Jahres Quinn Te谢谢, that concludes the portfolio questions for today and we now move to the next item of businesss... ... which is a debate on motion number 1-2591 in the name of Jacqui Bailey... ...uding Scotland's economy. I invite members or wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible... ispondible, and I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to it and move the motion 14 minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to open the debate this afternoon on behalf of the Labour Party. Just this morning, the much anticipated Government expenditure and REvenue Scotland account for 2013-14 was published, sets out how much we spend in Scotland and how much we raise in any given year. It is in effect the balance保fiadau o'r ffordd. That is a hugely important measure of the nation's financial health. I will come on to consider the numbers in a minute. Let me set the context first, because as we approach the general election the people of Scotland are being asked to make a choice, a choice between two competing visions of devolution whilst remaining in the United Kingdom. That is not about the past or about the referendum. That is actually about our On the one hand, Scottish Labour's vision is of a powerhouse Parliament with more control over taxation and welfare together with the continuation of the Barnett bonus providing stable spending for our public services like our schools and our NHS. It also means the retention of the UK-wide pension system, something that millions of Scots have paid into over the years and which almost 80 per cent want to remain paid on a UK basis. On the other hand, we have the SNP's plan for full fiscal autonomy. What that means is Scotland raises all of its own taxes to cover its expenditure. Alex Amond indeed, when he was the First Minister, supported full fiscal autonomy and he had this to say about what it meant. Home rule is control of all domestic affairs and taxation. Reserve to Westminster would be foreign affairs and defence. Nicola Sturgeon, as the new First Minister, agreed with him. In an interview with Andrew Marr in late January, she confirmed, I want full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament. So Presiding Officer, there you have it. That's SNP policy, that's what they will go into the general election advocating. Full fiscal autonomy within the United Kingdom. So the Scottish Parliament would collect all the taxes, it would be responsible for all the spending and that includes pensions and welfare. It makes payments to the United Kingdom for reserved areas like defence and foreign affairs and the Scottish Government will also have new borrowing powers, which it will need to make up any deficit. The choices therefore between Labour's approach, guaranteeing new powers for the Parliament with the advantage of the Barnett bonus or the SNP's approach, which is full fiscal autonomy, where we raise all of our money and don't have any share in the resources of the United Kingdom. That's taken intervention. Would you not agree with me that, given that Labour MPs march through the lobbies to vote for austerity, what Labour advocate is continuing and in fact more austerity for Scotland? Can I just say, I've never heard such utter nonsense. Labour do not support Tory austerity. We voted to balance the budget. John Swinney sets great store by balancing the budget but last week SNP MPs sat on their hands and refused to back a motion that would end Tory austerity. So I will take no lessons from the SNP on this issue. Let me go back to illustrate the numbers about what the choice means in reality, because what Jezz tells us is that Scotland spends more per head than the UK average. In fact, we spend about £6 billion a year more. Overall, we raise less in tax revenue than the rest of the UK and the tax shortfall this year is in the order of £2 billion. Scotland's fiscal gap, our relative deficit, is £8 billion. We would need to find £8 billion a year to get to the same place as the UK's public finances. That is widely accepted by economists, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Brian Ashcroft have confirmed that today. Under full fiscal autonomy, we would need to raise enough money to plug this gap just to match the UK deficit. Of course, we have oil. Oil is incredibly important to our economy and to our public spending. The oil and gas industry are a Scottish success story and the revenues that we have gained have been a real bonus to our public services, but there is no doubt that times are tough. We have experienced volatility and a decline in revenues. Jezz for 2012-13 told us that the revenue from oil dropped to £4 billion. This year, it shows that we are running a deficit of £12 billion a year, which is unsustainably high and it is a somber day for Scotland. First Minister noted that the deficit is down on last year and indeed it is, but in doing so, she is taking credit for Tory austerity cuts. Taxes have gone down and the only way that the deficit has been cut is because of a cut in spending. Tartan Tories indeed. Mr Swinney needs to stop saying that we pay an extra £400 per head without mentioning that we spend £1,200 more per head, a deficit of £800 per person. Please stop spinning and give us both sides of the balance sheet, Mr Swinney. This is before any account is taken of the recent dramatic fall in the price of oil. It is worth reminding ourselves that the forecast made by the SNP for oil was based on it not being $113 a barrel, it dropped to below $50 a barrel in the new year. This is a huge loss of revenue, it is a blow to our economy, it is a blow to our public finances, never mind the thousands of jobs that are already lost in the sector. For this year, 2014-15, due to that drop in oil price and the continuing downward trend in revenues, the expectation is that we will have a black hole in our budget of £6 billion. That is a staggering amount by anybody's reckoning. Let's put it in perspective. Six billion is half the budget of our NHS, is more than the entirety of the school's budget. You would either need to make swinging cuts to balance the books or you would need to increase taxes. That would mean households paying, on average, £2,400 per year extra just to stand still. That's what full fiscal autonomy means for Scotland. We all condemn, aside from those on those benches, Tory austerity plans, and rightly so, because they would take public spending levels back to the 1930s, back to a time where we had no NHS and when children left school at 14. What we would get from the SNP's proposals are austerity max. They would take the Tory austerity cuts—you may be laughing—but this is what the economists are saying. You would take the Tory austerity cuts, you would then more than double it with full fiscal autonomy, and it is the economics of the madhouse. People genuinely don't understand why you are doing this, but don't worry, because the SNP has another plan. They are going to grow the economy to plug the gap. I am all in favour of growing the economy, but you cannot seriously be suggesting that this will plug the £6 billion gap in revenues in the short term. You would need the equivalent of 12 years' economic growth squeezed into four years, a growth rate that would be higher than China's was in its heyday and not something that any developed country has achieved. I am all for ambition, but it needs to be rooted in just a little bit of reality, so please don't insult our intelligence. Mr Swinney is in danger of losing his alleged reputation for competence if he is trying to get us to swallow this nonsense. The growth, he assumes, is just not possible in the period necessary. It will not fill the black hole at the heart of his budget. The consistent refrain from Mr Swinney and his backbenchers in their press releases is that I am somehow talking Scotland down. Nothing could be further from the truth, because I am proud of my country, I am proud of our people, but what the SNP is doing is actually doing Scotland in and doing us all a disservice if they don't face up to reality. People expect us to be honest about the nation's finances. They expect us to balance the books. Mr Swinney is always keen to tell us how well he balances the books, but the reality is that he has only had to balance one side of them in the past. The money he spends comes from the UK Government as a consequence of the Barnett formula. With full fiscal autonomy, Barnett ends, and he cannot balance the books if there is a six billion black hole at the heart of his budget. However, while households across the country are taking tough decisions, what we see is an SNP Government bearing their heads in the sand engaged in fantasy finances. Not only is Mr Swinney's reputation for competence being sacrificed at the altar of the SNP's obsession with full fiscal autonomy, he is also abandoning the logic and reason that he normally brings to proceedings. I suspect that Mr Swinney is embarrassed by that. I predict that, in the absence of detail, we will see a windmill display with lots of arm waving, followed by some finger pointing and shouting at opposition benches—noise and distraction rather than detail. However, whatever attempt there is to create a diversion, there is no escaping reality. The SNP response is truly desperate stuff, but there is more. On 3 March, the SNP published an economic analysis that showed that, with an increase in factor productivity, an increase in investment and export targets boosted by 50 per cent, we would raise £2.8 billion of additional tax income in 10 years. Six days later, the SNP published another document that was remarkably similar to the first one, also an economic analysis, but this time it would raise £3.5 billion over 10 years. It is remarkable what a difference six days can make, so suddenly the tax gain increased by £700 million. If we waited another six days, it would have increased to £1.4 billion. I am just wondering because I am happy to be patient in waiting for an answer if the money increases by the day, but some of the assumptions are, frankly, heroic. How the Scottish Government expects exports to grow by 50 per cent, when, indeed, oil and gas is one of our biggest exports and is declining amid its fascinating economics? Even if I was generous to the SNP, which I am always inclined to be, and go along with all of their figures, there is still a gap between what we get from Barnett and what we would get from fiscal autonomy. In the case of Barnett, it would be an additional £65 billion over 10 years compared to full fiscal autonomy and his growth figures, which would raise something like £17 billion over the same period. So where is the missing money coming from? It will still be cuts or tax rises to fill the gap. What is full revenue retention? Is this just full fiscal autonomy by another name? It sounds painful. We searched high and low for other countries that operated full revenue retention as a policy. You will be pleased to hear that we found one. It is not a country, it was a Canadian national park. I am interested that the Scottish Government is now modelling its financial policy on the Canadian national park. I suspect that what we are witnessing is an attempt to confuse. Full fiscal autonomy is clearly not testing well with the focus groups, so the SNP just ditch the name and call it something else. It does not matter how many name changes you have, the policy is still daffed. Whether it is full fiscal autonomy or full revenue retention, it means the loss of Barnett, the loss of UK pension funding, a black hole of £6 billion a year. In fact, it is probably better if we called it full fiscal austerity, because that is precisely what it is.  I have taken you already. Is the SNP notion that somehow you can stop paying into the kitty but the kitty still pays out to you? It does not happen in real life, it does not happen in government, and John Swinney knows this. I am genuinely surprised that John Swinney is backing a policy that lacks credibility. I can only just assume that he has not convinced the former First Minister or the current First Minister that the policy is wrong. Instead, he parades around this Parliament like a peacock, but in cabinet he ends up being a chicken. Much of Labour's policy officer in recent weeks comes about because of the Barnett bonus. Just take the mansion tax as an example. £120 million extra, we would spend it on 1,000 nurses, pension tax relief, £200 million delivering the future fund for 18 and 19-year-olds and better bursaries. That would not happen with the SNP's full fiscal autonomy. In short, the SNP's plans for full fiscal autonomy within the UK strip billions of pounds from our budget. There is no escaping it, it is a fact. Voting SNP at the general election will get you austerity max, cuts to services or higher taxes or a combination of both. Finally, Scottish Labour has a better plan. Our plan delivers major new powers to the Parliament but retains the security of the Barnett bonus to protect our schools and our NHS. That is the choice on 7 May, and the people of Scotland will choose wisely. As you move your motion, would you like to move your motion? The motion is moved. Many thanks. We are very tight for time today. I now call on John Swinney to speak to your amendment 1, 2, 5, 9 and 1.3. I move amendment 1. I welcome the debate on Scotland's economy. The recovery in Scotland's economy is now well established. As I have set out to Parliament in recent weeks, we have seen more than two years of continuous growth, and both output and employment are now at record levels. Since this Government came to power in 2007, we have seen the value of Scottish international exports increased by 40 per cent, business research and development spending increased by 29 per cent and Scottish productivity moving from being 6 per cent lower than the United Kingdom to sitting at approximately the same level. The Government expenditure and revenue figures for 2013-14 confirmed some key facts about the Scottish economy. Firstly, it confirmed that Scotland continues to pay more in revenues per head to the Treasury than the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the report demonstrates that, in every one of the last 34 years, Scotland has raised more tax revenue per person than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The figures include oil and gas. We will await the outcome of 2014-15 before we know the answer to Mr Johnson's question. In 2013-14, that figure was £400 more than the UK average, and since 1999, total tax revenue per person in Scotland has been £12,000 higher than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Secondly, was £1,200 per head higher than in the rest of the UK? I will come on to looking at the rounded position in a second. Secondly, the report confirms that the overall deficit in Scotland is falling. From 2012-13 to 2013-14, the net fiscal balance fell from 9.7 per cent of GDP to 8.1 per cent, despite lower oil revenues due to high levels of capital investment. That shows our continued economic strength. Thirdly, it shows for the first time the position of Scotland compared to other parts of the United Kingdom, paying more in revenues than anywhere except London, the south-east and the east of England. That addresses the issue that Jackie Baillie was raising. The report also shows that, in some years, we have a stronger current budget balance than the UK as a whole, and in some years it is lower and weaker. Over the last five years, Scotland has been in a stronger position for two of the five years, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Over the past six years, there have been three out of the six years in which Scotland has been in a stronger position on balance than the rest of the UK. It is important to look at the pattern of the figures in the context of a number of years and not just one particular year. The figures show that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, Scotland is and continues to be a wealthy country. What Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland does not show, however, is what it would have been like if we were able to invest the relatively stronger financial position that we have had in previous years to generate growth or to reduce the debt, such as the £4.5 billion relative surplus over the United Kingdom in 2008-09 and the £1.6 billion relative surplus in 2011-12. Jackie Baillie is absolutely right. It is important to look at the years in which Scotland has had a stronger financial position than the rest of the UK and not just concentrate on the issues that the Labour Party tries to raise out of Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland for 2012-13. I give way to Mr Magnus. I thank Mr Swinney for giving way. I check what Mr Swinney means when he uses the term relative surplus. Is he actually suggesting that we run a surplus or do we actually run a deficit? The term relative surplus is absolutely crystal clear. We are in a stronger financial position than the rest of the UK for the years that we have said. I would have thought that it would have been crystal clear from what I said a moment ago that there are some years in which we have a stronger current budget balance than the United Kingdom as a whole and some years in which we have a lower position and a weaker position, so it is a very simple proposition for the Labour Party to understand. We believe that the strong-track record— I think that perhaps in order for yourself as chair to make sure that nobody inadvertently leads misleads the chamber, the word surplus clearly implies that Scotland is— Order! Let Mr Macintosh conclude, please. The term surplus clearly implies that we are not borrowing more than we spend, and that is not the case. We are running a deficit, and therefore the term relative surplus actually means deficit. That is not a point of order indeed. It is furious. Nonetheless, I continue, Mr Swinney. We believe that the strong-track record of Scottish Government economic policymaking is proof that we are best placed to make the key decisions about Scotland's economic and social future. I believe that Scotland should be fully responsible for raising and spending all of its own resources. That will ensure that we are better able to respond to the challenges and the opportunities that Scotland faces. Our policy is for the people of Scotland, not Westminster, to take the decisions on the issues that matter the most. That is something that the majority of people in Scotland support. Those powers include employers and employees, national insurance contributions, employment rights, including the national minimum wage, full powers over working-age benefits and employment policy, increased powers over aspects of immigration such as post-work, post-study work visas and business taxes, to enable us to create a stronger economic platform, enabling us to create jobs and to tackle inequality. Exercising those powers over time will enable the Scottish Government to take actions to improve the performance of our economy, to improve the public finances and to reinvest the proceeds of faster economic growth in our public services. Does he accept that, in the short term, financially we would be worse off under full fiscal autonomy? What I set out is the fact that by exercising responsibilities in accordance with the needs and priorities of the people of Scotland, we have the ability to undertake some of the improvements in economic performance that I set out, such as increasing exports by 50 per cent or strengthening our productivity base, so that we can improve the performance of the Scottish economy and generate the revenues that will enable the people of Scotland to prosper as a consequence. At the heart of the debate on Dracke Bailey has raised the issue in the debate, is the whole question of the financial context in which we are taking our decisions. Of course, the financial context in which we are taking our decisions are the fact that the United Kingdom over the last five years has increased its debt by £600 billion. That is the financial context in which we have taken our decisions. The arguments that Dracke Bailey has put forward is that, if there is a Labour Government that is elected on 7 May, somehow the issues of austerity will not be on the agenda. Dracke Bailey has to explain to Parliament why on earth Labour MPs voted for the charter of budget responsibility committing the Labour Party to £30 billion worth of cuts over the first two years of the next Parliament. Why on earth were the Labour Party voting for the charter for budget responsibility committing the Labour Party to such a significant reduction in public expenditure? I happily give way to Dracke Bailey. I thank the cabinet secretary for so-doing. We voted to balance the budget. We did not vote for Tory austerity. It is interesting that the SNP-backed benches are laughing, but that is something that John Swinney cares about balancing the budget. We heard today from the IFS in the finance committee that Labour and SNP spending plans are similar. If you are accusing us of following Tory austerity, you are too. Two points on that, Presiding Officer. The first is that the Labour Party has committed itself to sticking with the Tory spending targets, which mean £30 billion of spending cuts. Dracke Bailey might dress that up as something nice, like we are going to balance the budget. It is balancing the budget with £30 billion of cuts on the most vulnerable in our society in Scotland. Secondly, on the point that Dracke Bailey raised about the IFS evidence this morning to the finance committee, is Dracke Bailey now committing the Labour Party to supporting the arguments of the First Minister that we should boost public expenditure by £180 billion? If that is the case, it will be news to Ed Balls, because he is arguing the diametric opposite of it in the House of Commons. In concluding my remarks, I am very surprised by the positioning of the Labour Party in this debate today, because having spent a number of months after the referendum, after their two-year partnership with the Tories to talk Scotland down, the Labour Party has tried to suggest over the last couple of months that they have somehow become all supportive of Scotland. This is another example today of the Labour Party talking Scotland down, and the people of Scotland will see right through it today. Many thanks. Gavin Brown, up to six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will start by moving an amendment in my name and by saying that it is probably worth having a dispassionate and objective look at the actual figures that were published today, instead of just putting any one particular spin upon them. The current revenue, as a matter of fact, was just shy of £54 billion, and the expenditure was just over £66 billion, Deputy Presiding Officer. A deficit—a net fiscal balance deficit—of £12.4 billion. That is a substantial deficit, and the reality is that it is likely to be worse in the next financial year, because the figures that were published today take absolutely no account whatsoever of the drop in oil price, because that happened some six months after those figures actually relate to it. So even without that drop in oil price, we are looking at a deficit of £12.4 billion. That means that Scotland has a deficit of 8.1 per cent compared with the United Kingdom of 5.6 per cent. That is quite a substantial difference, Presiding Officer. If we were to go alone under full fiscal autonomy, that is an enormous gap to fill. That was the reason why I asked the Deputy First Minister if, based on those figures, we would be better or worse off in the short-term under full fiscal autonomy. His own figures—those are Scottish Government-produced figures, they do not come from the UK Government, they do not come from the Conservative Party, those are Scottish Government-produced—their own figures show that there would be a substantially higher deficit in Scotland last year than there would in the UK, and that probably—well, we do not know the figures yet, for sure—probably it is going to be worse in the next financial year. In the short term, it is pretty clear that we would be worse off, but the Scottish Government refuses to acknowledge that. It refuses to look at the figures and it ignores anything that does not suit its purposes. Those are called the Government expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2013-14 figures. However, in the Government two-page press release and in a 10-minute speech from the Deputy First Minister of this country, we do not have a single mention of the word expenditure. I think that it is staggering that he does not mention the word expenditure. There is not a chief executive in this country or indeed any other who would stand up to present their annual accounts and focus only on revenues and completely ignore expenditure pretending that it does not exist. I think that we deserve better in this Parliament and I think that we deserve better in this country, and I hope that perhaps he will put things right now and acknowledge the expenditure figures. John Swinney? I do not think that Mr Brown could have listened to what I said about the fact that in some years we have a stronger financial position, in other years we have a weaker financial position, which is the recognition of the fact that this year our financial position is weaker than in previous years when it has been stronger. Perhaps Mr Brown would, for completeness, accept that point of view? Iain Brown? He ignored the questions about expenditure. He refused to acknowledge that we would have been worse off in terms of his own figures. Going back, dancing on the head of the pen and saying that over the course of the last six years we might have been better off in two of them really does not cut it, unless he is going to invent some kind of time machine, that is absolutely irrelevant that we would have been better off in two of the last six years, because he is right to say that you should not just focus on one year. I think that that is a perfectly fair and valid point to make, but what is important is that we look at the most recent figures and we look at the most likely projected figures, because if we were to go for full fiscal autonomy, as he now wants and as the rest of his party wants, it would happen in the future, and so it is the projections of what would happen is what actually counts more than what would have happened had we done it 20 or 30 or even 40 years ago. I am happy to give way to Mr McKinnon. Thank Mr Brown for taking the intervention. Even if it were possible to project forward for all times to come and paint the picture of doom that Mr Brown suggests, surely he would agree with me that that is an absolute shocking legacy for 300 years of Westminster rule. Gavin Brown, I was speaking to one of his own colleagues who says that, unfortunately, Mike McKenzie sometimes leads with his chin when he intervenes. That was a perfect example. We were not asking for projections for the rest of time. We would not have been happy with short and medium-term projections. We would have been happy with projections that any other Government would have to do if they were suggesting a policy such as this one. The reason we believe that it is going to get more difficult is because of the two underlying trends that were outlined by just about every economist in the run-up to the referendum. The fact that cost pressures will increase will be the demographics of an ageing population, and that is set to accelerate in Scotland more than it is in the rest of the UK, coupled with the fact that revenues are likely to drop and, in particular, oil revenues are volatile and, over time, they will diminish. That is the reason for our amendment, Deputy Presiding Officer. In recent years, they have been very happy to publish their projections. We have had bulletins, we have had a balance sheet and we have had Scotland's finances. We are saying, let us publish that again, because two things have changed. The short and long-term tax take for oil and gas has changed, and we now have the Government pushing full fiscal autonomy instead of independence. Let us see the figures, let them demonstrate to us how much better off they think we will be, and then the country as a whole will have the opportunity to look at the figures and to make their own judgments about who is right on this issue. Many thanks. I am grateful to the Labour Party for calling this debate today, because I suspect that, if it was left in the hands of John Swinney and his Government, this debate would not be happening. Certainly on the morning or the day that we have the latest GERS figures, just a cursory glance would indicate that the Scottish Government would be reluctant to have this debate, because what they would have to face up to is the reality of a massive hole in the public finances—much bigger than in previous years, and certainly much worse is to come in future years, because, as Jackie Baillie has quite rightly said, the worst is yet to come, because we have not seen the full effects of the fall in the oil price. So the price of next year's figures, I think, will be even higher. It will be interesting to see if John Swinney agrees to a debate next year on the same subject on GERS. I suspect that, if we had had a yes vote last September, the atmosphere in the chamber would be quite different now. I do not think that that would be an academic discussion about the academic figures up or down, whether they were up one year down the other year. What some of John Swinney says is right, some years the figures are better. We would now be in blind panic about how we were going to cope with an independent Scotland and the worsening economic figures and financial figures. We are fortunate that we are in this position, where we can discuss this in an academic way, but we should counter lucky stars that, last September, people did not vote yes to independence and we are not facing that blind panic today. During that referendum, the nationalists repeatedly told us that it was a choice of two futures, if only we would follow the advice of the Scottish National Party or the other future, the one that the evil destiny of the other unionist parties were determined to inflict on Scotland. Let us just analyse those two futures, the one where the SNP said that, for no word, only we had followed their advice. First of all, they said that the UK economic plan would fail, unemployment would rise, GDP would stagnate, employment would fall, but now, thanks to the UK economic plan, the opposite is the case. We have falling unemployment, record high employment and rising GDP, amongst the best in the G7. If we had followed the SNP advice, that would not be the case. The nationalists said that we were on the verge of a second oil boom, with a blossoming oil fund—no one mentions oil fund any more, by the way—more jobs and ever-increasing tax receipts. Now we face low oil price, half of what those people confidently predicted would be the case, jobs have been slashed and tax revenues have plummeted, way beyond the GERS figures today. If they had had their way, schools, hospitals and universities would soon be feeling the cold draft of their policy. People are rightly, I have to say, critical of Labour's economic competence, yet the SNP wants to borrow even more than Labour are planning to borrow. That will result in higher debt charges, and the First Minister's claim that debt will fall as a percentage of GDP. Let's just examine that claim, because she made it in London in that grand speech at a university down there, but she has not mentioned the claim ever since. The Treasury this week, in its analysis, showed that debt would rise as a percentage of GDP and not fall. That is if we followed SNP policy, if we followed their advice. I will take an intervention from John Swinney if he wants to back up what Nicola Sturgeon says, because the Government has been asked repeatedly to back up what she claimed in London, but I have failed to do so. I will take that intervention from John Swinney. I certainly will. The Treasury took a different approach to the way that the Scottish Government set out. The Treasury put the increased borrowing into the particular financial year in which it was procured. The Scottish Government put that into the start of the following financial year. That is the difference in the two calculations. However, Mr Rennie is quite wrong to say that the Treasury analysis that was published on Monday does not show the debt-to-GDP ratio falling by the end of the next parliamentary session. That is exactly what it has confirmed. Nicola Sturgeon said that it would fall in every single year, and she said that it would fall in every single year, and that is not the case. Has Mr Swinney disputed that? The point of explanation is exactly the first part of my response in the first intervention, that we are a different methodological approach to do that, which showed exactly why that was the case. However, even on the Treasury methodology, the debt-to-GDP ratio falls by the end of the next parliamentary session. He is not disagreeing with my central claim. He is not backing up what Nicola Sturgeon said in London, and he wants to borrow more than what Labour is planning to do. That is economically incredible that he is proposing that. On the back of them being wrong about the oil boom, on the economic performance of the UK Government, they are now trying to encourage this country to borrow £180 billion more. On the back of our children in the future, that is not economic competence, that is economic irresponsibility. I welcome the debate today, though why it is headed by Labour supporting Scotland's economy while it has been lambasting Scotland's economy, it defeats me. Of course, it jumped on the girls' numbers today. Experience tells me, in some experience, that I have often felt it better to read and understand the background to the numbers. It also tells me to look at trends and outcomes and not be obsessed with one set of figures in a rolling economy. However, on that basis, I cannot hide the fact that I welcome the fact that our deficit has fallen by £2 billion compared to an apparent immovable UK deficit of £97.2 billion. The tax take in Scotland was £400 per head higher than the rest of the UK. I am sure that we can have a much more meaningful exchange when the trends and the background have been better analysed by everyone. I am also sure that the trend shows that we will be, despite the gloom and doom from Mr Rennie, in a position to support public services. The branch mentality still pervades the Labour Party, not only in relation to its London office but to the UK Government, regardless of whatever party it is. However, when any head office or headquarters is not organised or is indeed incompetent or fails, the first thing to get hit is the branch. As long as the London Government exercises power and authority over sways of Scotland's financial management and so long as the London parties particularly Labour exercise financial and political control over its branch, it will always be thus. You cannot divorce meaningful political and economic power. We all know where political power in Scotland happily will ultimately come to rest. I am grateful to succeed where Bruce Crawford failed. Is Mr Brodie saying that Mr Swinney is George Osborne's puppet? I am also finding, Mr Fraser, that sometimes it is better to sit still and not say anything. Not saying anything in case it sounds silly than to stand and confirm it. As long as the London parties particularly Labour, as I said, you cannot divorce those two parts and we know ultimately where political power will come to rest happily. Even Lord Barnett, the begetter of the formula, said that keeping his formula in the event of Scotland getting more economic powers would be a, quote, a terrible mistake. More recently, even Lord McConnell, former First Minister, indicated that the Barnett formula would be in a, quote, diminished in the event of a no vote because the funding arrangement would be irrevocably changed by new tax powers, even limited ones coming to Scotland. The branch is definitely not listening to the people. Poll after poll shows the majority of Scotland's people seeking change and seeking a responsibility for all, all key tax and spending decisions to be made here. Of course, we cannot fulfil those aspirations yet, while we have a so-called west headquarters, the Westminster Government heading, and do not believe the pressure of the economic forecast, which is subsidised by six OBR forecasts for the autumn statement, hides the fact that we have a £1.57 trillion debt garnering nearly £5 billion annual interest, and I regret that he would not acknowledge that today. We are losing out on billions of pounds of support for public services such as the NHS and schools, but not at our own hand. No one individual, no family and even no branch can be economic stable or successful while some other body controls 70 per cent of tax-raising powers and 85 per cent of welfare reform expenditure of its needs and wants. We cannot tackle properly inequality, fully challenge employability, training, improve working conditions, address in-work property without faster and more local decision-making over the finances of the nation. Until we have that full autonomy, that right, that while we fall short of full fiscal autonomy or full fiscal responsibility, grown-up responsibility and this Parliament is now grown-up, then the Barnett formula will be retained and adjusted appropriately to the actual degree of fiscal responsibility, but at another's hand. The Scottish Careers Committee recently made a claim that full fiscal autonomy without the protection of a wider and more diverse UK economy would be disastrous as fanciful. It would be better looking at the risk to the UK of laid off Eurozone and Greek debts in the city of London and also considering the risk to the UK economy of further capital spend on defence and items like Trident. Now these are real risks to Westminster and regrettably to us in the current environment. Unlike what we would like to have, a vibrant competitive neighbour standing on its own two feet also while we do the same here. We could boost GDP, we can and we will increase exports and we will increase employment when we have the capacity to do so. That is how we improve our NHS and our schools, our public services, our wealth and resources. No economic strategy two weeks ago, no plan for oil and gas yesterday and no fiscal or monetary strategy. Poor labour, a branch. Iain Gray, to be followed by Stuart McMillan, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Jake Hagelbraith once said, economics is a subject profoundly conducive to cliché, and there is no greater cliché than to say that when it comes to our economy our greatest resource is our people, but it is true, a truth indeed universally acknowledged. The Scottish Government certainly agree, the First Minister says it in her introduction to the economic strategy, she says, our people are creative, ambitious and resilient and we will continue to build on these strengths. It is the truth, acknowledged across the political divide, Carly Fiarina, darling of the US Republican right, when she was chief executive of Hewlett-Packard once said, keep your tax incentives and your highway intersections, we will go where the highly skilled people are. For Nicola Sturgeon and Carly Fiarina might differ, it is in the First Minister's assertion that it is not just about increasing competitiveness to drive economic growth but also tackling inequality, and I am with the First Minister there. Every pupil, student or worker we fail and leave behind, it is not just a personal scandal but an economic loss. The Government economic strategy recognises this and it notes successes of which we should be rightly proud. Curriculum for excellence, over 45 per cent of the workforce with a higher or further education qualification, four universities in the top 200 in the world world class research, 25,000 apprenticeships. But the economic strategy ignores some underlying failures too. Our schools have lost over 4,000 teachers since 2007, teachers unions and head teachers warn that the profession is at breaking point and some have even talked of imminent catastrophe. In some places and some subjects, there are no teachers to be had and pupils face being sent home. This week, we discovered from a daily record investigation that we spend as little as £12 per pupil per year on textbooks in some parts of Scotland. It is colleges that have suffered the most. A real term is cut in funding of £61 million and 140,000 fewer students. While tuition in our universities is free, the support that we offer students from low-income families is less than anywhere else in the UK, possibly worse than anywhere else in Western Europe. Meanwhile, the Government has just slashed support for that world class research that it celebrates in our universities. By many millions, £8 million in Edinburgh, £2.5 million in Glasgow University and £1.5 million at Aberdeen University. It is often exactly the skills that we need for the future, which are suffering most. I believe that all of this we can address. We can address it if we believe in the capacity of our people and we invest in their skills and education. Then, there is nothing that this country cannot do. Will the member give way? I think that the member for giving way seems to want more money for both the universities and the colleges. Is he going to suggest where that money should come from, perhaps a cut to the NHS? I think that, if Mr Mason had been following our conference at the weekend, he would have seen that we suggested increasing bursaries using resources that would flow through the Barnett formula from decisions around tuition fees in England. In order to make those investments, I want to say to Chuck Brody to talk about supporting the economy. Investing in our young people and the skills of our workforce is how we support the economy, not with warm words in this chamber. In order to do that, we must have the resources to make those investments. Today's chairs figures make it absolutely clear that the investment that we need would be utterly jeopardised by the Scottish Government's core demand for fiscal autonomy. Swapping the Barnett formula for volatile oil revenues would leave a £4 billion hole in our public finances. Indeed, cuts of only tens of millions to university research or to colleges would pale into insignificance. Only losing 4,000 teachers posts would look like Halcyon days. £4 billion is our entire school budget. It is four times what we invest in higher education and eight times the college budget. To risk the investments that we need in our people and in our future for a purely ideological end is not standing up for Scotland. It is letting Scotland down. Unprecedented hypothetical growth or spinning counterfactual stories based on investments that might have happened some years ago or renaming fiscal autonomy full revenue retention does not change the figures. They are stark and they will be worse next year because these figures predate the collapse in the oil price. I make no mistake. GERS does not speak of dependence. It describes the advantages of and our contribution to a partnership whereby Scotland can manage volatility in the economy and at the same time invest in our economic future. That is the lesson of the run-of figures that Mr Swinney described over a number of years. It is this partnership that allowed us to weather the storm of the banking crisis, not painlessly, but to find our way through it. It is this partnership that means that we can face down the downturn in the oil and gas sector too. It is a mature, modern, developed and increasingly devolved economic partnership in which Scotland is big enough and smart enough to thrive and prosper. Why on earth would we jeopardise that? I am afraid that we are very short of time. Members cannot go over their six minutes, Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am happy to be speaking in another economy debate and I believe that this debate is very timely on the day that we learn that Scotland yet again contributes more in taxation per head than elsewhere. Labour once again brings a motion to the chamber to talk Scotland down. Jackie Baillie disagrees on many things, and we regularly do so on the pages of the newspapers and the Dumbarton constituency, but there is one area that we agree on, which I will come back to later on. Today's GERS figures highlight that Scotland's tax take for 2013-14 was £400 per head higher than the rest of the UK. With tax revenues in Scotland being higher per person than the rest of the UK, in each of the last 34 years, with the last five years totaling £4,100 per person alone, it is obvious that Scotland has the means and ability to progress, but it lacks the powers to do so. Jackie Baillie, I thank the member for taking the intervention. Will he accept that, while he describes £400 as being the additional tax revenue from Scotland per head, that expenditure is £1,200 higher per head than in the rest of the UK and that, therefore, we have a deficit of £800 per head? What I do accept is the fact that Scotland actually does have a broad economy, but what I do accept is that Scotland does have a broad economy, and there will be occasions where Scotland's contribution will be a larger sometimes—it will not be—but, unfortunately, that is one of the problems that we face with the current constitutional arrangements. The Scottish economy is broad and has inherent strengths, but it has a lack of powers, and those lack of powers are holding Scotland back. Scotland's economy has some positive stories to tell, and much of that is down to the hard work of the SNP Government. Higher revenue contributions than the UK as a whole, higher employment, lower unemployment and an economy growing at a faster rate than the UK as a whole. Jackie Baillie spoke earlier about the situation regarding the deficit, and she asked me the question a moment ago. If we listen to the arguments that Jackie Baillie spoke of, I have already taken one—I am not taking any more—that would be the argument to ensure that this Parliament should be independent and never mind having fiscal autonomy. Surely Jackie Baillie's arguments highlighting the union is not working. We have the capacity and the resources to grow our economy, to address inequalities and to grow small businesses and to put more people back into work. However, to do that, we need more economic powers and the ability to protect Scotland against the anticipated £14.5 billion worth of cuts that Westminster plans over the course of the next Parliament. Willie Rennie and Jackie Baillie mentioned what they spoke about—they spoke about more powers and touched upon the Smith proposals. I would recommend to Willie Rennie and Jackie Baillie to read the official reports of the Devolution Further Powers Committee over the course of the last few weeks, when we had the discussion regarding welfare—the welfare powers to come to this Parliament, the discussion regarding the borrowing powers and even last week's regarding the Crown Estate. After reading the official reports of those sessions, I would argue that I am sure that Willie Rennie and Jackie Baillie would appreciate that the powers that are proposed are a bit of a dog's breakfast, not so much at Smith's recommendations but the draft clauses at Ms Baillie, not Smith's recommendations. Gavin Brown also asked about the position under fiscal autonomy. I certainly would argue that that question is very much hypothetical, because, first of all, we do not have the powers. Secondly, those powers are not under Smith. Thirdly, David Cameron, Mr Brown's own Prime Minister, has proposed that it is not actually ruled out that fiscal autonomy is coming to this Parliament. I would argue that, certainly, Murdo Fraser is muttering something to, I do not speak nothing to Gavin Brown, but, certainly, Mr Fraser, if you go and check that out, you will see that the Prime Minister has not ruled that particular offering out. Mr MacMillan, can you speak through the chair, please? I am sorry, Presiding Officer. If Mr Fraser does not actually like that particular notion, then I would suggest that he takes it up with his Prime Minister. Certainly, Jackie Baillie's motion highlighted the Barnett formula, and surely Smith's proposals but also the clauses and the no-determinate part of Smith's proposals. Surely that no-determinate principle ensures that Scotland's economy will not be adversely affected due to the Westminster policies in the next parliamentary session. I am sorry, I am in the last 30 seconds— The member is in his last 30 seconds. My final point is that, in terms of a point that Jackie Baillie and I can agree on, it is in terms of tourism something that is very close to her constituency, but it is in terms of marine tourism. There was the publication of the first marine strategy last week that I accept, and that has a small part to play in helping the Scottish economy. You must try to close me. We must consider that the John Swinney's amendment in terms of the local based economy, marine tourism, is a huge part to play, particularly areas such as the New Barton constituency. Thank you very much, Neil Findlay, to be followed by Gil Paterson. In this Parliament and across the political classes, we argue about GDP, about GERS figures, inflation percentages of that and percentages of that. Statistics are, of course, the meeting drink of politicians, but it is what happens behind those statistics that matter more. What is happening in the real world to our communities, our families, our friends and the people that we are sent here to represent that matters the most? I am going to read two sobering passages from a group of young people who recently came together to reflect on their lives and their community. They said that we see towns and villages in our area with multiple issues affecting the quality of life for people living there, but with poverty at the root cause. We see community workers feeling helpless as they stand watching, humiliated once proud parents and growing numbers forced to use food banks to feed their families, communities where malnutrition is increasing as young mums choose to feed their children before themselves, where local services and infrastructure are crumbling, where poor uninsulated housing is common and where once thriving social housing schemes are in dire need of investment. They spoke of how young people are ostracised and moved on by the police, but with nowhere and no recreational services to go to. The minimal employment opportunities available are characterised as low pay, zero hours and insecure, where welfare cuts have seen the confidence of young people so affected by constant rejection from jobs that do not exist, that they give up looking and are sanctioned as a result. For stress and mental illness is going through the roof, roof yet mental health service provision for young people is abysmal, many waiting two years for a psychiatric appointment. The consequence is that people have a grayness about them, a deflatedness, a hopelessness and a helplessness. Those two paragraphs on the reddom made me extremely angry. What is most shocking about that is that this is the words of the young people themselves, describing themselves and their lives. It is not my words. While we may talk about statistics, that is the reality of life in many working-class areas across Scotland. My worry is that things will get even worse if we sleepwalk into another Tory Government or if we end the Barnett formula's redistribution. What would another £70 billion of cuts mean for our housing budget when we have a social housing crisis? What would it mean alongside the Scottish Government's underfunding of local government services? What would it mean for our social care sector? Already one of the biggest crises that we see is in the social care sector. What about youth services, community health or addiction services, social work? I shudder to think what it would mean for the cohesiveness of our society and the wellbeing of our community, certainly. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. He is obviously not happy about the idea of Labour perhaps doing a deal with the Conservatives in the face of a hung Parliament at Westminster, so would he be prefer to have a deal with the SNP in such a situation? I would prefer Mr Mason not to talk utter tripe. First of all, that would be a stat. Mr Finlay, what's your language, please? I'm trying to raise a very serious point here about the conditions of people in their community and we're getting rubbish like that. This is not a game. People are dying early through poverty up to 25 to 30 years before their time. This is no accident, this is a direct result of a system that is supposed to create poverty and inequality via a low-taxed, privatised, small-state approach. The question for us is, are we willing to do anything about it? Are we willing to say to those who can pay more, you will pay more? Well, a 50p tax rate is a start to that. Are we willing to say to the low-paid young person on a zero-hour contract, things will change for the better? We'll put an end to those zero-hours abuses, increase the minimum wage and extend the living wage and give a guarantee to young people out of a job. Are we willing to say to the big tax evaders that they must help finance the services that they benefit from? A clamp down on tax avoidance would certainly help there. Are we willing to target resources to immediate areas? Will a targeted school attainment plan begin that process? Are we willing to invest in our young people while reinstating college bursaries, no tuition fees and a £1,600 training allocation will make a real difference? However, those things can only be achieved because, as part of a UK-wide economic system, we benefit from UK-wide redistribution. The Barnett formula is a good thing. Where is the logic in losing out an over £4 billion for our public services that need that investment? I simply do not understand that. A full fiscal autonomy would slip deeper and deeper into austerity. Surely it is better that we continue to gain from a higher share of public spending. Surely it is better that we benefit from a share of a tax on UK bankers' bonuses to fund jobs for young people. Surely it is better that we benefit from taxes on the mansions of very wealthy people to fund our NHS. Surely it is better that we do not cut our nose off to spite our face. We owe it to the young people that I spoke about to offer practical policies that will materially improve their lives. Cutting public spending by £4 billion simply will not do that. Many thanks. When considering the Labour Party's motion, there are so many things within it that are questionable that it is difficult to make your mind up just where to start. However, the overall comment that best describes its major message is clear. It is another talking down Scotland exercise by Labour, a complete rubishing of Scotland's achievements and distortions of facts only matched during the Scottish independence referendum. And if it was not true, if it was true, which it is not, then come up with ideas in the motion to put it right, what the Labour proposed, well, nothing. Nothing more than we should continue to live from the crumbs of a supposed rich man's table. Of course, when you examine Scotland's prospects and its performance over the recent past, you will come up with a contrary view to what Labour is claiming. Over the last 34 years, Scotland has raised more tax revenues per head of population than in the rest of the UK in each and every one of those years. Rather than Scotland being a basket case, nothing case needing propped up by the rest of the UK is the exact opposite, with the fact being that Scotland is subsidising the rest of the UK in relative terms, something that we would never hear from any unionist politician in Scotland. Of course, the perpetual untruth about Scotland being subsidised gains common currency across the UK, but particularly within England. This slur of a myth is fed by unionist politicians in Scotland who are prepared to constantly rubbish even their own families and the people of Scotland's overall prospects for a purpose that I find very difficult to understand.  On another point, only Labour could possibly call in a motion for the Scottish Government to rein the Barnett formula, but forget to mention that the Scottish Government has never asked for the Barnett formula to be scrapped in the first place. In fact, the Scottish Government, time after time, has repeatedly called for the Barnett formula to be retained, but who has argued for it to be scrapped, indeed even demanded that the formula be scrapped? Presiding offers, you couldn't make it up. Of course, it's Labour. Yes, Labour's First Minister of Wales in July 2010 called for the formula to be scrapped, which would overnight steal £4 billion from the Scottish budget. If that's not enough, Labour's shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, when referring to the Barnett formula, stated that it was never intended to be long-term, we are getting to the point where it needs to be looked at again. I have read the Holtman report on funding and I understand the arguments, what a threat that is. Despite the Unionist Labour's worst efforts to damage Scotland at every turn, we are not only still standing, we are marching on. Under this Scottish Government and with the limited powers at its disposal, we have some of the best performances in the entire UK. Scotland now has the highest unemployment rate among the four countries of the UK, which is a strong foundation to build on the Scottish Government's looking to achieve a more productive, cohesive and fairer Scotland through its economic strategy. Between 2007 and 2013, our country moved from fourth to third in output per head within the UK, with only London and the south-east of England ahead of us. During the same period, the value of international exports increased by around 40 per cent, which is an extremely positive step. Although the value of our exports has increased, we have also become an attractive prospect for foreign direct investment, with the Ernst and Young attractiveness survey finding that, in each year since 2007, Scotland has ranked in the top two UK regions outside of London for investment and just think what we could do with all the powers of a normal country compared to what we are going to be given by Westminster. I feel that I need to retract the part of my speech because, truthfully, I have no idea just what the Scottish Parliament will get from Westminster. It is an ever-diminishing feast similar to Alice in Wonderland looking through the looking glass, but sadly there is one thing that is quite clear when it comes to what Scotland will get from Westminster as long as the UK Government continues with its reckless austerity agenda with the support of the Labour Party when it will be the most vulnerable that will bear the blunt of the cuts that are in prospect. An issue that is missing from the Labour Party motion, I just wonder why. I commend the amendment tabled by John Swinney to the Parliament. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I now call Mardo Fraser to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In yesterday's debate on oil and gas, I was accused by Nigel Don, who I think has just left the chamber, of rerunning the independence debate. I think that this afternoon's debate is more likely to be a rerun of the independence debate, although we have moved on a little because we are now talking, it seems, not so much about independence and more about full fiscal autonomy. I have read the point in previous debates that language can sometimes get confused when we are talking about the constitution and terms like fiscal autonomy and divomax and federalism get banded around without anybody being terribly precise what we mean. We understand what the SNP means by full fiscal autonomy. It means no sharing of resource with the rest of the UK. It means that all taxes that are raised in Scotland are retained in Scotland. We bear responsibility for all of our own spending and we pay a sum to Westminster for any reserve powers such as defence or foreign affairs or whatever they might be under the SNP's preferred model. I am not aware of anywhere in the world, least of all anywhere in a federal state, that operates on that particular basis, but no doubt we might hear from SNP members if they can point us to models that operate on that basis. Jackie Baillie is talking about the GERS figures. We debated them in the chamber many times in previous years. I want to go over briefly the history of some of those figures, because it is quite important to set today's figures in context. Two years ago, about this time, we had the publication of the 2011-12 figures, which showed that Scotland had a fiscal deficit of £5.1 billion, which was 3.4 per cent of GDP, relatively better than the UK as a whole. Those of us who were around at that time will remember that those figures were trumpeted by the SNP. We were told that Scotland pays in more than we got out from the UK. Of course, they did not tell us that, but our deficit was relatively smaller. Those figures were used throughout the independence campaign, and they were put on SNP leaflets. Yes, Scotland leaflets pushed through people's letter boxes saying, because we paid more in than we got out. That was the reason to vote for independence. A year ago at this time, we had the 2012-13 figures published, and they showed a deficit of £12 billion, which is relatively worse than the UK. At that stage, the SNP narrative changed, and they stopped talking about the last 12 months figures, and they started talking about the last five-year period. They said, well, you have to look at it in the context of the last five years, and over the last five years we are relatively better off. Of course, what we learned today is that that £12 billion figure was an understatement. The correct figure for 2012-13 was more than £2 billion more than that. In fact, it was £14.3 billion, therefore much worse than we were led to believe at this time last year. That puts into context, again, the independence debate that we had in the run-up to last September. Today, we have the figures for 2013-14, £12.4 billion deficit, 8.1 per cent of GDP against a UK share of 5.6 per cent. That puts Scotland in its worst position in terms of its budget in any EU country, except for Slovenia and Greece. It also means that, if we go for full fiscal autonomy, which is what the SNP is now proposing, there is an extra gap of £3.8 billion that we would have to fill. That is either £3.8 billion in cuts on public services or an 8 per cent increase on the basic rate of income tax. Let us not forget that these are the historic figures for 2013-14. That is before the recent fall in the oil price, so we can expect the figures for 2014-15 and onwards to be much worse. The point is this, every time somebody from the SNP stands up in this chamber or anywhere else and attacks UK austerity or attacks UK Government cuts, they will have to explain how much extra austerity or extra cuts would mean if we went down the route of full fiscal autonomy, because that is exactly what is on offer on the basis of those figures. Unfortunately, we have an alternative, because we have the Smith commission proposals. To give the Scottish Parliament proper financial accountability, I warmly support these, I think that it is right that we are more accountable for the money that we raise. However, the crucial thing about the Smith commission proposals is that we will retain that vital sharing of resource across the United Kingdom. That is a feature of federal systems all across the world. We share resource, so the different parts of the federation pay in more in good times and draw out more in bad times. That is being better together, it is sharing the resource. Here we have two contrasting visions for Scotland. We have the SNP vision of full fiscal autonomy. With what it means absolutely is clear cut today, a £3.8 billion cut in public spending or an £8 rise in income tax. We heard from Mr Swinney and the SNP speakers about the fact that we pay £400 more in tax per head than the UK as a whole, but they do not mention the other side of the equation, the £1,200 per head higher spending. The last time I checked, £1,200 was a higher figure than £400. The second alternative is that we continue to share resource with the rest of the UK, but with the ability to vary key taxes in Scotland to dry and grow our economy. In the UK, we are, as Willie Rennie pointed out, in the fastest growing economy in Europe, thanks to the current UK Government. Why cut ourselves off? The SNP amendment talks about austerity and public spending cuts, but any cuts today from Westminster are a shadow of what would happen under full fiscal autonomy, as the figures today make clear. A vote for the SNP is a vote for swinging additional cuts or swinging tax rises. I think that one of the key problems with the Labour motion and, in fact, with much Labour thinking is its concentration on the short term and its failure to take a long-term view. Firstly, it looks at the present position with lower oil prices and, apparently, forget the years of the higher oil prices when Scotland has regularly subsidised the rest of the UK. It also referred to the wealth and resources of the UK but forget to mention the huge debt of the UK, which we are also forced to share. Last time I checked the UK debt was £1.377 trillion, which spread among 64 million people, which is something like £21,500 per head. Is that the sign of a successful or of a failed economy? It seems clear to me. We have had doom and gloom from Labour and Conservatives about how awful things are in Scotland. To be fair, Murdo Fraser's tone was slightly more solemn, but Labour seemed to be quite gleeful that Scotland was in a difficult position. Full fiscal autonomy would have meant building up an oil reserve in the good times, as both independent and non-independent Governments have done. We often mentioned Norway with a fund of $759 billion, but Alaska is not independent and still has a fund of $64 billion. John Mason says what full fiscal autonomy would have meant in terms of an oil fund and another expenditure. I dispute what he says, but I will give him credit for a minute. What about looking forward? Can John Mason guarantee what the price of oil will be in the future and what the contribution from the UK Government or the rest of the UK will be to Scotland in the future? Are those cast iron guarantees that you are going to give? I can certainly make some comments about our present position in the future. Clearly, we are not going to be independent in the short term, at least not by Christmas. One of the key factors that is now at play, both under the Scotland Act 2012 and under the Smith Commission, is that there should be no detriment. We have had a long debate over land and building transaction tax that if we take on that power Westminster must not in any way be disadvantaged right up to 2030. The logic would be if we took on any more powers other than in the Smith Commission heading towards that position of full fiscal autonomy, we would again need to be no detriment. That is the agreement. If it is reckoned that Scotland is running a deficit, then logically, according to that agreement, Westminster has to compensate us for that for a certain number of years ahead. Again, taking a long-term view, as I have been trying to say, the relative loss of population in Scotland seems to me as another sign of the long-term failure of the UK economy and UK management. When we joined England, the relative population was something like one to four, but we are now down to one to ten. Surely that is a sign of failure in the UK? Yes, if we look at the last few years, there have been growth in a number of different ways, which is excellent, but long-term the trend has not been good. It is incredibly difficult to grow an economy with a stagnant population. Clearly, we have a whole range of skilled shortages in Scotland, NHS staff, North Sea power companies and so on. We need more skilled people, and that either has to come from growth of our own population or through immigration. I think that the share of wealth and income is also important to, as Mr Finlay was talking, and I do not know what Mr Donne is going to be talking about, but I suspect that the spirit level might appear in his speech, which I also think is an excellent book. However, it seems clear that the whole economy does better if wealth and income are more equally shared. Just this morning at the finance committee, Paul Johnson of IFS was asked if it made any difference how wealth was shared through the economy, and he confirmed that, generally speaking, giving more money to people at the lower end would give a short term an immediate boost to the economy because they would tend to spend it because they had to. Growing the economy is an important part of the answer, but how the success of the economy is shared out helps to decide if that growth is sustainable. I have taken one already. Another way that Scotland's economy has been held back is in tourism, food and drink. Unfortunately, all of those sectors have been buried under the UK brand, which is generally not as high-quality in those fields. The UK has not done well with manufacturing in comparison to Germany. About 10 per cent of UK GVA is in manufacturing compared to Germany's 22 per cent. Scotland is slightly better than the UK at 12 per cent, but it is still not great. Admittedly, if you go back to 1970, Germany has fallen since then, too, from about 33 per cent to 22 per cent manufacturing, but in the same period the UK has fallen from 28 per cent to 10 per cent, which is a much more dramatic fall. We have lost out on steel industries, our car industries have been lost under UK management, and, despite that, other developed countries have been able to keep those industries. I will run out of time, but I want to mention ownership. The UK has been very poor at keeping ownership either in the public sector or locally. We have got so many examples of the rail system, electricity, royal mail. How much better would it be for the Scottish economy if the SSEB had stayed in public ownership or if Scottish power had kept its headquarters in Glasgow? That is top jobs that we have lost. What kind of country is that in the UK that we lose all those assets? I want to mention one other point on whether further devolution would be VAT. It is very important that we get a share of VAT all the way through the process, all the way through the chain, not just at the end at the point of where the consumer spends the money, because otherwise we could grow the economy and not get the VAT. There are good things happening, but Scotland's economy, as I have tried to argue, is being held back by London, has been for 300 years, and we could do a lot better if we stood in our own two feet. I remind members that there are six-minute speeches. I would like to begin by quoting a statement issued by the STUC in terms of the GERS report. It says that today's report is a sober reminder of some of the risks of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. The STUC has consistently argued that, while Scotland's funding settlement with the UK is entirely fair in the context of its historic and anticipated fiscal contribution, there are real risks associated with the volatile nature of oil revenues. It is for this reason that we have argued for a combination of increased tax devolution and a continuing block grant as the best mechanism for secure and predictable funding for the Scottish Public Services. I do not think that anybody would accuse the STUC of trying to talk down Scotland—they simply point to the facts. It is easy to simply retort every time the facts actually do not suit the political argument that people are trying to talk down Scotland. That certainly would never dream of talking down Scotland and would always work to get the best interests of Scotland. However, the facts are that the report confirms that the value of the Barnett and other fiscal transfers from the UK is worth £4 billion. The Scottish Affairs Committee predicted that to rise by £6.5 billion this year as oil revenues fall. There is a significant amount of funding coming through Barnett that would be at risk. The risk of that would be to public services across Scotland. The fact also is that we raise £400 more per head in taxes but that we spend £1,200 more per person. If we were not spending that money again, there would be major risks to Scotland. Mr Swinney says that the recovery is well established in terms of growth in jobs. Scotland continues to be a wealthy country. If we take £4 billion out, going up to £6 billion, that would change that position, I would argue. The difference between what we spend and what we raise is £12.4 billion. That is not to talk Scotland down, that is simply to state the facts. It seems to me that it would be fair to say that we are talking about Tory austerity. I would have to say that the levels of austerity that we face if David Cameron remains in Downing Street after May is going to be substantially more than anything that we have seen today. The public services will be under more and more threat. I would also argue that rather than trying to celebrate or claim the successes of the Tory Liberal Coalition, had we spent more and tried to cut ourselves out of the deficit, if we would try to put more into expenditure and spend to grow our way out of the deficit, we would be in a much stronger position today. Indeed, when the Government came to power in 2010, the country was coming out of recession at that time due to a policy of growth in the economy. That has been stalled by the policy as a Conservative Chancellor. I never accuse Mr Rowley of talking Scotland down, but does he accept that the alternative to austerity that he has outlined has exactly been the approach and policy of the Scottish Government accelerating capital investment so that we have been able to have economic growth despite the cuts imposed by Westminster? If you go for full fiscal autonomy, the risk that you take forward is not only to undo that work but to create a greater austerity. I talk about Tory austerity, but I believe that the options that we have in front of us today are Tory austerity under an ideologically right wing ideologically driven economic policy or SNP austerity under an ideology of nationalism or the third option, which is to end austerity under Labour under an ideology that is driven by fairness, justice and equality. Those figures bring those different choices that are available to the fore, I would suggest. The facts remain that are in front of us. It is difficult to understand why you would put that at risk, why you would risk the pull-in and sharing of resources across the UK whilst, at the same time, having a strong Scottish Parliament. I just wanted to come back to Mr Swinney's introduction to the economy and the fact that he stated that the recovery is well-established. We have seen a growth in jobs and that Scotland is a wealthy country. The issue for me is that that growth, that wealth, has not been shared across the whole of the Scottish economy. In many parts of the Scottish economy, we do not have direct intervention to ensure that those who are the least well-off and able to take advantage of the benefits of a growing economy are able to do so. I suggest that the austerity measures would do little to help that. I appeal to the Deputy First Minister to look at a national poverty strategy for Scotland that will drive the economy to ensure that everyone in Scotland, and if the community in Scotland, can share the benefits of a growing economy. The Opposition parties are fond of saying that we should move on from the referendum, and it is probably time that they started taking their own advice. The entire thrust of the Opposition arguments today is that Scotland is a bit of an economic basket case, all the things that they said during the referendum. In other words, for all the talk about the new salt-hire draped Labour Party, yes, Labour, if we must, they continue to be the same old naysayers, despite all their denials. No thanks, and I am trying to make progress. The custodians of Scotland's economy is the Westminster Government and has been for hundreds of years. If we are not doing as well as we should be doing at the moment, we all know where blame lies.  Taking the very long view, it is interesting to note that when Scotland lost its Parliament in 1707, its population was a fifth of that of England, one million compared to five million. Now we are 5.2 million to 53 million. The population of England is almost nine times that of Scotland, although it is showing a slight improvement that was created since this Parliament was established and confidence began to grow in the country again. People follow power just like money follows power. Indeed, anyone who listened to the evidence presented at the economy and energy committee this morning would see that power also follows power. The energy market in the UK is designed entirely by the Westminster Government, with dire consequences for places like London, for example, which has to pay transmission charges of 40 million a year compared to zero if it was located in London. It was very clear from the evidence given by Scottish Power, the national grid and often today that being in a smaller country with a smaller population far from where power lies meant that energy policy was not shaped in our interests or in the interests of our economy. Fiscal autonomy is as much about the control of regulations, such as energy and telecommunications, as it is about what taxes you control. We need to have a framework and a network in which we can base our growth. I will take an intervention on that. Gavin Brown, I am grateful to the member. Based on what she just said on energy, does the member support an entirely separate Scottish energy market? I support a fair energy market that works in the interests of all people. It was very clear from the evidence that we took this morning that it is certainly not a fair energy market and it is certainly not fair to the people who work in Longanna and Fife. There is a very good example of fiscal autonomy already in Europe, which in a relatively short time has demonstrated that shifting power from the centre can result in an economic step change. The vast country signed its economic agreement with Spain in 1980, and at that time the region was suffering from an economic crisis. It was in some ways similar to Scotland, but it was post-industrial, such as parts of central Scotland. In some of those post-industrial areas, unemployment was around 25 per cent in 1980, and incomes were well below the EU average. The economic agreement gave the vast country and the VAR complete control over all its taxes. Today, the vast country, as the European Commission itself confirms, is the wealthiest region of Spain. Its GDP per head is 30 per cent higher than the EU average and 35 per cent higher than Spain. It is important to look at what the vast country has chosen to do with its fiscal autonomy. Significantly, it used its autonomy to build a much stronger industrial base, focused on manufacturing, in particular steel, machine tools, energy and engineering. It precisely did not pursue the property and tourism-based expansion that characterised growth in the rest of Spain, which, of course, put the rest of Spain in an incredibly vulnerable position when the global downturn came. It was a catastrophic collapse from which the larger country still has not recovered. It shows what can be done with full fiscal powers if it has a vision and a focus of what it wants to do with those powers. The Basques chose to re-industrialise. How much easier would it be, for example, for Scotland to meet some of our ambitious export targets that will boost innovation, manufacturing and create well-paid jobs if we had the powers of the vast country to help to boost our exports and manufacturing? I said quite a bit about oil today, and I would like to finish on that. Oil prices, as others have said, go up and down, and it is true that they are currently depressed. However, lack of fiscal autonomy meant that Scotland did not get the benefit from its resources when oil prices were high. For example, between 2009 and 2014, revenues from the Scottish North Sea totaled £32 billion. However, over the same period, the Scottish Government's budget was cut in real terms by 10 per cent. It is worth saying that, in all the years of Labour Government, when Scottish oil revenues raised £94 billion, not a penny was saved. Someone mentioned an oil fund today, and I would like to mention the oil fund. Norway set up its oil fund in 1990, when oil prices were relatively low. As a result, it is now the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Norway faces the same challenges as us in terms of the oil price, but it certainly isn't as nervous as we are about the future. It has been an interesting debate, and I have to say that the most interesting contributions have come from those who have managed to get past the numbers and think about the people. Although, of course, the numbers debate has been important, I was interested in Ian Gray's contribution, I have to say, but I particularly identify with Neil Findlay's, at least his starting point. Can I say that I absolutely identify with, despite my background being totally different from it, those younger members of our society who don't see a future, who don't believe that anybody is much on their side and who have real difficulty in seeing any way forward at all? I do understand that. It is not entirely true, of course, because one of the things that this Government has done with the powers that are available to it over the years, and I have to say that it has not to this Government, as previous Governments in Scotland, have tried to improve our education, tried to make college places available to folk, tried to increase the number of modern apprenticeships, tried to improve our health service. What this Government has done, I think slightly better, is to try to remove the inequalities. And I wasn't going to mention the spirit level, but, since John Mason said I better, maybe I should, but there is some international evidence that that's a good thing to do in its own right, and if that book is not something that Members are familiar with, then I return to the general theme that they should be. Would you forgive me just to get to the end of the sentence? I do want to pick up on the point that John Swinney's motion, the Deputy First Minister's motion, talks about all those things. He talks about the things that are within our powers and which we would simply be able to do better if we had control over all the financial levers, which enable us to do them better. I'll take Neil Findlay. The issue is that you can have all the powers that you want, but if you're not prepared to redistribute the wealth of the economy, then you won't target those people that I'm speaking about. If Mr Don might tell us, where is the redistribution happening at the moment under his Government? Can I make the point that I think the Government is doing what it can, but it can't spend money twice? Can I come back to the point that the member himself mentioned about the living wage, which I think we all support, at least most of us do? Please recognise, unfortunately, some of his colleagues don't, that we can't impose it. Current powers do not allow us to do that, and the idea that we should have put it in statutes is just ignoring the fact that we have advice from the European Commission that it wouldn't be a lawful thing to do. We do not have control over some of the things that would be extraordinarily important. We do, however, have some control over where, for example, we spend our money on infrastructure and improving the economic environment in which we're trying to operate, so to say, a lot of work going into schools, colleges. Can I just make the point, and again, we keep coming back to those people who are talking about reduced college budgets? Well, we can't spend money twice, but do please get the point that this Government has worked very hard to make sure that the courses which are available, ones which lead to employment, and that, I think, is something we ignore at our peril. Health improvements from trying to get people not to smoke, to drink less, all that kind of stuff is actually in the portfolio of this Government, and they are things which I am delighted to say we have worked on. Now, I was interested when Gavin Brown started, because I felt that Gavin Brown had probably remembered the same lecturer as I did from a lecturer by the name of McGee, and I, forgive me, I cannot remember his first name at the London Business School, who said, when thinking about economics, he said, be clear, stick to principles and don't allow yourself to get confused by the figures. He was not saying ignore the figures, but he was saying don't get confused by them, because the long-term trends are the important ones, we all know that, and it's also very easy to get hung up on one particular risk and ignore all the other risks, and nobody's yet considered any risks to the rest of the UK economy compared with which, apparently, we're in such a bad place. Now, having a member of my family living in London trying to find a property just at the moment, I can assure you that London has to be some kind of risk. I'm not at all convinced the banks have learned very much. A property market in London is stupid and unsustainable, and I do just put it to Mr Brown and others that actually simply looking at what's happening in Scotland and ignoring the risk of the rest of the UK economy might be short term. In fact, I think it is very short term, and actually what we should look at is the strength of the Scottish economy, which are the ones that Mr Sweeney and others are working on. Would we be better if we actually were running our own affairs?  We know as an absolute fact across economies in the developed world that reducing inequalities is the thing to do for the richer to contribute more and for the poorer to do better as a result. And we also know that every person who's ever tried to run anything wants to be allowed to get on with running it themselves and not to have constraints put in by other people whose agendas may be very different. If we stick to those principles, then I think that we can see why on those benches we feel that we'd be better off with what we're calling full fiscal autonomy—actually the ability to run our own finances for better or worse, but actually we'll do it rather better. Thank you very much, and finally I call Hugh Henry in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There's been some curious contributions this afternoon, not the least of which is some of the contributions that have attempted to help us in understanding history. Gil Paterson suggested that we look at when we joined England, just avoiding what happened in two nations coming together, but it built upon a comment made by Mike Mackenzie, because he thought that in looking at this debate and looking at the economics of Scotland, we should go back 300 years. It might have been more relevant had Mike Mackenzie suggested that we actually went back 320 years to the Darian scheme and to the consequences of the Darian scheme that actually propelled the two nations coming together when Scotland was bankrupted by the greed of its own ruling classes and the greed of its own merchants when some of the reports say that the lowlands of Scotland were decimated. I don't see the relevance of what Mike Mackenzie is suggesting as being of any advantage to us in trying to understand what happens now. Neil Findlay mentioned a phrase, and it's actually a very useful phrase in the course of his speech. When people are trying to learn English, they often say that English is a very difficult language because we use words out of context or we use words that actually are not what they mean, and they sometimes struggle with colloquialisms.   That is exactly what many of the SNP speakers have been talking about, that we don't care, Nigel Don, that the end said it in a much softer way, for better or worse, but we don't care what the consequences are as long as you give us the power to do what we want to do. It ignores what the reality is for ordinary men, women and children, the length and breadth of Scotland. It's interesting that some of the comments that are coming out in social media today are clearly at the behest of SNP members and the SNP Government. Comments such as that £400 per person more that we are paying tax in the rest of the UK, which is all that we have heard this afternoon—not two sides of the balance sheet, but just the £400 more more—and some of them are saying, well, what about demanding a rebate? Well, on you go. Let's get that £400 per person more back that we had put out in taxes, but will they also be offering to repay the £1,200 extra in public expenditure that we got at the same time, or will they just give us back the more money that we spent and then we'll just conveniently forget about the rest? It's actually bizarre, as Jackie Baillie had said. It's the economics of the madhouse, but let's get back to what it actually means. Just today, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report talking about deprivation and the way that councils are struggling to cope. One of the councils mentioned is my own council in Renfrewshire. It's very positive about what Renfrewshire Council is trying to do, but let's look at what that extra 10 per cent cut—if we lost Barnett—is what it means. 10 per cent extra cut to Renfrewshire over and above the cuts that have already been imposed. That's £30 million a year over and above what's happened. Now, what has happened since 2007 in Renfrewshire well? Between 2007 and 2012, when the SNP ran the Government here in Holyrood and when the SNP, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, ran Renfrewshire Council, there were 2,000 jobs lost. 265 of them were teachers, despite the exhortations of John Swinney and others. 80 were classroom assistants. Now, when more is put in the way of cuts, then how is Renfrewshire Council going to cope with those extra cuts given the way that it is struggling just now? What are those extra cuts going to mean for those who rely on our social work services and our care services? Health service will try to put the pressure on to social work to cope. Charges will have to go up. Services will have to be reduced. That's the consequences of full fiscal autonomy. That's the consequences of losing out in Barnett. We can band the words about, we can play, we can figure, we can do what we want, but let's at least be honest that we are talking about the lives of ordinary men, women and children who are going to suffer as a result. By all means, look back 300 years or 320 if you want. By all means, let's say go for better or worse because we don't care about the consequences, but at least be honest that those consequences are going to be inflicted. We are going to get more austerity. It's going to hit hard on those who are most under pressure just now and who are least able to cope. It's going to be the poor that will suffer from the bizarre notion of full fiscal autonomy. Thank you very much. My apologies to the member that I've been unable to call this afternoon. We now turn to closing speeches. As I would expect members who participated in the debate to be in the chamber for closing speeches. I call on Willie Rennie, six minutes please, Mr Rennie. It's been a little while since we've heard the slogan, the trite retort, that those who question SNP policy are talking the country down, are not acting in Scotland's interests, are not interested in the future of our nation. That simple trite retort that we get so often today reveals quite a deeper conceit. If we question an SNP policy that we are talking down the country, the two are not in and of themselves one and the same thing. Thank goodness, they are not. We heard today from Gil Paterson, who has not returned to his seat, that, first of all, two astonishing facts that he said, one was that Scotland was subsidising the UK. Scotland was subsidising the UK, is what he said. He used that in evidence, which was the £400 extra tax per head that we contribute to the United Kingdom. As we've heard from several members, that ignores completely the £1,200 per head extra spending that we get in Scotland. Scotland subsidises the UK to minus £800, or, as John Swinney might call it, a relative surplus. Gil Paterson might use John Swinney's terminology in future. The second thing that Gil Paterson said, who is still not in his seat, is that the SNP did not want to abolish the Barnett formula. It did not want to abolish the Barnett formula. That is from a party that wants full fiscal autonomy and keeping all our taxes. Unless Gil Paterson is proposing or suggesting that the rest of the UK might put up with continuing to pay a Barnett share for our public services in Scotland as well as keeping all our taxes here, I think that he needs to review his position on that. The SNP does support the abolition of the Barnett formula. I'll take an intervention from John Mason. I thank him for giving way. How does he interpret the no detriment principle that if another power was given to Scotland, neither Scotland nor the UK should be better or worse off? I think that, for the initial stage, that is a reasonable way to approach it. You do want to have responsibility in a country if we are having more responsibility over the taxes, but I think that John Mason did not dispute the fact that the SNP is proposing to abolish the Barnett formula if it wants full fiscal autonomy. Murdo Fraser was right when he pointed out the leaflets that were put around during the referendum. I have one here that has talked about. It says that we got 9.3 per cent of UK public spending. We gave 9.9 per cent of Scotland's contribution in taxes to the rest of the UK. John Swinney did not point out the revised figures for today, but, according to the GERS figures, it remains at 9.3 per cent because the UK, the Barnett formula, manages to maintain that share of public spending in Scotland. However, we gave, which goes from 9.9 per cent to 8.6 per cent. I expect that the SNP will be producing new leaflets to put around all the doors to correct all those figures. It is important that we understand fully the consequences of what full fiscal autonomy would mean. It would mean a dramatic change to our public finances and a dramatic reduction in spending on public services. John Swinney was adamant when he said that, even the UK treasuries figures, which were used to dispute Nicola Sturgeon's speech in London, showed that the debt as percentage of GDP would fall over the period of the next parliamentary session. He said that quite clearly. According to those figures, those treasury figures that I have here, 81.1 per cent in the year 2015-16. In the year 2019-20, it goes up to 81.4 per cent. It goes up from 81.1 to 81.4. I hope that John Swinney will correct that in his summing-up that it is true that Nicola Sturgeon's claim that it would go down on every single year was wrong, but it also would go down over the period of the Parliament. That is not true, and I expect John Swinney to correct that in his summing-up. I was pleased that Stuart McMillan, however, proclaimed the economic progress that we are making in Scotland. He did not give any credit, just like his boss John Swinney, but, nevertheless, to the UK Government, we have made some progress, and I was pleased that he recognised that. 187,000 jobs extra since 2010, record high employment, wages, outstripping, inflation—that is good progress—and we have growth, which is vying with the United States of America. We are making significant progress. One of the excuses that the nationalists provide for the pretty poor figures today is that we do not have all the economic powers in Scotland here. Nevertheless, they still take the credit for all the economic progress that they have made in the country, but they say that we need all the tools. However, one of those policies to boost the economy that they proclaimed during the referendum repeatedly was a three-pence-cut incorporation tax. Not one single back-bencher mentioned that today. Without that tool in the box, how on earth are we going to repair those poor figures today? They have dispensed with one of their central economic policies. Not one back-bencher mentioned it, not one back-bencher mentioned it last week either. I think that what we have found today is that the SNP is running out of excuses. It is just as well that we did not vote yes last year, or that the public finances would be feeling the pressure today. Presiding Officer, it has been a bizarre debate at times. I have to say that I learned from Stuart McMillan of all people today that the Prime Minister is apparently a big fan of full fiscal autonomy. I must have missed a memo on that one, and I must check my email box when I get back to see that in writing. We heard from Nigel Don who said in a debate about the economy that he really should not get confused about the numbers. Just read the spirit level seemed to be his advice. I may follow his advice later on that, but I suspect that one of the reasons that he was not getting confused about the GERS numbers was because he had not looked at or read the GERS numbers, and it is very easy not to get confused by them if you do not look at them at all. I want to touch on something that I heard this morning at the finance committee, because Paul Johnson of the Institute for... I am grateful. I recognise political sniping when I see it. Can I make the point that I am familiar with the numbers, although I probably have not looked at them in much detail? I was trying to make the point about the general drift and trend of things that oscillate over long periods of time, and I think that Mr Brown understood that. I understand that, but if we were to go for full fiscal autonomy and in year one we were £3 billion or £4 billion or £5 billion down, we would have to solve that problem immediately. We would not have the luxury of just being able to say that perhaps in the longer term it may oscillate, we would be faced with that problem at once with the kind of issues that Hugh Henry and Neil Findlay and others talked about. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies was asked today about full fiscal autonomy, and he explained that very clearly and simply. He said that the on-shore tax take per head between Scotland and the UK is broadly identical. It is almost the same. Spending per head is significantly higher in Scotland, as we heard in the debate, to the tune of £1,200. That means that there is a gap to make up. If you have a particularly strong year for oil, where production is going well, where costs are low and where the price of oil is high, then much of that gap, if not all of it, can be plugged. There are no doubt that in some years that gap was plugged, perhaps in some years in the future. For many years that gap would not be plugged, and in other years it would not even come close to being plugged. Hence, we have a £12 billion deficit, according to the GERS figures today, and that is likely to grow based on the oil revenues that oil and gas UK projected for the current financial year of 1415. We would be worse off financially in the short term. Mr Johnson described that as simple arithmetic in the short and potentially to the medium. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Does he accept that the UK has had a deficit in 43 of the last 50 years? Yes, I do, but you have to look at the relative deficits. For Scotland, for GERS, it is 8.1 per cent. Order, please. This is important, because the entire central case of the SNP and the Government is that we would be better off under full fiscal autonomy. They do not say that they would be the same. They do not say that we would be marginally worse off. Their central position is that we would be better off. My point is that if we have a deficit of 8.1 per cent and the UK has 5.6 per cent and ours is likely to grow if the oil figures are as projected, we will have a problem in year 1. However, in their entire cases, we would be better off and it is for them to prove and demonstrate how that would be the case. Mr Swinney, as ever, complained about the size of the debt without adding to the fact that he wants to add £180 billion to that. He nods, as he says that. He is not even embarrassed about the fact that he complained about the size of the debt while wanting to add to it. However, more than that, the Scottish Government does not have any plan to eliminate the deficit, because on the paper that it produced, yes, the deficit goes down, but even five years hence we have a deficit. If you followed the trajectory that was set by it, it would be probably two parliaments at least if you were being generous before you end the deficit. I simply say to Mr Swinney what impact would that have on the markets? What impact would that have on investors if we say that we have now got no plan to eliminate the deficit for at least two parliaments? On his comment about the fact that debt is a percentage of GDP falls, that is simply not true again. 81.1 per cent in the base year, according to the Treasury, by 1920 is 81.4 per cent, which is an increase in the overall size of the debt, according to the Treasury, based on Scottish Government figures. The figures for Jersey this year are really challenging and the figures for next year we think will be more challenging still. However, in the longer term, the position could be even more challenging because of the underlying trends, the cost pressures that we are likely to face in terms of our demographics and the fact that the revenues on which we rely are volatile and will diminish over time. For that reason, I repeat our call again that the Scottish Government publishes its projections based on full fiscal autonomy. It published the outlook for Scotland's finances last year. Why not, as it has done over the last couple of years, publish a new outlook based on new short- and long-term oil and gas tax take figures and based on full fiscal autonomy? Then, once again, it will be up to the people of Scotland to make decisions based on the facts and the figures put in front of them. The first thing that I need to do at the outset of this debate is to deal with the point that Willie Rennie raised about the information that I had given to Parliament. I want to be absolutely crystal clear about what I said to Parliament, because it matters in the information that we have set out before. What I said to Mr Rennie was that, by the end of the Parliament, in the Treasury analysis, debt was falling, and I will put the numbers on the record. It would be 81.1 per cent in 1516. That is under the Treasury analysis. 81.1, 81.9, 82.2, so it is rising, 82.0 it is falling, 81.4 it is falling. By the end of the Parliament, it would be on a trajectory that is falling. That is what I said to Parliament earlier on. That is on the Treasury's analysis. I'll give way to Mr Rennie. He's very well, but will he admit that the figure goes up from the first year from 81.1 to 81.4? It was claimed by Nicola Sturgeon that it would be going down, and that is not true. Mr Rennie me complimented me on my reading. I can't compliment him on his listening, because I read out the self-seeing numbers that he's just read out. I just read out about 30 seconds ago. I'll read them out again, if Mr Brown is hard of hearing, as well. 81.1 goes to 81.9, to 82.2, then comes down to 82 and down to 81.4, which is on a trajectory to go down. If we look at the share of the deficit, the deficit is going down into the bargain, and even the Treasury accepts that point in its analysis. Even if I were to then look at an analysis, which accepts the need for the level of debt to be falling consistently in each of the years—I'll put those numbers on the record—at present, staying at 81.1 in 2016-17, down to 80.95 in 1920, that would still enable £165.1 billion of additional expenditure to be committed to if there was a will to take an alternative strategy towards the austerity of the current United Kingdom Government. Of course I'll give way to Mr Rennie again. Will he read out some other figures that show that the actual debt interest payments that will be required for that in the final year would be £4.7 billion. Paid in debt interests—that's not going to be invested, that's paying back the people who borrowed the money from in the first place. Is Mr Rennie in any way aware of the degree of interest-servicing charges that the current United Kingdom Government is incurring as a consequence? It's not something new, and Mr Rennie throws his hands up to suggest going up. Of course, debt interest charges have gone up because the UK Government has had to borrow because it failed to deliver the growth that it itself predicted would be the case. Unfortunately for Mr Rennie's glowing enthusiasm for the performance of the UK Government, he omits the fact that the growth that was predicted in 2011 and 2012, and from the largest part of 2013, failed to materialise. As a consequence, the chancellor has had to borrow significantly more than he expected to borrow in 2010. What we are setting out, what the First Minister set out, is an approach that can ensure that we are able to choose not to go down the route of austerity that is the priority of the Conservative Government. Of course, that brings me, of course. Gavin Brown will use his figures and the trajectory that is set by the Scottish Government, and he can use his figures, not the Treasury figures, at what point and in which year is the deficit eliminated? The deficit would be eliminated much later than is predicted by the UK Government, because we would want to borrow to finance and support growth in the economy. That is the priority of the Scottish Government. In a number of heartfelt contributions from Neil Findlay, Ian Gray, Hugh Henry and Alec Rowley, there were a number of examples set out about how the financial position that we find ourselves in at the present moment has affected public services in Scotland. I have been very clear to Parliament about the financial strain that we are managing, because our budget has fallen by 10 per cent in real terms since 2010. We should not be at all surprised that there are difficulties and challenges in our public services as a consequence of that significant reduction in public expenditure. Why, then, has the Labour Party committed itself to supporting the charter for budget responsibility and £30 billion of further cuts in UK public expenditure is beyond me? How and how will the Labour Party members believe that the public services of our country will be put in a stronger position as a consequence of £30 billion worth of cuts? Alec Rowley asked us to support a position that ended austerity under Labour. Asterity will continue under a Labour Government as a consequence of the announcements that the Labour Party has set out. He has two minutes of his speech left, and he has not yet begun to address the motion from the Labour Party. Is that because he realises that we are telling the truth? I am not sure that the first of Chisholm was in at the beginning, but I answered many points in the Labour motion at the start of the debate. I am answering points that members have raised in the debate, and I am pointing out, reminding Mr Chisholm about the fact that he is a member of a party that supports £30 billion worth of cuts in public expenditure as a consequence of signing up to the charter for budget responsibility. In the course of the debate, of course— Neil Findlay? Having been in the House of Commons, Mr Swinney is fully aware that one Parliament cannot bind another, so he knows that he is talking rubbish. That was a really worthwhile contribution to wait for. On the same logic that Neil Findlay has said that one Parliament in the UK cannot bind another Parliament, I suppose that that means that the commitments that have been made by one Parliament, this United Kingdom Parliament, to guarantee the permanency of this Scottish Parliament—that is meaningless. Is that what Mr Findlay is saying? That that is meaningless, because the next Parliament could come along and abolish this Parliament. If Mr Findlay wants a lesson in ridiculous arguments, he sets one out very clearly in the course of this debate.  If I can hear them saying that, I am sure that Mr Findlay must be able to hear that into the bargain. The Scottish Government has set out our position that we believe—we have set this out consistently—that Scotland should be in a position to determine our own affairs, to take control of our own resources and to take the meaningful steps of improving the economic performance of Scotland. John McAlpine made an excellent contribution to the debate, where she set out how, looking at comparative international examples, where other jurisdictions had secured full financial responsibility, they had been able to take their countries on a better and more productive course by investing in the capabilities of their economy, by investing in supporting innovation, by being able to take the tax measures to improve their company base, by being able to protect the working and the living standards of individuals, by being able to undertake regulation in relation to employment regulation—a commitment that we would wish to take forward, but which eluded us because the Smith commission was not prepared to agree to such proposals. If we have those responsibilities, we are able to create a stronger set of economic foundations for Scotland. What the GERS report does today is demonstrate that Scotland is a wealthy country. There are some years in which we are in a stronger financial position to the rest of the UK. There are other years in which we are not, but throughout the process we have strong economic foundations and the opportunity to extend our fiscal and economic responsibilities would allow us to strengthen those responsibilities and those foundations even further. Thanks to now Colin Lewis McDonald to wind up the debate, and you have until just before five, Mr McDonald. Thank you very much. Yesterday we debated the need for action to support the oil and gas sector. The SNP's central proposition yesterday was that the Chancellor should reduce the headline rate of supplementary charge for North Sea profits by some 33 per cent, and indeed the need for fiscal action was supported across the chamber. What we have learned today from the GERS report is that even without the fiscal changes we now clearly need, revenue to the exchequer from North Sea oil and gas has already fallen by 24 per cent even before the current oil price crisis began. We know that the fall in the price of oil has wiped out the profits of many marginal fields. The fall in revenue in this current financial year, therefore, and the next year will be more serious still. That is very bad news indeed for the industry and for those who work in it. It is also very significant in its impact on the political choices that we face. Does the general election in May offer choices to voters? We believe that most people have had enough of austerity of paying for deficit reduction at the expense of public services. That choice is what matters most, and far from following the Tory austerity plans, as John Swinney has claimed today, Labour has already made clear that public spending over the next term, if we win May's election, will be of a different order than it will be if we do not. Gavin Brown mentioned Paul Johnson. Last night, Paul Johnson confirmed that vital difference. The Institute of Fiscal Studies believes that the difference between Labour and Tory spending plans will be of the order of £24 billion a year by the end of the next Parliament. Not only that, but he reflected on how far S&P spending plans shadow those of Labour as well. To find a better way to tackle the deficit over a longer time period and at less cost is what we believe most voters want. We believe that it will take a change of government and that our Labour Government will deliver a very different approach to public spending and deliver the Smith agreement on further devolution to Scotland. Rejecting the Tories at the polls in Scotland will not be enough, because the S&P has confirmed today that it will fight the election on a platform of full fiscal autonomy. That, of course, is not Smith. The Smith agreement is very specific in setting out that Scotland remains part of the UK and that we remain part of the fiscal union. However, full fiscal autonomy, as we have heard, is not just to reject Smith, it is to reject Barnett 2. The tax and spending relationship between the Scottish and UK Governments is a two-way street. For most of the last 30 years, the extra spending in Scotland has been balanced by the extra revenue that is raised in Scotland because of Northie Oil. The STUC has been quoted already by Alec Rowley. It described the relationship succinctly. The STUC has always argued that Scotland's funding settlement with the UK is entirely fair in the context of its historic and anticipated fiscal contribution. In other words, oil offsets Barnett, so while Scotland gets extra spending on the ground so its relative disadvantage, it was justifiable historically because, despite changes in that relative disadvantage, because of Scotland's contribution to UK revenues from offshore oil and gas. The STUC is not there for arguing for any change to the relationship, it is simply arguing that what works best is the combination of block funding and the proposals for tax devolution that the Smith agreement contains. Today's GERS figures show that the balance has already shifted. By 2013-14, Government revenues from oil and gas had already dipped below £4 billion, not the result of the falling price of oil but reflecting the fact that North Sea production passed its peak some years ago and that levels of production continue to decline. MacDonald for taking intervention. I wonder if we could perform the calculation that would result in increasing revenues if the recommendations of the wood report were followed or, indeed, if we were able to realise the 60 per cent recovery rate from oil fields that the Norwegian sector is able to realise compared to the 40 per cent in the UK-managed fields? The matters contained in the wood report are very significant indeed, but Ian Wood does not pretend that any changes whatsoever can guarantee either future production or future revenues. That is one of the critical points that the SNP has clearly missed, because the logic of full fiscal autonomy is fatally undermined because of the current economic circumstances. Scotland might hope to gain no longer matches what Scotland stands to lose, because full fiscal autonomy means funding our own services from our own resources, and even for those who support it in principle, it only makes sense if the sums add up. We, on this side, do not support full fiscal autonomy in principle. We believe that we are better to deliver real powers to this Parliament but to do so in the context of shared as well as devolved taxes, shared as well as devolved welfare and common pensions across the UK. However, if there ever was a case for full fiscal autonomy, it is certainly not there now. We have heard the numbers today. The public revenue black hole of £6 billion is demonstrable. It has not been denied even by those who have disagreed with us. Going back to our oil revenues of the 1990s is not an option, no matter how fund SNP members may be of doing precisely that. John Swinney's time machine, visiting the best past years of relative surplus, as he likes to call it, is no more reasonable or productive than Mike McKenzie's flights of fantasy into the distant future. Indeed, John Swinney told us that the net fiscal balance in Scotland was better than that for the UK in two of the last 50 years. He forgot to tell us—I hope that he will hear the point—that that was not the case in 12 of the last 16 years, showing that even Mr Swinney would be better rather than dwelling in history to address the situation that we face today. The fall in Scotland's fiscal deficit, which Mr Swinney highlighted, was, of course, a fall in both revenue and expenditure, and therefore not something of which he should boast. It is a result of the very austerity cuts that he claims to oppose. In the conclusion to his response to our motion today, he said that anyone questioning the assumptions that the Scottish Government chose to make was guilty of talking Scotland down. We heard the same from one or two of his back benches. Surely it is not unduly pessimistic or unreasonable to query all of the claims that SNP ministers have made. An increase in exports of 50 per cent, of course, would be very welcome. The economy committee right now is looking at how to achieve an increase in exports. However, to pretend that that can be simply assumed in planning Scotland's future fiscal situation is not the approach of prudent financial management, nor is it talking Scotland up. It is simply wishful thinking—higher productivity, higher economic growth, increasing exports. Those are objectives that are shared across a wide spectrum of opinion, but wanting them is not the same as achieving them. The question for the Government has to be what changes in the sources of revenue or expenditure will help to make that happen. Surely the one thing that we should not do is walk away from the Barnett funding that has served us so well and expose Scottish Government revenues instead to the volatility of global oil prices and the certainty of long-term decline in North Sea production. Stuart McMillan talked about the draft clauses to implement the Smith agreement as a reason to walk away from the Smith agreement and then proposed that it was possible—John Mason made the same point—possible to apply the Smith principle of no detriment in the event of full fiscal autonomy. Excuse me a moment, Mr McDonald, but there is a bit too much chat in the chamber, please. Mr McMillan and his colleagues need to understand that the Smith agreement is founded on the continuation of the Barnett formula. John Swinney knows that because he signed it. He can have Smith and Barnett, but what he cannot have is Smith without Barnett, and he cannot have either if he has full fiscal autonomy. Gil Paterson said, and the point has already been made, that he claimed that no one on his side was arguing or had argued for the scrapping of the Barnett formula. Surely even more than some of the other comments that we have heard seems to wholly misunderstand the nature of the full fiscal autonomy, which is his own party's policy. Full fiscal autonomy must mean the loss of the Barnett benefit to public spending. It also directly undermines the very objective of growing productivity exports on the economy that have been endorsed by exposing us to risks that we cannot control. Of course, there are political risks to sustaining the Barnett formula. Those are well understood, but there are political steps that democratically elected politicians can take to mitigate those risks, and the Smith agreement is one such important step. The economic risks of locking our public services into direct dependence on all revenues are not risks that we can control either here in Scotland or across the UK. Our best defence against the volatility of oil prices is precisely to share those risks across the UK. That is what we have done, and it is what we should continue to do in Scotland's interests. As the STUC said today, the GERS report is a sobering reminder of some of the risks of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. Instead, a continuing block grant combined with increased tax devolution is the best mechanism for secure and predictable funding for Scottish public services. We have heard in many of the speeches today, particularly but not only from the Labour benches of the public services that would be at risk in the event that the Barnett formula ceased to apply. Those risks come with votes for a party that supports a proposition of full fiscal autonomy. Labour will continue to support the same view on those matters, as was put so effectively today by the Scottish Trade Union Congress. We are better to work together within the context of Smith and Barnett and reject full fiscal autonomy entirely. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate on supporting Scotland's economy, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 12597, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak buttons now please, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 12597, minister. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I will now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 12597, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of 10 parliamentary bureau motions, and I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion numbers 12598, 12599, 12601 and 12604 to 12608 on approval of SSIs on block, and motion numbers 12609 and 12610 on committee membership and substitution on committees. Many thanks. The question on these motions will be put at decision time to which we now come, and there are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. Could I remind members that in relation to the debate on supporting Scotland's economy, if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie falls? Could I also remind members that, if they disagree with a question, then they should say so loudly, please? The first question is that amendment 12591.3, in the name of John Swinney, which seeks to amend motion number 12591, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on supporting Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and therefore the Parliament will now move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now, please. Order. The result of the vote on amendment number 12591.3, in the name of John Swinney, is yes, 62. No, 55. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed to, which means that the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie falls. The second question is that amendment 12591.2, in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend motion number 12591, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as amended on supporting Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, and we will now move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now, please. Order. The result of the vote on amendment number 12591.2, in the name of Gavin Brown, is yes, 54. No, 61. There were two abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. As mentioned, the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie has already fallen, in which case the next question is that motion 12591, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as amended, on supporting Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, and therefore, we will now move to a vote. Please cast your votes now. Order. The result of the vote on motion number 12591, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as amended, is yes, 62. No, 55. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is, therefore, agreed. I propose to ask a single question on motion numbers 12598, 12599, 12061 and 120604 to 120608 on approval of SSIs. If any member objects to a single question being put, could they please say so now? Since no member has objected, the next question then is that motions 12598, 12599, 12061 and 120604 to 120608, in the name of Jofits Patrick, on approval of SSIs, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. The next question is that motion number 120609, in the name of Jofits Patrick, on substitution on committees, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. The final question is that motion 12610, in the name of Jofits Patrick, on substitution on committees, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is, therefore, agreed to, and that concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business. Members, please leave the chamber quietly.