it's not in the UK's or the EU's interests to exclude Scotland with 60 per cent of the European Union's oil reserves, a quarter of the Europe's offshore winds and tidal energy, as well as significant slices of European fishing stocks. It's also ridiculous because there's no legal basis to exclude Scotland or our five million citizens after a yes vote. Very grateful to the member for taking that. Does he not accept that the European Union is a treaty-based association of member states and that citizens who choose to leave a member state by implication leave that association until such time as an alternative arrangement can be negotiated? I absolutely don't accept that, and if Mr MacDonald had been part of the committee's deliberations, he would have heard counter-reviews to that. Graham Avery, who has been mentioned on a re-director general of the European Commission, who had a considerable role in membership applications of 14 countries, stated that it is manifestly in the interests of the UK for Scotland to be in the European Union on the first day of its independence. On the question of the 18-month timescale after a yes vote, there was some discussion at the committee on that. Again, Graham Avery commented that while there would require to be some intense activity, it is a reasonable timescale. Mr Avery reminded us that Scotland isn't starting from scratch and can't be compared to new candidate countries with no compliance in any of the EU's laws. There is no need, he said, for Scotland to renegotiate its application of European policies in fields such as the environment, transport or agriculture, but it would suffice to transpose mutatus mutandris. That means change only what needs to be changed, the situation that already exists for Scotland within the UK. The then Irish Minister for Europe, Finne Gales, Lucinda Crichton and TD, also commented on the timescale, saying this. A portion of the committee debate centred around articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty of the European Union, and despite several attempts to ask some imminent witnesses, including the Secretary of State, to point to the article within the treaties that will cause Scotland to be excluded and therefore lead us towards a 49 route, none were able to do so. At no time did I or my SNP colleagues in the committee seek to play article 48 off against article 49, but rather what we did was ask our fellow committee members to recognise that article 48 does offer a suitable legal route for Scotland to pursue. We heard from Sir David Edward, Graham Avery, Professor Stephen Tierney and others that it does just that. I would like to finish off my brief contribution recalling the Croatian ambassador's comments to the committee last year. He said that Croatia was an old nation but a new state. He compared the re-emergence of Croatia as an independent country in 1990 to that of a teenager. He was sensitive, cannot be told what to do, let them make their own mistakes but be smart enough not to repeat the mistakes of others, but above all to have the freedom to do the things that they decide are important to them. Scotland, too, is an ancient nation and we are amongst friends who share with us a long history and common purpose. In many ways we are a linchpin for Europe with our wealth of resources and the ingenuity of our people. Our friends in Europe are waiting with open arms to welcome us and I am certain that we will embrace that welcome and get on with the job of doing what we do best, representing Scotland and being engaged and a committed contributor to European progress. I remind members that, if they decide to take interventions, I can reimburse the time. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Maureen Watt. This is another one of those odd debates that we are having in the run-up to September. One of those debates is where we are arguing about how we can maintain the benefits of the United Kingdom. We have had debates about how to keep the United Kingdom pound, how to keep the United Kingdom's single energy market, how to share the United Kingdom research council funding, retain the United Kingdom's single economic market, the United Kingdom's regulatory regime and so many more debates. Now we are having a debate about how to keep the United Kingdom's preferential terms of membership of the European Union. It is a strange campaign, I have to say, where the nationalists spend more time arguing to keep the things that their plans for independence will break, but we need to remember that in September there is only one option on the ballot paper that guarantees the outcome that both sides of this debate say that they want, which is to keep those preferential terms of membership of the European Union. Now let's look at those preferential terms of the European Union that the United Kingdom has negotiated. A rebate worth €350 million to Scotland in 2012, no requirement to join the euro, Spanish fishing boats excluded from the North Sea, no VAT on children's clothes, food, books and newspapers, a common travel area across the United Kingdom and Ireland rather than the Schengen Treaty and €220 million more in structural funds for Scotland over the next period. Now we know that those are positive benefits, we know that they are positive because the nationalists argue that they should stay, but in the minister's contribution she did not mention one single one of them. She seems to be blind to the fact that those are the exact issues that are under threat by her plans for independence. The SNP also argued, with a certain degree of confidence by then, that the United Kingdom benefits will remain even if we decide to separate from the United Kingdom. They have their favourite experts, they quote them repeatedly and repeatedly, but they have to admit that there are others in this report, many, many more in fact, and of even greater weight who disagree with them and disagree strongly. We've heard Aiden O'Neill, he said, we've heard it already, one cannot assume that an independent Scotland will inherit all the benefits. Dr Sir Varian, who said that member states may well decide not to offer Scotland opt-outs comparable to those that the UK would continue to enjoy. Jim Corry, we've heard from him as well. I think that the negotiations will be tough. Flemish nationalist MEP Mark Demismaker, part of the SNP's affiliated EFA, their group in the European Parliament, said that membership negotiations will be more difficult if Scotland insists on EU opt-outs. Add to that Baroso, the Spanish Premier Rajoy, former Belgian PM Jean-Luc de Hanna, Hem and Van Rompuy, the Latvian Foreign Minister, the Foreign Minister for the Czech Republic, the Danish Foreign Minister. So there are many people who disagree with the experts that the SNP quoted. I admit that there are people who argue for their case on that side, but they also have to admit that there are people who disagree. Does the member not realise that a lot of those issues could be resolved if the UK would take its case to the European Commission? They have said that they would only provide legal advice to a member's state. Does he acknowledge that recent information requests of both the council and the commission have revealed that there is no legal advice that has informed any opinion or comment by either President Baroso or her Ran Rompuy? I think that the minister is rather confused, I have to say. I remember with the Edinburgh agreement where it was specifically said that there would be no pre-negotiations. The SNP Government were not in favour of pre-negotiations for a state that does not exist. It is impossible to have negotiations for a country that has not decided to go independent in the first place. I have listed many, many people who disagree with the experts that they say. The list shows that, when the nationalists imply that there is certainty, the reality is that there is none. If there is any certainty in this debate, it is that Scotland will not enjoy the same beneficial terms of membership of the EU that the UK has negotiated. We turn to the next tactic that the nationalists deploy. When the facts do not back up the argument, they call for a common sense approach to be deployed. I will offer common sense. I think that common sense is underrated in politics. I have never argued that Scotland would be denied membership. I have never taken that approach. My issue has always been that the membership terms of the European Union would be poorer because membership would not be automatic and the SNP Government admits that as well. We know that the UK is viewed as a slightly semi-detached member that enjoys certain freedoms within the European Union. It is tolerated because the United Kingdom is one of the biggest nations that carries a lot of economic and political weight in Europe and across the globe. They put up with it in the European Union because of those differences, but they do not want to encourage it. However, nationalists naively assume that an independent Scotland will be able to dictate terms of membership to the 28 members of the European Union. The common sense is that every member of the European Union will bow down and agree to those terms. It seems illogical—not just now—that I am about to conclude. In conclusion, it makes little sense to deliberately break the relationship with the rest of the UK that guarantees the membership benefits. The SNP openly admits our benefits. It is illogical—it lacks common sense to break that relationship. It is something that I argue should be maintained, and I think that those people in the country who are deciding in September will agree with me. The National Affairs Committee in undertaking this piece of work and producing a very balanced report reflecting the many views of very influential witnesses from a wide variety of backgrounds. Clearly, Scotland's relationship with the EU post a yes vote has become one of the major debating points in the referendum campaign, and to have a document detailing the thoughts of a variety of witnesses is a very valuable reference point. In my contribution, I wish to highlight the industries in Aberdeen and the wider north-east that make a huge contribution to the economy and how they are currently influenced by the EU, and how the scaremongering of the better together parties that Scotland will immediately, after a yes vote, be out of the EU and will have to renegotiate from outside defies all logic and common sense, a point that was made by several of the witnesses in their evidence to the inquiry. Scotland's food and drink and energy didn't give way to me, so Scotland's food and drink and its energy resources are very important to the EU, and their interests have not been well served by having to be represented through successive Westminster Governments. Fishing, since the very beginning of talks relating to Britain's entry to the common market as it was then, has been regarded as an expendable resource. Something used as a bargaining chip to be given up in preference for something more important to the rest of the UK. That, I would argue, is why many fishermen and those in the processing industry have held an antipathy to the EU since the beginning, despite much of their catch being exported to EU countries. It is logical that a Scottish Government minister, speaking on behalf of the Scottish Fleet in Brussels, recognising the importance of the industry, is going to stand up for that industry more than a Westminster minister who has little knowledge or concern of the Scottish Government. Of course, we have seen evidence of that, where Westminster would rather send a minister from another Whitehall department to speak on fisheries, rather than let Richard Lochhead take a lead in discussion, so much for mutual respect. Similarly, we have seen, as Annabelle Ewing mentioned, a Westminster minister in the shape of Owen Paterson come back from Brussels with the worst deal for Scottish farmers of all the farmers of Europe and then add insult to industry by not distributing the monies due to the Scottish farmers to them. It flies in the face of all reason that Scotland could not and would not stick out for a better deal for our farmers and fishermen at the EU top table. But it is not just about selling these communities into the EU. I am very grateful. Does she agree with Bernie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, who said that the downside of that argument is that a Scottish Government would have much less clout in negotiating on behalf of the Scottish Fishermen than the UK Government currently does? We know perfectly well that Mr Armstrong is on a sticky wicket because he is not maintaining the impartiality that an employee of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation should do. That was very clear on Friday of last week. It is not just about selling these communities into the EU. It is the contribution that EU workers are making in working in these industries. I do not know the exact figure, but there are hundreds of men and women from Eastern Europe, whether it be Poland, Latvia, Lithuania or elsewhere, making a huge contribution to the fish processing, meat processing and food production in my constituency. Never mind the rest of the north-east and the rest of Scotland. Not to mention the seasonal workers who come to harvest the wonderful berries and vegetables that are coming into season in the fields of merns and angus. Products that ask the farmers of these products, what is more of a threat to the future livelihoods? UKIP and the Westminster Government are taking us out of Europe or an independent Scotland playing its part as a full member of the EU. Are the Opposition parties seriously suggesting that if the people of Scotland exercise their democratic right to vote for an independent Scotland on 19 September, Scotland, after 40 years of membership, will of midnight not be a member state? Has the Westminster Government advised member states to expect and prepare immediate influx of returnees from Scotland, or advised Spain to warn their fishermen that of midnight on referendum day their most votes must be out of EU waters, or people from Scotland living in other EU states that they will have to come home, or that travellers will not be covered for health insurance by their E111 cards? Scotland is a wealthy country with an abundance of natural resources. A country is already in the EU and a country that will be welcomed to stay in the EU. Willie Rennie forgets to mention that all the opt-outs that we have had are renegotiable. All the opt-outs are up for negotiation in 2020. The Opposition does this country down at every turn. Common sense and pragmatism will prevail on all sides. Fortunately, the Scottish public are seeing through their bluff and bluster, and the polls are narrowing as we approach a day when Scotland can hold its head high as an independent country at the top table in Europe. Before we move on, I remind all members please to address the remarks through the chair, which often helps to keep debates respectful. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Roderick Campbell. I want to see countries across Europe and the world co-operating and developing relationships in the interests of working people. I want to see a social Europe where we create jobs, raise living standards and live in peace with our neighbours. There is little doubt that Scotland has gained from being a member of the EU in many ways. In my area, the regeneration of the cold fuel communities is an excellent example of that. However, the EU is an institution in desperate need of economic, social and political reform. Last month's European elections showed that, across Europe, people have had enough of the imposed austerity from the troika of the IMF, the World Bank and the ECB. Enough of the lack of democracy where decisions are made that impact on people's lives, yet they have little say over who is making them and why they are being made. Enough of the neoliberal economic agenda that works in the interests of corporations and financial institutions against the interests of working people. The recent European elections have brought parties far right and left into the European Parliament. Now we see neo-Nazis elected in Germany, Greece and Hungary and the far right elected in the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Italy and France. European powers and elites must take notice of those concerns, not by appeasing the dark forces of the right but by addressing the concerns of people across Europe because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Against that political background, an independent Scotland would be negotiating EU membership and negotiation there would have to be. Regardless of the route of those negotiations, one thing is clear. All EU states have to agree to Scotland joining. I have heard the Deputy First Minister say why, of course, he would want us to join. Why wouldn't he? We have so much to offer and that may be true. Let me give him several reasons why he may object to membership in itself or the terms of it. We have separatist movements in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Spain and many more nations across the continent, all seeking to break away from their current member state. If they agree to Scotland's membership, it could lead to an intensification of separatist sentiment across Europe and give the green light for further break-up in these European states. I agree with the member on the need for a social Europe. Would he prefer David Cameron to argue for the social reforms that we need in Europe on behalf of the Scottish people or would he prefer a Government of any colour from Scotland doing that instead? I would certainly prefer a Labour minister negotiating on behalf of Europe. I certainly wouldn't like the minister negotiating on behalf of me to negotiate the price of a bag of potatoes at my local market. The member agrees that one of the great weaknesses of the SNP position on Europe is that there is no precedent for what they want to achieve and that the reason why each and every one of those countries that the member mentioned will worry about this process is that Scotland's position might set that precedent. That is why they will be offended by it. Neil Findlayne, you will be reimbursed for the interventions. It goes against every bone in my body, but I agree with the member. There is a possibility that that would give the green light for further break-up in those European states too. Do we expect countries, as they are required to do, to vote unanimously for Scotland to join the EU against that background? Does the Government support, for example, independence for South Tyrol or Carinthia, for Wallonia or Flanders or Vito or Brittany or Corsica or any of the rest of those regions that have separatist movements within them? Is that what they want? Do they want the break-up of Europe into smaller and smaller states? I am happy to give way to the minister if he wants to tell us that he does. Is that in your interest, certainly? I am very grateful to the member for taking his mention, but I alluded to it in my own remarks. There is something called the fundamental right of a people to self-determination. Does the member recognise that fundamental right? Neil Findlay. Is that what the Government wants? Does it want smaller and smaller states? If the answer is yes, tell us that that is the case. Is that in the wider interests of Europe? I would like to believe that Scotland would keep all the opt-outs, be able to reject everything that it does not like and keep our share of the UK rebate a position that is likely to be a better position than that. What many of the countries who are expected to vote as in have negotiated. I suggest to the minister when she talks about negotiation that she phones up one of her trade unions and lists on a negotiated course. If she wants the number, I really think that she will need it if that is her approach. Recently, I spoke to a group of Swedish social democrats and they could not believe that the Scottish Government thought that they could join the EU yet remain outside the euro. That is the rules of the game and that is the euro that the First Minister was committed to joining only a few years ago but bind in favour of a currency he said was dropping like a stone and a millstone round our neck. Finally, Presiding Officer, I understand the cabinet secretary has new legal advice on the EU membership. Who can forget the fiasco of the last lot of legal advice the Government had? In the depths of her recession, she spent tens of thousands of taxpayers' money to prevent the release of that advice. Indeed, I have the advice there. That is the there, a blank sheet of paper with all the credibility of her losing bookies line. Let's hope that the legal advice she has now actually exists and she will share it with us at some point in the near future. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate as a member of the European External Affairs Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the clerk in particular for the considerable amount of work and effort that has gone into the report. As the convener has indicated, the report had three themes. In relation to theme one, I think it's right to say that the evidence that we heard was supportive of Scotland's membership of the EU. Indeed, while we considered possible Scottish membership of the EEA and EFTA, the disadvantages of that, the requirement to accept a body of law without having a political say were apparent, not to mention also a requirement to make a financial contribution to the EU without representation. Scotland's attitude to Europe was felt to be less Eurosceptic, a position that I don't think has changed with last week's election. In that context, while much is made of UKIP's poor performance in London, it did, I believe, get 16.7 per cent of the vote, more than twice as much as UKIP pulled in Scotland's capital city Edinburgh. The main division of opinion we heard as a committee, however, concerns Scotland's route to membership, theme two. As to the great article 48 versus 49 debate, I think the points I would emphasise from that debate is firstly that the treaties are silent as to Scotland's precise position and that is not disputed. And secondly, that the scenario predicated by a yes vote in September has not been put to the commission. If the UK government really wanted greater clarity, then they could put that request to the commission. Moreover, even supporters of article 49, such as Professor Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Law at Cambridge University agreed, negotiations could commence immediately after a yes vote. The idea that nothing will happen after a yes vote for 18 months is simply not tenable, to do nothing simply risk blowing a hole in the single market, which is in no one's interests. And that the idea that Scotland was somehow to find itself in the position in March 2016 of having 5 million plus EU citizens without rights because of their residents seems unrealistic, including, of course, 160,000 citizens of the present time. Indeed, one matter, which came across loud and clear, is that EU citizens have rights over and beyond the rights of citizens of individual member states. And to deprive those citizens of rights might inevitably lead to legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice. What was absolutely fundamental about the evidence of Sir David Edward, of course, as the cabinet secretary has already referred to, is that the treaties of the EU create a new legal order of international law, which differs from conventional international law. We set this out on page 29 of our report. That was not incorporated in the initial draft report of the committee. I'm still waiting for any kind of coherent explanation from Opposition members as to why they sought to prevent that being incorporated in our final report. It's not about SNP bias. It's about having proper regard to the evidence to perhaps the most distinguished practitioner on these matters that we have in Scotland. Someone described by Vivian Redding, a European commissioner, as one of the great architects of Europe. As to Schengen and the common travel area, we had no evidence to suggest that any member state would oppose Scotland's membership of the common travel area. Such comments, as we heard about border controls, have come in the press from those such as Theresa May, the Home Secretary, as being necessary if Scotland were to be so bold as to have a different immigration policy to the rest of the UK. Frankly, I don't believe that these matters can't be negotiated, and I noticed that Alistair Carmichael studiously avoided banging that drum at his appearance before the committee. Let's also remember in terms of the EU budget that Scotland is not seeking to reopen the EU budget for the next financial period, and that, of course, Scotland, like the rest of the UK, will be a net contributor. I accept, of course, that some witnesses found the timetable of 18 months put forward by the Scottish Government unrealistic. It's certainly tight, but I believe doable. Instead of talking about cues for membership, it would be much more positive for David Cameron and others, having indicated that they will support Scotland's membership, and we're grateful for that, to outline what they will do to facilitate that membership in the event of a yes vote. Theme 3 of the committee's report, of course, deals with the role of small states in the European Union. Small simply means having less than the average number of votes in the European Council. Scotland would be one of 21 small states out of 29 states in the EU. On that basis, as the European movement in Scotland pointed out in written evidence, so far nothing unusual about Scotland, just one of many small states. On the role of small states generally, it's worth remembering that the rest of the UK would, without Scotland, still qualify as a large state, while Scotland would be a small state. European councils waiting for qualified majority voting determines that large states have 27 to 29 votes, while small states have 3 to 4 votes. Therefore, where there is a common interest, the combined votes of Scotland in the UK could be marginally greater. The same general principle could apply to the European Parliament, where Scotland has only six MEPs, where Ireland has 12, for example, at the present time, although, except of course, there is a current limit on the number of MEPs. In addition to co-operating, when there are shared interests, the whole point of having more direct Scottish representation in the EU institutions is so that we can pursue policies that are right for Scotland when we don't share Westminster's priorities. As Professor Michael Keating said, Scotland may wish to take a different path from the UK on agriculture, and Ireland generally does. At the same time, we heard evidence from Dara Murphy, a member of the Irish Parliament, who said that it's fair to say that our best relationship in the EU is with the UK. There are many reasons for that. We share many objectives and targets with the UK, and on most issues, Ireland and the UK share a common position. However, he went on to say that we all know the history, but now, when we go into Europe, we go in as equal partners and member states, and that's the way that I perceive Scotland proceeding. The committee also heard evidence from Jim Curry that his general view is that small nations in the European Union are at their most effective when they choose their targets carefully. Small nations do need to prioritise a network, something that I have no doubt that Scotland is well equipped to do. Finally, I would have preferred the report to have had no conclusion to leave the reader themselves to reach their own conclusions on this comprehensive report, but having had a conclusion at all, I think that it did need to reflect all of the themes in the report. The convener of our committee talked about the valuable contribution and informing the public about this debate that was the aim of the committee in undertaking deliberations, and I think that the report stands as a good example of informing the public. I would also like to thank the many organisations across Scotland for conducting similar exercises, and particularly I would like to thank the Royal Society of Edinburgh for providing their briefing for today's debate based on their series of public discussion events enlightening the constitutional debate. I can also associate myself with comments from the convener in thanking Dan Cinelli, the committee adviser, those who appeared at witnesses and provided written evidence to the committee, and also the clerking team for their excellent work. Before I turn to the report, I would like to address some of the contributions to this afternoon's debate. Mr Rennie intervened in the cabinet secretary wanting to know about the terms of what Scotland's relationship would be in independent Scotland with the EU. Perhaps he can enlighten us as to the terms of the renegotiated relationship that the EU and its coalition leader, Mr Cameron, is undertaking at the moment, because the truth is that there is no status quo in a no vote, and that this is a choice for an independent Scotland with Europe or an renegotiated relationship of which there is no certainty and no detail on, followed by referendum, given UK success in winning the European elections last week in England, we will see Scotland ripped away from Europe against our will. I would also like to comment on Mr McGeiger's contribution. I was very disappointed. I did not share his recollections of how the conduct of the committee happened. As a very experienced member, I was very concerned to say that there was lack of transparency. As he knows that all the amendments that were voted on in the report appear in the appendix, it is evident to everyone to see what changes were made during the committee's deliberations. This is extremely transparent to people. However, what I was most surprised about was the key evidence that Mr McGeiger picked up on were Mr Buroso's comments. I remind him that on page 27 of the report in paragraph 96, where it includes Mr Buroso's contribution on the Andrew Marshall, the footnote at the bottom of that page will show that Mr McGeiger did not want that included in the final report. I understand, Presiding Officer, that I raise that purely in the interests of transparency. I also find it somewhat bizarre that Mr Rowley, at the end of his contribution, welcomed the report despite the fact that he descended from it. Mr Finlay, in his contribution, was painting a picture of a very suspicious European Union going forward, one that would view Scotland somewhat unfavourably. I have mentioned the enlightening of the constitutional debate, which is a series of discussions held by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. During their process, Professor Neil Walker of Edinburgh University was asked about how that would be viewed specifically and how other separate nations would be viewed within the EU. Professor Walker responded in two respects. First, the first was that those states must be required to act in the context of public reason. They must give good public reason against Scotland's accession to the EU, which makes sense as part of the history of the European Union. He felt that states would struggle to make the case. In the second point, he said, if Scotland did secede from the UK, it would not be contrary to the constitutional process, rather it would be consensual, as distinct from other national minorities seeking independence. Scotland's Scottish independence should be realised, should it be realised, would have constitutional legitimacy. That is not assertion, that is not the words of an SNP minister. Those are the words of Neil Walker, the religious professor of public law and the law of nature and nations at Edinburgh University. Is the member aware of the comments today by the Swedish Foreign Minister, who has expressed his concern about the balkanisation of Britain? His words are not mine. I think those comments were very unwise. To use balkanisation as a comparison to Scotland is simply illegitimate. It is very unfortunate that the member seems to think that that is an appropriate comparison to Scotland's situation in this chamber today. Our report was conducted under three themes. The first theme was the independent Scotland of the European Union, theme 2 was the road to that membership and theme 3 was about small states in the European Union. We have not had time to cover most of those this afternoon, but I would say that the Edinburgh agreement is absolutely key to what happens going forward. It has been key to the legitimisation of this process, and it stands us in good stead, as Professor Neil Walker has said, that constitutional legitimacy. I think that the members on the other side forget that the European Union is about expansion, it is about inclusion, it is about building relationships, it is not about putting up barriers to Scotland's membership on independence. From the time that I studied sociology at university, I have always been fascinated by the way in which groups in society behave in certain circumstances. Recently, I was reading about the work of Ron Cramer, who is a sociologist at Western Michigan University, who has been studying how sociological factors are preventing Americans from acting on climate change. He drew on the research of sociologist Stanley Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the London School of Economics, who cites three categories of denial. Firstly, there is literal denial, which is the assertion that something did not happen and is not true. He then explains interpretive denial, in which the basic facts are not denied but are given a different meaning from what seems apparent to others. Finally, he outlines implicatory denial, which covers how knowledge itself is not an issue but where the challenge is doing the right thing with that knowledge. A short time after reading about that thesis on climate change denial, I came to read the European and External Relations Committee report, which we are debating this afternoon. I could not help but apply the same sociological theories of Cramer to the work of the SNP members on that committee, for I had all the traits of denialism that Professor Cohen had identified. To the lexicon of climate change denial, evolution denial, the SNP now appears to have added EU real-politic denial. I fully accept that any political debate that we politicians will draw on the support of academics and experts whose comments suit our purpose. That is the stuff of politics. However, it is simply not acceptable for any party group in this Parliament to use its majority to so skew a report away from a balanced consensus in the way that has clearly been done with this report. Of course, there were witnesses who gave evidence, which were more advantageous to one side or the other. I believe that the balance between competing perspectives was fairly struck in the original draft. The draft is there, and it additions to the draft. Your own report. The changes to the report are in the appendix for all to see, and there is no lack of transparency about the legitimate process of this committee in developing this report. I am not saying that this was not transparent. It is absolutely transparent to see through what you have done in relation to the evidence. So much for the evidence that was treated. What about the evidence itself? How Scotland would join the EU is a significant part of the committee's deliberations on that, and I believe that the arguments of Professor Kenneth Armstrong and John Claude Perris outwead those of Graham Avery. They are both weighty evidence, but I think that one outwead the other. So I am left in no doubt about reading that report that the direction from the European Court of Justice points to article 49 being the appropriate legal route to membership rather than article 48. Article 48 deals with treaty revisions between member states, but Scotland is not a member state. Importantly, opening up of the treaty of the EU could result in other revisions being proposed by other member states, which could delay the process of a session very considerably. An article 48 does not deal with the process of a session and was not written in a way to cover it. That is what article 49 is for. It is article 49 that covers the process of accession to the EU. It declares that any European state can apply to be a member of the EU, but Scotland would not become a member state until independence in March 2016, not on September 19, so it could only apply for membership when it becomes an independent state. The committee took a lot of evidence, but I would like to draw on evidence that I have found available from other sources. I am a bit puzzled that the committee did not hear from the recognised expert Professor Mac Quattrop, for example, as even the Finance Committee saw Professor Quattrop's views after he was suggested by the SNP as a suitable witness on post-referendum scenarios. I found Professor Quattrop's paper to the Finance Committee very compelling, not because he said what I would like, but precisely because it didn't. His evidence presented an overview of the legal issues pertaining to the possible succession of Scotland from the United Kingdom. Professor Quattrop suggested that international law and existing norms are few and far between, but that on many issues such as membership of international organisations, they are relatively well established. You are quoting there, in fact, was invited to the committee. I didn't say it was invited. There's no evidence from him at that committee. The evidence that I'm drawing from is... I said there is no evidence in the committee's report. I'm not criticizing him. I am drawing on the evidence. Mr MacMahon has the floor. Can we just be allowed to hold it, please? I am drawing on the evidence that Professor Quattrop provided to the Finance Committee. That's the only point I'm making. Professor Quattrop provided a very balanced view of arguments for and against each side of the debate, but concluded that it was likely that Scotland will have to apply for membership of international organisations such as the EU. Quattrop states that, in his view, it was open to question as to whether Scotland would actually be admitted, but I disagree with him on that as I find it inconceivable that we would not. However, here is where the SNP cannot deny the real politic of the EU. Existing states will have the final say on Scotland's route into the EU, and no matter what the SNP would like to think, some countries have already made it clear what their position is. For example, Tomaslaw Sosia, chief of staff writing on behalf of Creation PM Zoran Milanovic, has said that there can be no shortcuts. As a matter of policy, Croatia strictly adheres to the position that all prospective EU members have to undergo a thorough, strict and fair negotiating process, fully adapting to the body of legislation, the rules and the procedures of the EU. That is the real politic of the EU, but the manner in which the majority group on the European Committee has refused to accept that reality has regrettably led to them producing a report that is so contorted and manipulated that it does at this service, not only to this Parliament but also to the people of Scotland who should have been informed in order to assist them in coming to a judgment on the question of our country's potential succession from Britain.urthwchfaith Thank you very much Presiding Officer, do forgive me if I get a bit technical... I think I'm the only one who has in front of me the 328 pages of the European Treaty Union. I may quote from that relatively liberally. I want to deal with one or two things that have risen in the debate, and in particular, with 68 Rowley's comments on pensions, ond. I asked him to take it into mention three times he had the opportunity to have greater clarity than he was able to provide. Let me just say to him, as a matter of fact, and this is verifiable, first fact, there are over a million people living outside the United Kingdom who receive the United Kingdom State pension. About 600,000 of them live in Spain, but the rest of them are spread around the world, and this is not new, by the way, because I worked on a computer system that delivered the payments to these people 30 years ago for the Department of Work and Pensions based in Newcastle. Nothing new. On private pensions, which is the other kind of pensions, standard life has been operating in China for 30-plus years. It's been operating in Canada for 50 years, paying pensions. Pensions are an international industry, and indeed, in terms of US mutual funds, Edinburgh, not now, but certainly used to be the place where more than 50 per cent of US mutual funds were valued. Finance is international, Scotland is involved in pensions, pensions are paid transnationally, and if Mr Rowley had accepted an intervention, we could have shot that one out of the water earlier. Jamie McGregor, and I very specifically wrote down the words he used. He said that evidence has been omitted. I wrote it down because that's what he said, he would not take my intervention. I'm glad that others have made it quite clear that the evidence is all in front of us. What has certainly been changed in the debate in the committee is the conclusions reached from the evidence, but I can see and I've heard nothing to suggest any evidence whatsoever has been omitted. Lewis MacDonald said that we can only have negotiations bilaterally. That's very interesting things, since I have myself taken place curiously enough in the boardroom of the Bank of England, with 12 people competing around the table, negotiating from entirely different viewpoints, but the training that I had from that excellent Glasgow firm, Scottwork, in negotiation meant that I could, and others with similar training, negotiate if Mr MacDonald wishes. I'm very grateful to Mr Stevenson. My point was not that there was a difficulty with bilateral negotiation or only bilateral negotiation. My point was that you can't negotiate with another party and then represent that party in negotiating with someone else at the same time. That's simply not possible. That, I understand, is the Scottish Government's proposition. I realise that Mr MacDonald has limited business experience, but I can assure him that in the business world what he has just described is something that's done. I cannot put on the record for business confidence. I'm happy to meet him afterwards and give him chapter and verse and anyone else on a private basis. Now, let's talk a little bit about some other things. I will not, not from that source. The Vienna convention on successor states, article 16, specifically makes clear that only newly independent post-colonial states can receive a clean slate in relation to treaties. Article 341 of the Vienna convention on successor states makes it clear that states that are coming from an existing state inherit without option all the treaty obligations of the predecessor state. The legal position can be argued about, and I absolutely accept that there's a lot of opportunity for lawyers to have fun here. Now, let's go to a QC, okay? Just a small point of detail. We did take evidence from Patrick Layden, QC, who formed very much that view in relation to successor states. He slightly changed his opinion when he gave evidence to us, but he says that the position is still tenable. I'm obliged to, I think, the only QC that we have as a member of the Parliament at the moment since Gordon Jackson left us. Willie Rennie talked about the difficulties in keeping the pound. Actually, the opposite is the case. It's about whether we'll allow the people south of the border to keep the pound because it's the pound sterling, and sterling is, of course, based on the silver out of sterling. And let me just say, in July last year, the Bank of England allowed Danska Bank to start issuing sterling notes. If Danska Bank can issue sterling notes, I rather suspect that we might be able to see other people do it as well, perhaps even Scotland. And incidentally, the Bank of England notes don't say they're sterling. Only the Scottish notes, the Northern Irish notes, the Bank's notes, the Gibraltar notes, the Falkland notes, the Jersey notes, the Guernsey notes, aren't there quite a lot of them? It's quite interesting, isn't it? They all say they're sterling, but the Bank of England notes curiously enough don't. Very interesting indeed. Michael McMahon talked about climate change in relation to the United States. Well, Obama this week has laid legislation to tackle the coal industry, both for environmental reasons and for health reasons and for economic reasons. So I think that we can be quite clear that the United States will look at the evidence. Now, I try and read as many things as I can. I was reading Politiken this morning, which is the Danish political journal, and they were talking about this subject. And it's quite clear the danger. On this backed up by the meetings that I've had with the Danish ministers over the years, they will be perfectly happy to sit with us in independent Europe. Now, of course, the final thing, Presiding Officer, let me just say that the reality is—he's probably the rest of the UK that's got the problem— because protocol 3 requires that you're a democracy to be a member of the EU. The UK isn't, because we cannot dismiss the majority of our legislators at an election. Scotland, we welcome the problems elsewhere. And we move now to the closing speeches, and I call on Alex Johnston up to seven minutes, please. Can I begin by confessing to the chamber that I lack the breadth of experience that Stuart Stevenson has, but nevertheless I have opinions and the chamber are about to hear them. We started at the opening of this debate with first from Christine McKelvie and then from Fiona Hyslop, with 25 minutes of SNP propaganda. Having sat through that amazing marathon, it was then further to my amazement that, when Alex Rowley began to speak, that he was suddenly inundated by attempts to intervene and attack what he was having to say. We have to defend the right to speak in this chamber. We have to defend the right to have differing opinions. During the course of the debate, I believe that we have heard the unique situation in which I personally and Neil Findlay agreed about something, and if we can do that, then we can work our way through this argument. However, the nature of this report is one that has been called into question by a number of speakers. The problem we have is that we have a report that reflects the opinion of the SNP. In spite of the fact that they have objected repeatedly to the comments that have been made, speakers from other parties have objected to the fact that their opinion was not expressed in the conclusions of that report in the way that they would wish it to do. That report is about Europe and Scotland's prospects of becoming involved in it. However, the SNP seeks at every opportunity to ensure that the waters are as muddy as possible, and it is my intention to try and unmuddy these waters. Fiona Hyslop, at the start of her contribution, made a reference to the EU project. I want to talk about the EU project. There are those outside the United Kingdom in central Europe who have been committed for generations to bringing Europe together on a political convergence path. In recent years, we have seen monetary and currency union achieved in parts of Europe. The result of that, unfortunately, has been that the direction of the European Union has been one that has been un-conjusive to Britain's best interests. As a result of that, we have seen a number of things happen recently. Let's first look at the European election, which took place only two weeks ago. The outcome of that election is that there has been instability fermented in many European countries. We have seen extreme parties elected in a number of European countries. If we look at key election results, such as that, in the United Kingdom and in France, we have seen parties of the extreme right anti-Europe parties coming to the fore. I suggest that that is evidence, if it were needed, that the European project is coming off the rails. At this moment, we have here in Scotland the Scottish National Party demanding, no, absolutely asserting that an independent Scotland could, would and should be part of the European Union. Yet, at the same time, they expressed no view on the direction that that European Union should take. At the same time, in other parts of the United Kingdom and in other parts of Europe, people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the direction of Europe needs to change. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of this country, the last time I checked, has absolutely declared that it is his intention to have a referendum on the continued membership of the European Union in 2017, if he is re-elected, but only after re-negotiating Britain's role within the nature of the European Union. David Cameron is determined to make that change, and he made that statement before the European election took place. Yet, at the time of the European election, it was demonstrated that the appetite that he expressed is not simply his own that it exists right across Europe. That is why it is unacceptable that the position of the SNP in this process would deny the people of Scotland the opportunity to participate in that process of re-negotiation followed by a referendum. The assertions are often made in this debate, but it was made that, in Scotland, we do not hold that opinion. Yet, as we heard from Jamie McGregor earlier, polling evidence exists to the contrary. In February this year, anipsos Moray poll concluded that the people of Scotland were far more interested in a referendum on Europe than they were in supporting Scottish independence. 58 per cent of Scots want an EU referendum, but only 31 per cent interviewed in the same poll actually wanted Scottish independence. If you look at the decisions that were made by those who claimed that they would vote Conservative or SNP—surprisingly enough, I suppose—65 per cent of those who would vote Conservative wanted an EU referendum, while 63 per cent—only 2 per cent less—who claimed that they would vote SNP also wanted an EU referendum. Meanwhile, the poll also found that only 61 per cent of SNP voters actually wanted independence, so the evidence is there that Scotland wants to participate in this process. I believe in our continued membership of the European Union, but not the European Union that we have today. We must renegotiate our position and we must then commit ourselves to it. Could Mr Johnston, at some stage during his speech, refer to the report? The nature of this report was questioned at the outset. The nature of this report reflects the opinion of the SNP. Unlike the members of the SNP, I believe that I live in a democracy, where I believe that I am allowed to determine how I debate this issue without the approval of the Scottish National Party. To come towards a confusion, there have been a number of concerns expressed during this debate, but I would like to express my concern over those. First, the pick-and-mix approach, where the SNP simply chooses the particular academic or evidence-giver that agreed with them and then asserts that they are the only people with a logical or a rational opinion. That is not the case, and we must defend against that mistake. Secondly, we have heard the political commitment or the political balance of others questioned in a courageous way in relation to Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, which I think is an accusation that warrants an apology. We have also heard members continually harassed for holding an opinion that is this or that. This report is an important contribution to the debate. There is much more to learn from it than simply what appears in the conclusions, and I believe that we must be restocked now. I call on Mr Rowley up to seven minutes, please. I can begin by picking up on Stewart Stevenson's point, and I obviously bow to his expertise and pensions, but the fact is that the European Commission confirmed on 26 March that private pension schemes, which were cross-border schemes, would continue to be impacted by the regulations that were set out. That, at that point in time, caused Johann Seegar's chief executive of the National Association of Pension Funds to say that today's announcement of new EU pension directive has major implications for pension schemes as part of the debate on an independent Scotland. It is not to say that you will not try to find solutions to that, but the fact is that, for many Scots—and it actually hits on the wider point that I am trying to make—for many Scots, that is a serious issue. In terms of the actual pension funds in the UK that would be in deficit, the deficit is estimated to amount to about £250 billion. That relates to people who are employed in a lot of large companies such as RBS, Royal Mail, the university scheme, HCBC, BT and BP. There are, for a lot of Scots right now in this debate, a serious issue. The main issue and what I have tried to get across in moving in this report today is that it is not acceptable to simply dismiss arguments or dismiss issues or indeed dismiss people if they do not accept their view or if they are not accepting the view that is presented by the nationalists. Mike McKenzie With me, the issue of fully funded pensions irrespective of independence is indeed an issue that we all have to deal with going forward in that the EU has perhaps some merit in the approach that it is taking. Mike McKenzie I do not want to get bogged in the discussion and debate on pensions. I simply make the point and reply to the point that Mr Stevenson makes that you simply cannot dismiss people's concerns when they raise legitimate concerns on legitimate issues. That seems to be the approach of the nationalist government. If you do not agree with us, you are wrong and we are right. That is the point that needs to be picked up. As we move forward in this debate, we need to be able to have an honest debate on the key issues that are impacting on the people of Scotland so that people can have all the facts in front of them and be able to make a decision based on those facts. It will then be for us as parliamentarians to accept that decision, but we cannot continue to dismiss every argument just because we do not agree with that. Coming back to the comments, Clare Adamson mentioned that she was surprised that I was able to welcome the report. I do welcome the report. As Christina McKelvie said, the clerks and the advisers to the committee did a really good job on pulling together all the different evidence that was given and then to present that evidence. That is why I and two of my colleagues on the committee actually believed that we should support the draft report that came forward. It was neutral. It had money to be able to pull the different opinion. It was together, sadly, the nationalist members of the committee tried to skew that report by the amendments that were being put forward. The evidence of that is that we have heard today umpteen times about Graham Avery and the evidence that Graham Avery gave. I accept that Graham Avery has a specific opinion. I think that he was the only person who really argued that the timescale set out by the nationalist Government to achieve that would be achievable within 18 months. All the other evidence said that the timescale was not realistic. Crawford, who said that the UK Government's own legal adviser said that the timescale was realistic. Does he disagree with the UK Government's own legal adviser on this matter? What I am saying is that the evidence that has been taken for this committee, apart from Graham Avery, the evidence is overwhelming that the timescale set by the Scottish Government would be very difficult to achieve. That was the point in terms of the report itself. The nationalist members of the committee wanted to pick and choose the quotes that best suited their argument and bring them forward and put them into the debate. I am sorry, I have to make progress. They wanted to pick them up and actually take them and put them into the debate, but you know the key argument. I think that Willie Rennie made the argument when he talked about the certainty and the uncertainty. We could argue over whether it is article 48 or article 49, even though the overwhelming legal view and the report for anyone who reads it sets out very clearly. The overwhelming legal view is that article 49 is the correct way to go forward. We could argue over article 48 or 49, but the key issue is whether or not you would be able to negotiate a position with 28 countries, the rest of the 28 countries in Europe, and that your starting point of negotiation is that you are going to win every argument that is put forward. That, as a trade unionist, was never a position that I was taught training as a trade unionist in a shops tour for 17-year-old. Your starting point in negotiations was that you were basically going to win every argument. That is why the important issue that needs to be flagged up for the people of Scotland in terms of going forward in Europe. Yes, I think that it is a myth to suggest that we would not be in Europe. The question is, on what terms would we be in Europe? Would it be the same terms and conditions that the UK Government, successive Governments have negotiated over many, many years? If not, what would the implications be? I think that I have been on record speaking to the minister previously in terms of Schengen and making the point that it would be very difficult to break down barriers with the rest of Europe and put them up with the rest of the UK, but the rebate £350 million a year for Scotland. That is what is at risk. I think that we need to be honest with the people of Scotland in this debate. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, if you want to hysl up between eight and nine minutes, please. I welcome the wide range of comments on the final report in this debate. It has shown strength of commitment to Scotland's role in Europe. I have enjoyed the debate, even if I did not agree with all the points in the debate. Once again, I commend the committee for ensuring that a balanced number of specialists from a variety of backgrounds have been able to give their views on those proposals. I also note that Alex Rowley acknowledged and quoted from the range of views and welcomed the report. The Parliament has demonstrated a positive and ambitious perspective on the role that Scotland can play in the EU. The Scottish Government is of the view that, truly, to fulfil our potential as a nation, we need the full powers of independence. I am pleased to have seen that a consensus emerged that an independent Scotland will be a full member of the European Union. Willie Rennie indicated that he never denied that we would be members. His focus was on terms. Alex Rowley has just reiterated that point. Overall, I am pleased that the focus has moved on to the capabilities of an independent Scotland in the EU. I agree with Alex Rowley's points about Schengen. It practically makes sense in terms of the common sense that was spoken about, that we share a system that also includes the Republic of Ireland. On the Euro, I agree with David Martin that he would not be able to force us to join the Euro. On the rebate, I might point out that the negotiations of the budget have already established the budget proposals for 14 and 20. Therefore, the argument that we are putting forward of no detriment to any other country and continuity have an effect. One of the reasons, obviously, is that if you open up the rebate, you open up a whole range of other things by which Scotland would be beneficiaries that would not be necessary to the interests of other countries. That is why it is in other countries' interests to have a continuity effect and no detriment. I want to move on and make some progress. There is also a widening growing consensus that the situation in Scotland is unprecedented, that there is self-interest for a renegotiation of continuing membership from within the EU and that the provision exists within the treaty on the European Union to deliver that. There is also weighty support for article 48, which is the Scottish Government position, but even those who advocate 49 in the report see the need for continuity as paramount and that some form of amended treaty solution can and will be found to deliver that. Willie Rennie talked about common sense, Annabelle Ewing talked about pragmatism, and I would like to quote from Michael Keating in his oral evidence to the committee. He said that the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission would not go to the law books to see what they should do. They would decide what they want to do politically and then find a legal way of doing that. One of the points that seemed to be laboured at length by the Labour Party was that all members would have to agree to the process. We set that out in the white paper. We have set that out in Scotland and the EU. I want to make some progress on the points that I am addressing and responding to the debate. I, Johnston, made the important point that, again, everybody can agree on that there is no precedent. However, no precedent does not mean to say that it is impossible. That is actually the point in the numb of taking the argument forward of what we can do. For Neil Findlay—oh, there he goes, Neil Findlay—no, it is not, it is the other one, it is like Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay, you prefer—I apologise to the member—I must give way to that point, I must give way to that point. Thank you very much for that backhanded compliment, cabinet secretary. Is it not the point that the situation is unprecedented and political, but does she not then regret the statements that we originally had from the Deputy First Minister that Scotland's membership would be automatic? Would she just express any regret about the actions of the Scottish Government over the case that they have tried to prosecute for EU membership? We have made clear in the white paper, we have made clear in Scotland in the EU that there is a process, we acknowledge that, we have set out what we think is the best way to do that, but we also acknowledge that we will have to have those discussions with the member states in particular, and we have set out how that can be done, the timeframe for that, but I am really, I would do apologise for Doosmith, it was the direction of sound that I heard, but I really can't understand where Neil Findlay would prefer David Cameron to represent Scottish working people in pursuing a social Europe rather than a Government of an independent Scotland. That's the bit that I think the people of Scotland can't understand, and I want to again reflect on what I thought was an excellent contribution, as usual, from Roderick Campbell with his legal experience. An important part of the report and indeed the evidence sessions was that distinction between international law and the acquired rights of citizens through EU treaties, and I think it is worth reflecting on the considered evidence in that regard that was put forward. I do want to move on to part of the report that hasn't probably been given as much airing as it should do, and that is in relation to the theme about small states. Now that we've got a consensus that Scotland would continue within the EU membership, we can now move on to the role of Scotland in the EU. The committee report spoke positively of an independent Scotland's prospects in the EU, and indeed concludes on page 74 that small states have a role to play in the EU, that large member states dominate in the EU as a common misconception, and the evidence demonstrates that smaller member states can have an effective voice too. In the report, Dr Poirola Dardanelli describes on page 68 how small states can punch above their weight when pursuing their interests across the institutions of the EU. Smaller member states have different strategies at their disposal as they work to frame the debate. Regardless of population size, a member state can provide leadership in a specific EU policy area by making its domestic expertise, and we've heard areas more in what identified and others did as well that we could make that available to the European Commission. The Scottish Government has supported successive EU presidencies in the areas of expertise such as energy and fisheries. Ireland, of course, led the way to major agreements during its presidency, fulfilling many of its top priorities. Achievements include agreeing the 960 billion multi-annual financial framework Europe's budget for 14 to 20, and its biggest single tool for investments in jobs and growth. Denmark has played a leading role in helping to shape the EU's fisheries policies, and we're pivotal in developing a policy in discard-free fisheries, using an established profile on the subject matter and the presidency to achieve its policy objections. There are 12 member states of the same or smaller size in Scotland who have enjoyed the benefits of that for many years. However, in any discussion of an independent Scotland's voice in the EU negotiations, it is worth remembering that the alternative will continue to be a UK Government that is increasingly marginalised in key EU negotiations and has shown itself unwilling and unable properly to represent Scotland's interests. I'm very grateful in light of what she says. Has she given any pause by the comments of Darren Murphy, the vice-chair of the Arachis Joint Committee on the EU, when he said that the nature of alliances among small countries in Europe is one that puts Ireland at a disadvantage because it's not in the Benlux, it's not in Scandinavia, it's not in the east, and as a consequence of that, the only way for Ireland to make progress is through her agreement with the UK? Let's look at the opportunities of a bloc where the interests of Ireland and the rest of the UK and an independent Scotland would align. We'd actually have more votes and more co-operation in that area, but my worry is staying with the union means being stuck on the right when groove slipping ever more to isolationism. The Scottish Government has long recognised that there needs to be reform of economic and social policies. We want to contribute to that. Sustainable growth has to be a focus for the EU, appropriate policies to ensure that everyone benefits from that growth. We need to look at the youth employment across the EU and again build an EU that regains trust among its citizens. We also want to look at the issue around governance. We need to improve subsidiarity and proportionality. We need to make sure that some of the reform, the regulatory fitness and performance programme refit agenda is taking forward that helps to reduce burdens on businesses to create jobs and nurture growth. Thirdly, we also need to make sure that the policies benefit the citizens. I do believe in relation to climate change. I do believe in relation to tackling some of the social inequalities that we have to make sure that we have those jobs for the young people, that we connect people together. I want to bring my remarks to a close. While we might have differing views around independence, I welcome the agreement on the positive role that Scotland wants to play. Choosing independence means Scotland joining the world, speaking and acting for ourselves, making a positive contribution to the world and Europe as a good global and European citizen. I now call on Hanzala Malik to wind up the debate until five o'clock. Thank you very much and good afternoon. First of all, I take the opportunity to thank everybody that took part in the deliberations and the committee, the clerks, the experts that came, the members of the public that joined us and of course all of the opinions and reports that people made an effort to make this a successful report. This inquiry concerning the independent Scotland's membership to the European Union addresses a very important and a very complex issue. The inquiry was very valuable and that we heard the views of so many expert witnesses on the European Union membership would mean to an independent Scotland. The inquiry certainly succeeded in taking the discussion to a debate on an upper level. I also suspect that we will see many of the issues that were discussed coming up to the front in public debates to come. Whatever the result of the referendum as the UK's membership of the European Union and the terms of which membership come under increasing scrutiny, it draws this debate to, in drawing this debate to a close, I would like to address some of the points that have been made this afternoon and that is touching on the disputed report. The report is treasonance in submission amounts of, submitting the amounts of evidence in an inquiry. I note that, with sadness, that several sections of the report were disputed. The report clearly states that pro-union members of the committee wished to keep the original draft of the report and felt that the SMP amendments compromised the independent tone of the report. In terms of no clear answers, as no section of the member states of the European Union have become an independent state before, there is no legal precedence and evidence given to the inquiry states that there is no truly, excuse me, states that there is treaties that give us a clear way forward. This report gives us summary of the information obtained of a wide range of experts. On the issue of the Edinburgh agreement, results that an agreement mainly is about terms of the referendum on the Scottish future and nothing else, the UK is not planning to do anything other than support that process and there is no clear clarity on the amount of time that is going to be taken. The route to European Union membership, article 49 of the treaty of the European Union, in the meanwhile the white paper article 48 would be used instead, is a case a more specific process would be used as ordinary treaties amended to achieve Scottish membership. In response to this, I would like to quote Professor Michael Keane, responding to my question on whether there was any guarantee to article 48 would be used, he said and I quote, there is no legal guarantee. He also went on to say all of that is in flux and all that we can do is make a reasonable judgment on the balance of interests and how the legal question can be dealt with, we cannot give a guarantee on, so other words he quite clearly said there is no guarantee. One of the areas covered by the inquiry that I considered to be very important was a question of what would happen if there was a gap in Scotland's membership to the European Union. It was clear from the evidence that there was a widespread impression that both for the European Union citizens and businesses, the 160,000 European nationals from member states who lived in Scotland would no longer be living within the European Union and those with Scottish citizenship living elsewhere in the European Union would lose their rights as European citizens. If Scotland would no longer be part of the single market and Scottish businesses could not trade freely with European Union states and businesses in European member states could not trade freely with Scotland, it was clear from the evidence that the gap itself would mean that the interests of Scotland would be damaged under those circumstances. The member paints a picture where European citizens are no longer European citizens within Europe and where, presumably, other European member states were disadvantaged thereby. Does what he is saying not convince him of the very unlikeliness of that scenario and the fact that member states do not have an interest in creating such a situation? It is very nice of the member to join us. I think that is the best I can say. I think that the contributions from members have demonstrated that an important issue the European Union membership is for Scotland, whether the differences in view, whatever differences in views on how Scotland might become a member state, it is our right in the event of an independence. I think we are all united in one thing, which is that Scotland should be a member of the European Union and that it should benefit as much as possible from that membership. The real European Union election, the recent European parliamentary election showed that there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the European Union in its current form and member states of the European Parliament will have a high number of Euroscapital members of the European Parliament ever. The European Union is now reflecting on how we can change after European Parliament elections. The evidence headed by us as part of our inquiry suggests that the people of Scotland look more favourably on European membership than people in other parts of the UK do. The importance of Scotland engaging with the European Union emerged strongly from the inquiry. Scotland has a lot to contribute and to gain from the European Union. We need to maximise the opportunities that the European Union and that European membership provides us with, that we whether be funding opportunities, engaging in European policy making and projects or participating in European networks. One of the key themes of the committee's inquiry was about how small states can emerge with the European Union. Much of what we learned about the way that small states can influence in relation to Scotland either currently or as an independent country, it stressed the importance of focusing on areas where we can contribute the most on depending exactly on both of the prospects in our future. I believe that these issues are crucial to Scotland whether it remains part of the UK or independent. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Malik. The next item of business is consideration of business motions. Following discussions with business managers, I seek your agreement to move a motion without notice under rule 8.12 that the Parliament considers a new business motion setting out the programme for business for the next two weeks. The original business motion had proposed that a debate on the appointment of the fiscal commission take place on Tuesday 10 June. However, since the finance committee have not completed their deliberations, business managers have agreed that we should postpone that debate and replace it with a ministerial statement on the publication of the 2012 greenhouse gas inventory that will be published next Tuesday. I therefore move a motion without notice in my name that Parliament considers a new business motion in a few minutes time. I am minded to accept the motion without notice. Therefore, the next item of business is consideration of business motion number 10228. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the business motion to press the request to speak but now