Mem upside down. We move on to the debate. I'm very conscious. If members wish to press the request-to-speak button for our debate, I'm conscious that, because the question is on the point of order, we've gone well over time already, so if ministers too can be as concise as possible and shave a few seconds here and there that would be very welcome. Cabinet secretary, to open the question. the challenges that Scotland faces as a result of the recent EU referendum. Following Scotland's overwhelming vote to remain within the European Union, our priority is to protect all of Scotland's interests, and we are considering all possible steps to ensure Scotland's continuing relationship with the EU. Previous debates have reaffirmed our aim of getting the best deal for Scotland in circumstances not of our choosing. Today, we discussed the importance of membership of the single market for Scotland, for Scotland's trading relationship with the EU and the the world and how that can be best protected. So before going on to outline why being part of the single market is so important for Scotland, let me first say that I welcome this opportunity to listen to and work closely with MSPs from across the chamber who share our goal of keeping Scotland and indeed the whole of the UK inside the single market. An outcome is in the best interests of everyone in these islands. From that you can tell my strong preferences for the whole of the UK to retain membership of the single market. However, given what we have heard from the UK Government over the last few months, we need to be prepared for the possibility that the UK Government will pursue a hard Brexit. That is why I hope that we can seize this opportunity today to work towards a unified position of support for the single market. We know that this option is favoured by Ruth Davidson, who told the BBC in July, that I want to stay in the single market even if a consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto in 2015 said in quotes, we say yes to the single market. Kezia Dugdale wrote to the First Minister in September to express her support for the Scottish Government's efforts to find a way to retain our EU membership. It would be interesting to find out from the Labour benches when they speak if they maintain that position of being support of membership of the single market or as their amendment suggests whether they have now settled for what is called access. However, there has been no such clarity from the UK Government, and that has allowed those in the Tory party who favour a hard Brexit to fill the void, and the damage is already becoming clear. Earlier this month, the Times quoted a UK minister's response to rhetoric from his own colleagues on immigration. The minister said that it has been absolutely catastrophic in terms of the way that we are now seeing abroad. The impact has been devastating. So today we have the opportunity to reaffirm this Parliament's commitment to the single market and free movement to make clear that Scotland rejects the divisive language of the hard Brexiteers. I will do. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. The BBC were reporting this morning that the Scottish Government's preferred option is membership of the European economic area. In June, the First Minister published five tests in relation to Scotland's relationship with the EU, one of which was that Scotland had to have a say in shaping the single market, not just being subject to its rules. However, if the Law Society of Scotland had made it clear, members of the EEA would be subject to EU regulations but would have no influence in deciding those. Can the cabinet secretary therefore confirm that membership of the EEA would be incompatible with one of the First Minister's five tests? I am able to confirm that just because the BBC says that that is the Scottish Government's position does not make it so, and we have made clear all along that, through the process that has been identified by the First Minister, through the Standing Council, involving members from across the political spectrum and with profound knowledge of European matters, we will come to a decision in due course. I am sure that it is substantially in advance of any clarity from the UK Government. However, as I said today, we have the opportunity to reaffirm the Parliament's commitment to the single market that has been expressed previously by the Conservative Party and others. An encouraging, sustainable and inclusive economic growth is at the heart of everything that we do as a Government. As a small, open economy and a rapidly changing and globalised world, our ability to create a more productive and fairer Scotland depends more than ever on trading with the rest of the world and on attracting investment into our economy, our businesses and our assets. The EU is the world's largest trading block. It is the largest trader of manufactured goods and services in the world and ranks first in both inbound and outbound international investments. 42 per cent of Scottish international exports go to the EU, and eight of Scotland's top 12 export destinations are in the EU. Scottish exports to the EU were worth £11.6 billion in 2014 and were associated with over 300,000 Scottish jobs in 2011. I will do that. Destinations to Scotland have a greater export field into the EU or to the rest of the UK? The UK market is substantially larger in terms of the exports that we have than the EU currently. However, it is also true to say that many of the goods that we export to the rest of the UK go on to be exported to the EU, so it is not possible to give a definitive figure. It is not my party's position that we should not also encourage more trade and exports with the rest of the UK. We are taking a number of measures to ensure that that is true, but it surely cannot be right, as the Tory Minister, David Davis, says to the people in Ireland, that they do not have to choose between Ireland and the EU. They can have the best of both worlds—they will not have a hard border. If that is possible in the Republic of Ireland, why would it be impossible in the case of Scotland? It makes it easier, of course, to be part of the EU for the free movement of goods, services, workers and capital within the EU without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles. The single market removes barriers to trade with a market of over 500 million people. It also opens up opportunities for citizens, workers, businesses and consumers. It makes it easier for businesses to offer and receive cross-border services and to do business in other EU countries. Scottish businesses wishing to export to or import from the EU face no tariffs, no quotas or duties applied to the goods they trade. A common set of regulations and rules apply. In a wide range of sectors, Scottish businesses have the right to establish companies to provide services in other member states. Financial service firms based in Scotland also have the right to provide services to the EU, and EU citizens can live and work anywhere within the EU area. Membership of the single market also removes many other non-tariff barriers to trade, such as licensing and regulatory constraints, which are particularly important for services. However, the benefits of being inside the single market go far beyond the imports and exports to the EU. The free movement of people has been a driver of economic growth, with access to a skilled workforce that is important to businesses and in attracting investment into Scotland. Inward investment into Scotland has been an area of terrific success in recent years, with EY figures consistently showing that Scotland is the top location for inward investment in the UK outside of London. Our place inside the single market is a critical factor in attracting that investment. 79 per cent of investors cite access to the single market as a key feature of the UK's attractiveness as an investment destination in 2016. Will the minister take an intervention? I will do. I would like an explanation from the Government's motion. It says in the motion that, if the UK Government will not secure that option, causes Scotland's place in the single market to be fully protected, how does the minister envisage protecting opposition in Europe if the UK Government refuses to do so? As I said in response to the question earlier, we will propose to the UK Government a set of proposals whereby we can maintain and protect that position. Obviously, we are undertaking a process where we are consulting with a number of people, most of whom or many of whom are not from the Scottish National Party. They come from other parties and no party that have expertise in the European area and also in relation to constitutional politics. We will take that advice and make our case to the UK Government. What is remarkable, and I am reminded of that by Mike Rumble's question, is the front page of today's telegraph when it says that the UK Government—this is an internal leak from the Conservative Government—has no plan, five months on, has no plan. It also anticipates 30,000 new civil servants having to be taken on to try and work on it. It also has a complete split within the Conservative party. It has the three brexitiers on the one side and the twill brand on the other side, so it has complete chaos. For Murdo Fraser to issue a press release saying that it is absolutely essential that the Scottish Government produces its plans, presumably that is because the UK Government has no plans and would like some guidance and some leadership from the Scottish Government. The benefits, as I said, of being part of the single market go far beyond imports and exports. In February, I will address global companies based in London to promote Scottish businesses and the investment opportunities that Scotland presents, and to send the strong message, the continuing message, that Scotland is open for business. Given the importance of single market membership to Scottish trade, it is not surprising to me that there is a broad consensus among economists, as there are actors in the economy in Scotland, that any relationship with the EU short of full membership risks increasing barriers to trade and reducing exports. The Fraser of Allander Institute is estimated at leaving the single market under a world trade organisation scenario could result in our economy being worse off by about 5 per cent overall. That is around £8 billion after a decade compared to the position that we remained within the EU. That is 80,000 fewer jobs and real wages lower by £200 a head per year. I am sorry, I will have to make some progress if I have time towards the end, I will take the intervention. Leaving the single market could mean the introduction of costly tariffs on traded goods, the loss of financial passporting and the right of establishment in other member states, new non-tariff trade barriers to trade such as divergent regulatory regimes and, of course, perhaps crucially restrictions on the free movement of people. All that was spitting Scottish companies at a significant competitive disadvantage, and that is not the risk that we are prepared to take. It is not just this Government that understands those risks, we are hearing concerns across the economy about the impact of leaving the single market, with Scotland's main business organisations calling for continued access to the market and the free movement of labour. The Japanese Government has set out in remarkable detail, and with some vigor, the potential implications of the UK leaving the single market, a loss of company headquarters, a hit to exports, turmoil in labour markets, damaged the financial services and cuts the research and development investment. The CEO of GP Morgan has warned that he could be forced to move jobs away from the UK to other EU financial centres if the UK has denied access to the single market's passporting regime. If Scotland was also to leave the EU customs union, businesses could face additional burden of border checks for exports and onerous rules of origin procedures. In many cases, those are more costly than tariffs and could pose a particular risk to our time-sensitive exports such as fresh food for industries where there are complex pan-Europe supply chains such as aerospace and other high-value manufacturing. That is why the Scottish Government has been clear that we strongly support membership of the single market and we will seek to make common cause with those of like minds across the UK to try to reach the best outcome for Scotland and the least worst outcome for the UK as a whole. That means remaining within the single market. We will, as I have said, table specific proposals in the coming weeks to protect Scotland's interests and to keep us in the single market, even if the rest of the UK decides to leave. It is my belief that the UK Government actually has no democratic mandate for taking the UK out of the single market, which would seriously damage Scotland's interests. That is why I welcome the recent decision of the High Court in London that article 50 could not be triggered without parliamentary approval, because now more than ever Scotland must be and must be seen to be a country that is confident, outward facing and open for business. Our economic strategy recognises that strengthening our links with the global economy is key to Scotland's future economic success and our trade and investment strategy sets out an ambitious agenda of internationalisation to support the strong performance that seems Scotland's international exports increase by 17 per cent over the last five years. The First Minister has also recently announced a four-point plan to build on our trade and investment strategy to boost exports and take Scotland's message to the heart of Europe. Adding to the innovation and investment hubs in Dublin, Brussels and London next year, we will establish also a hub in Berlin to enhance our current presence and build on existing relationships. Secondly, to support and enhance SDI's work in helping companies to win export orders and attracting investment to Scotland, we will double the number of people working for SDI in Europe. Thirdly, we will appoint dedicated trade envoys for particular markets or sectors that will help to make companies in Scotland more aware of export opportunities and champion Scottish trends in companies and key markets. Finally, we are taking forward our plan to establish a board of trade that will promote the internationalisation of Scotland's businesses and provide advice on practical ways to boost our export performance. I will take the intervention if Dean Lockhart still wants to make it. Last week, the Irish Government made it clear that it would only deal with the UK Government as the member state in respect of Brexit negotiations. Would you not therefore listen to the constitutional lesson given by the Irish Government and recognise that the member state is the UK as the member state? There is some kind of element of self-loathing going on here, which says that Scotland cannot be active in the international arena, which actively is. The culture secretary, Mike Russell, Alasdair Allan are all very active on the international stage, talking to Governments and others around the country. Interestingly, I was to talk about who is talking and who is not talking. It is interesting that, once again, the finance spokesperson for the Conservatives leads and puts out the press release elbowing out the way that the economy spokesperson once again from discussion said that. I am reminded of the two Ronnie's, I think that it was an episode called The One Turns. There may come a point when Dean Lockhart says, Murdo, you've had enough, it's time for me to have a go, and we all look forward to that day. Presiding Officer, to finish broadly where I began, membership of the EU single market has delivered significant economic and social benefits for Scotland. It has removed barriers to trade and opened Scotland to a market of over five hundred million people. Murdo Fraser mumbles from the sound lines. He perhaps should look back at some of the comments of his idol, Margaret Thatcher, who talked and was very instrumental in establishing the single market. Did you talk very forcefully about the necessity for freedom of people? It just shows how far to the right of the Conservative Party, first of all down south and now here in Scotland, has gone. Leaving the single market crucially—this is the important people right across Scotland—leaving the single market could increase the cost of exporting, it could reduce the country's attractiveness to overseas investors, it could lose us jobs, 80,000 is the figure mentioned by the Fraser of Allander Institute, and it could impose new restrictions on labour, increasing skill shortages and reducing productivity. Therefore, Presiding Officer, in the motion before us, I move the motion in front of us, and hope that that will gain the support of members across the chamber. Thank you. I call on Murdo Fraser to open for the Conservatives. The most interesting tactic from the cabinet secretary is to say that he wants the support of all members across the chamber, having spent most of his speech attacking the opposition parties. However, let us approach this debate in the spirit to which I think we should address it. I believe that this is the 11th debate that the Scottish Government has now scheduled on the consequences of Brexit, with increasingly little new to say on the subject. A cynic would be forgiven for thinking that this was a Scottish Government wanting to deflect attention away from its failing domestic agenda, whether on the health service, education, justice or even Scotland's economic performance. However, we on the side of the chamber are very happy to debate Brexit, particularly in light of the latest revelations about the level of support among the SNP for the UK leaving the EU. For months now, we have had to put up with SNP politicians from the First Minister downwards lumbasting the Conservative benches, saying how dare we vote to see Scotland dragged out of the EU against our will. What we now know is that those responsible for that leave vote were not just those on the Conservative benches, but were those on the SNP benches as well. At least on the Conservative benches, those who campaign for leave did so openly and proudly. Some of them will be speaking in the debate this afternoon, but we know that there are, according to their former party leader, Jim Sillars, some four or five or six SNP MSPs who also voted for leave. Amongst them, only my good friend, Alec Neil, has had the courage to stand up and state his position. I hope that the others here this afternoon will not be so shy as they have been in the past. They should stand up and declare their support for Brexit. Mr Harvey is sadly not in the SNP, but I shall happily give way to him nonetheless. Murdo Fraser can be assured that I will never stand up to represent the SNP, but does he not notice that the title of today's debate is about the single market? Does he have a single word to say about that subject? I am simply putting into context the debate around the single market in just a few days after we heard the SNP MP, Mary Black, saying that she had voted to remain only holding her nose. On the other SNP voices, we have heard Gordon Wilson, Jim Sillars, Brian Souter, who are now entirely happy that we are heading for Brexit. We know that one in three SNP voters also backed leave. Before the SNP front bench started pointing fingers in our direction, they should look behind them and look at those who used to sit round the cabinet table with them. I agree with the Scottish Government that we want to continue trade with the EU after Brexit, but we are still no clearer, as to what exactly the Scottish Government is asking for. They talk about membership of the single market, but they must know that concept simply does not exist separate from membership of the EU, as I am sure their committee of expert advisers will have told them. What exactly are the SNP looking for? Is it membership of EFTRA? Is it membership of the European Economic Area? Is it a deal like Norway or a deal like Switzerland? Is it a free trade agreement, such as the one just signed by Canada? Is it a customs union? Is it WTO rules? Let me just make some progress. It is nearly five months on from the Brexit vote, after all the attention that has been paid to this issue by the First Minister, by the Scottish Cabinet, by their committee of experts, with all the considerable intellectual firepower of the Brexit minister, Mr Russell. We might be a little bit further forward, but there is still absolutely no clarity from the Scottish Government on these matters, while at the same time they demand absolute clarity from the Etude kingdom government, which is conducting the negotiation. Mr Rennie, yes, I will give way. The member talks about giving absolute clarity, and he set out a range of possible options. I would like to understand how far he is prepared to go. What is he prepared to accept in terms of our relationship with the European Union? Or is he prepared to write a blank check? I will expand on that point in great detail in the next few minutes, if I may, Mr Rennie. However, I want to deal with this point, because it has been suggested by the BBC this morning that the Scottish Government's preferred option was EEA membership. That would be the worst of all worlds. We would be bound by the EU rules, but unable to influence their creation. It is a clear breach of one of the ministers—the First Minister's—five tests for an EU deal that was set out in June. We would have to have influence in relation to the rules of the single market and that the law society and others have made absolutely clear that that would not be the case with EEA membership. Professor Michael Keating of Edinburgh University's constitutional affairs section has said that this would be the most complex arrangement imaginable. It is not in Scotland's interests, and in the terms of Professor Keating, it would mean a hard border with the rest of the United Kingdom, which would be disastrous for our economy. It is very interesting that the cabinet secretary seemed in full retreat. I do not know which of the civil servants from the Scottish Government briefed Brian Taylor at the BBC about this, but clearly it was a very full briefing, because it was the lead story while I woke up this morning in good morning Scotland, and already the cabinet secretary is in full retreat, because he has been exposed that his proposal is in country and in contradiction with what it previously has been saying. I need to make some progress. What we understand on these benches is that we cannot be members of the EU single market unless we are members of the EU, but what we can have is the maximum possible access to the EU single market with the lowest possible tariffs, or indeed none at all. If Canada can negotiate a free trade deal with the EU, then there is no reason that the UK cannot. What we saw just last week was that German manufacturers called on their Government to ensure a tariff-free access for the UK to the EU, so that in Europe there are voices calling for a continuation of free trade and we should be happy to work with them. There are two key points that need to be made. First, while EU trade is important, it is nowhere near as important to Scotland as trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. 64 per cent of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK, while 15 per cent go to the EU. The rest of the UK is four times more important to Scottish business than the EU. We know that, even if it were possible to retain single market membership, we cannot do that whilst we are a member of the UK single market. Professor Keating again said on 7 September, talking about trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK, that there would be an economic barrier, a barrier to free movement, a barrier to goods and probably services as well. There would be a cost to that. The question would be, is it more important to maintain access to the European single market or to the UK single market? We cannot have both. I will go away to Mr Russell. I respect Michael Keating's point of view, but how does this square with the commitment of the Prime Minister to ensure that there is no hard border between the north and south of Ireland and that the continuation of the present arrangement will take place? I have heard the Prime Minister say it personally. Mr Russell, we are well aware of the different historic arrangements between the north and south of Ireland. I am simply quoting to Mr Russell the opinion of a very well-respected constitutional expert, Professor Michael Keating. I suggest that he has an issue with that. He takes it up with Professor Keating, who understands in a way that the Scottish Government does not understand that seeking to secure trade with a market for 15 per cent of our exports and turning our back on the market for 60 per cent of our exports makes no sense on any level at all. It makes no sense, not as if the EU economy is growing in a way that makes it a more attractive proposition. The share of our exports to the EU has declined over the past 10 years to 2014 from 17 per cent to 15 per cent. Little wonder, when all the economic information tells us that the eurozone economy is growing slower than the UK and has been for years. In the EU, the unemployment rate stands at 8.5 per cent. In the eurozone, it is 10 per cent compared to the UK unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent. The whole policy of economic and monetary union with the EU single currency could be on the verge of collapse. Professor Othmar Ising, the European Central Bank's first chief economist, widely acknowledged as the champion architect of monetary union, has said that the whole euro project is unworkable in its current form. He says that, one day, the house of cards will collapse. It will be a case of muddling through, struggling from one crisis to the next. It is difficult to forecast how long this will continue for, but it cannot go on endlessly. That is his view and yet that is the economy that the Scottish National Party seems to think is far more important to Scottish interests than the much closer and much more stable and much faster growing economy than the rest of the United Kingdom. The second key point to make is that we need to be focusing on exports to the rest of the world. 20 per cent of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the world up in the past decade from 16 per cent. That is the growth area across all sectors. Leaving the EU gives us a huge opportunity to negotiate a new network of free trade agreements in major markets with long-term potential, such as India, China, Brazil and sub-Saharan Africa, and bodies such as the Scottish Whiskey Association are already looking to opportunities that Brexit will bring to reduce tariff and promote Scottish produce. Why won't the Scottish Government get behind them? We have consistently called on the Scottish Government to expand the work of Scottish development international across the rest of the world, not just in Europe, but where the new markets are to look at the opportunities to support business. That is what they need to be doing instead of continuing to gripe and moan about the Brexit result. Mr Brown needs to start listening to his former Cabinet colleague, Alec Neill, who said in this chamber on 6 September that devaluation as a result of Brexit has brought huge opportunity to boost our exports. He said, and I quote, we have to have a new export drive to take advantage of that competitive pricing. Secondly, there is an opportunity in some industries for more import substitution to grow our own goods and services at home rather than rely on more expensive imports from abroad. Unlike the dismal and downbeat Keith Brown, this sunny and upbeat Mr Neill can see the positive opportunities that might come about from Brexit. Of course, there will be others on the SNP-backed benches keeping their heads down for now, who undoubtedly agree with his analysis. The Scottish Government needs to make up its mind as to what it wants from our future relationship with the EU, but, in so doing, it cannot and should not put at risk our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, and it needs to start focusing on the opportunities from improving trade with the rest of the world. Those are the key points that are covered in our amendment today, and I am very pleased to move it. Whatever way we voted in the referendum and I voted to remain in the European Union, there is little doubt in my mind that we will be leaving. When article 50 is triggered, we will have a relatively short time in which to negotiate the terms of Brexit. It is absolutely right that we should underline our priorities for that negotiation, so I welcome the opportunity to debate the single market. I think that this is probably the single biggest issue facing us. The impact on our economy of Brexit and ensuring that we have access to the single market for businesses is of the utmost importance. I am therefore genuinely disappointed that the Scottish National Party appears to want to break the consensus on this issue, despite Keith Brown's calls for unity in public. I believe that we should get the very best deal possible for Scotland, and I support the Scottish Government in so doing. The Scottish National Party wants continuing membership of the single market, but do not tell us how that would be achieved. In truth, membership of the single market requires membership of the European Union. Scotland would need to be an independent country and would then need to apply to join the EU as a new member state. In a second, even I, committed as I am to membership of the EU, would want us to pause and think about the terms of any such entry. For a start, we would need to join the euro, and the consequence of that would be to slash our public services in order to close the £15 billion deficit in Scotland's budget. That, surely, for a responsible Government, requires some reflection. I invite comment from the cabinet secretary on that point. I thank the member for taking intervention. We have broken the consensus. Can I remind Jackie Baillie that, in September, when Jeremy Corbyn indicated that he did not favour single market membership, he tweeted the First Minister saying that Scottish Labour is absolutely committed to the EU and single market and is supportive of SNP efforts to retain both. Is Jackie Baillie who has changed her position? Can she explain why? There is absolutely no change to the position. How wonderful it is that you spend so much time looking at our tweets—I will tweet more regularly in order for you to do so—but there is absolutely no change to the position if you care to look back over the letters written to the First Minister and, indeed, others. We talk about access to the single market, but our response—no, I need to make some headway—our response to Brexit must be clear and straightforward, not a thinly veiled attempt to pursue the only thing that unites the SNP, which is independence. Access, not membership, to the single market is key. Access alone will be difficult to negotiate. It is unclear what price would be exacted in return. Experts tell us about the Norwegian model, the Swiss model, the World Trade Organization model, other permutations besides. All of them have their challenges. I understand that the Scottish Government is keen to pursue membership of the European Economic Area through membership of the European Free Trade Association. That is worthy of consideration. The positive aspect that it would be that we could access the single market, we know the benefit that that would bring to our economy. The downside is that, for Scotland and, indeed, for the UK, we would become law takers rather than lawmakers, and we would need to follow all of the EU rules without a say in making them. However, let us have that debate and consider the proposal. Let us also be clear that there is little capacity in the UK that Scotland included to negotiate trade deals. I genuinely cannot believe just how cavalier the Tory Government has been to hold a referendum because of internal Tory divisions on Europe, to tear us out of an economic partnership without a single idea of how to make Brexit work and to make promises about things that you would never, ever going to deliver. Where is the money for the NHS? I asked the Tories about that. The SNP, though, needs to be careful. I will take an intervention. I am grateful for the intervention. Jackie Baillie is right to say that a common regulatory standard is a part of the single market and it would be wrong to be law takers and not contribute to that lawmaking. However, I am keen to understand the economic ideas that informs Labour's position about access because she earlier said that access to the single market for businesses is it not also fundamental that people have a right to access a single market by being free to move where they want to sell their labour? I entirely accept that point and have no difficulty with agreeing with Patrick Harvie, but we need to be careful about language because, by claiming that we want continuing membership as the SNP, rather than access, they are perhaps in danger of setting the bar so high that we are likely to fail from the outset. Much more realistic would be to secure continuing access. That is a practical approach, that is what businesses want. However, we cannot set around hoping for the best, whilst declaring difficult to achieve positions in motions. Both the UK and Scottish Governments have a responsibility to do their very best to protect our economy. That means protecting the interests of business and, indeed, of people too. For example, understanding the impact on key sectors such as financial services, what work has the Scottish Government done to ensure that financial passporting arrangements continue? Without that, some of the functions and jobs that are enjoyed here in Edinburgh are likely to move to Germany, Luxembourg or Paris, so we need practical action. Forgive me for not joining in with the self-congratulatory tone of the motion, which is to support the Scottish Government's efforts in helping business. What is that amount to? A trade board, which I welcome, a doubling of staff in Berlin, also welcome, but is that the right thing to do? Let's look at the stats. Value of exports to the EU is £11.6 billion. To the rest of the world, it is £15 billion. To our biggest market, which is the rest of the UK, it is £48 billion. More than four times what we export to the EU. It is not entirely surprising, because economists tell us that we export more to your nearest neighbour and proximity matters. Why are we not looking at doubling the staff in America, in China, in India, in Brazil? What about doubling the staff that is focused on the rest of the UK? The statistics tell us another thing, too, contrary to what the cabinet secretary suggested. When numbers were last published, our exports overall were down. Dig a little deeper and you find that exports to Europe were down. In the Netherlands, the place in Europe, we export most too. Down by 22 per cent, France down by 8 per cent, Germany down two. At the same time, our trade with the rest of the UK was up. Surely focusing on Germany exclusively is not the answer. Perhaps this is more down to politics rather than following the evidence, because the SNP's own figures confirm that remaining part of the UK single market is more important for Scotland's economy than being in the EU. Being part of the UK secures hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland, grows our economy and funds the public services that we all rely on every day. It is illogical for the SNP to spend so much energy making the case exclusively for the EU single market, yet at the same time campaigning to leave the UK single market, which is much more valuable to us. It is time for the SNP to accept that tearing Scotland out of the UK would be economic vandalism on a scale that is at least four times worse than Brexit. That is why the SNP Government should focus on the practical things it can do to protect jobs in the economy and not stir up more grievance. That is too important for game-playing. It is about people's jobs, it is about our economy and our children's future. If the Scottish Government is serious, then it will have our support. However, if that is only an excuse for another referendum, the people of Scotland will not forgive them. I move the amendment in my name. I will set out today why the Liberal Democrats are opposed to a blank-check Brexit, why we support a referendum on the Brexit deal and why any deal that is agreed will never be better than what we have right now. The Conservative Government is in chaos in Brexit. I have to praise Murdo Fraser for his gall, his nerve to stand up today and to claim that—encourage, in fact, as well—the SNP Government is in chaos when it says that its own Government is back home, down in London, that is exactly in that position. Just today, we saw this briefing in the times, in which there seems to be a dispute over its origin, but the fingerprints of civil servants seem to be all over it. It gives a harsh reality of the situation that we face. Five months on from the Brexit referendum, and this well-sourced leak document says that we are potentially going to face another six months before we even begin to understand what the Conservative-Brexit Government even wants to do. Before we even start debating it, it will be another six months, based on sound information and a proposition. A whole year since the Brexit referendum, that is when we will begin this process. That will be a wasted year for jobs and opportunities in this country. I do not think that Murdo Fraser should criticise anybody else considering his record of his own Government. However, we also believe that we should set out why we are clearly better off within the European Union. I do not believe that any Brexit deal will be better than what we have right now. Look at the Institute of Fiscal Studies. They have made it very clear that, although any country has access to the EU as an export destination, membership of the single market reduces non-tariff barriers in a way that no existing trade deal, customs union or free trade area does. Whether it is the Norwegian option, the Turkish model, the Swiss model, the world trade organisation model, any of those are not better than what we have right now. That is why I believe that we need to do everything that we possibly can to protect the United Kingdom's place within the European Union. I firmly believe that what we need to do is make sure that this Government is working extremely hard to get the best possible deal. However, what we get from the Conservatives is that they are prepared to accept anything—it will be a blank cheque Brexit. If there are job cuts, that is okay. The Conservatives will sign up. Higher tariffs are okay as long as we are outside of the European Union. Lower growth—the Tories are up for that, too. European citizens' rights are ripped up completely. That is fine, no matter the effect on families here or abroad. No European health insurance card protects the health of travellers. That does not matter. No European arrest warrant that delivers a speedy extradition of criminals across the European Union. All that can go, and it will not concern the Conservatives as they have signed that blank cheque. Even Ruth Davidson, who previously described the leave campaign as full of lies, is signed up to that blank cheque approach and accepts, I presume, all those lies that were committed earlier on in that campaign. However, while Ruth Davidson accepts it, at least Stephen Phillips has not. He is the Conservative MP who resigned over Brexit. To leave the EU without consulting Parliament would be, and he said, divisive and plain wrong. It would be fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cuts across the rights and privileges of this legislator. What is more—and we should not forget—that this man voted to leave the European Union. He said that Britain would remain in the single market. That was the commitment that was given by all the political parties at the last general election, but that all now seems to be in the trash bin. He is against the Conservative Government's approach, as are the majority of people in a poll this week. They do not want a blank cheque Brexit. They are not prepared to sign up to just anything like the Conservatives seem to be prepared to do. Liberal Democrats will oppose that blank cheque Brexit. We will not accept just anything. People voted for departure from the European Union—yes, that is true—but they were denied the information on the destination in the debate. To give credit to the SNP in the SNP's independent referendum, at least we got this colossal big white paper. People knew what they were voting for when they rejected it. That is certainly the case. It was a bit repetitive, it was a bit boring, but, nevertheless, people knew exactly what they were voting for when they rejected it. That was not true—I kept them on-side until that point. That was not true of the Brexit referendum. We did not have a clue in terms of the deal—exactly, it was not Government policy—but it has now swallowed it, hook, lyre and sinker, every single bit of it, and that is letting Britain down. What I think we need to do is to make sure that we have a Brexit deal referendum so that people can have a say on the deal, whatever deal is agreed at the end of the day. In fact, we will refuse to trigger article 50 in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, unless that guarantee is forthcoming. No referendum, no support for article 50. My amendment today challenges every party in this chamber, every party that proclaims to have support for the single market and the benefits of a close relationship with Europe, that, if they believe in democracy and the right of people to have a say on the final destination, then they should encourage every single one of their representatives in the House of Commons and the House of Lords to back that amendment to the legislation. With 50 or so SNP MPs in the House of Commons, the burden of responsibility will be on them, too. I hope that, when Nicola Sturgeon said that she is prepared to consider all options, she will consider that option, too, and encourage her members of Parliament to back that Brexit deal referendum. If there is no deal on a referendum, I think that the British people will demand that this Government changes its mind so that we can have a proper democratic debate on that destination. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. When I move to the open debate, I call Bruce Crawford. We have followed by Liam Kerr, a tight six minutes please, Mr Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Previously, I had a reasonable degree of confidence that our economy would continue to grow. Some of that optimism, I confess, was based on the UK remaining in the single market. If I needed a reality check on the prospects for the economy, then the paper provided by the IPPR in advance of tomorrow's finance and constitution committee is it. As a result of the Brexit vote, they project that an increased inflation will lead to a growth shock and an estimated further black hole of £25 billion in public finances. As Professor Graham Roy, the director of Fraser Islander Institute, has already pointed out, the long-term structural effects of Brexit will certainly impact on Scotland. A most concerning piece of advice given by the Professor was that, even with the most positive economic forecasts whereby Scotland retains the single market status, the impact of Brexit will still be negative for the Scottish economy. However, as I am sure colleagues are well aware, is the good news of this sorry tale. His most negative economic projection, which would see Scotland facing a hard Brexit outside the single market, paints a very worrying outlook. Professor Roy estimates that, from this scenario, we would ultimately see our GDP fall by 5 per cent lower than it would have been if we were still members of the European Union. As the Fraser Islander Institute has also shown, at hard Brexit, where we revert to the world trade organisation model, we would put up to, as the cabinet secretary has already outlined, 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone at risk. The institute has rightly pointed out that, outside the European single market, we will be exposed to the harsh effects of the globalisation from which we have previously been sheltered. It is our duty in this Parliament to represent the best interests of the people who live in Scotland on matters relating to the economy, and we must scrutinise robustly any policy that would impact the Scottish economy. Sorry to interrupt his tales of woe, but does he really believe that Scotland has been sheltered from the impact of globalisation? Is that really what he is saying? If you had listened to what everybody said in the chamber, you might pick up something. That is not quite how I said that, but I will go on to explain some of what I mean by that. I can be no surprise to many in this chamber that many of us will feel very strongly about remaining in the single market for very good and sound reasons. We are a fantastic country of five million people, innovative and resourceful people in the western periphery of the European Union. As a part of that union for the past 40 years, we have developed to come the 12th largest economy in that union, with our membership ensuring that we have access to a market of over 500 million customers, as the cabinet secretary has already said. It is clear that our ability to participate in free trade in the EU has been absolutely invaluable to Scottish business. Our membership of the single market provides for the opportunity for us to compete with our fellow EU countries on a level playing field. Every business has the right to trade free. The discrimination free competition has been healthy for the Scottish economy. It has challenged us to innovate and drive up our growth, but leaving the single market brings real threat of tariffs and other trade restrictions such as safety requirements, compulsory manufacturing processes, different licensing processes and intellectual property obstacles. Even more important than that tariff free trade is the common regulation and standards that enables firms to sell goods and services freely to that market of 500 million people. That is where I am slightly confused with the position of Labour and perhaps in summing up someone can clear up my confusion on this matter. Perhaps it is me. They are talking about access to the single market today in their amendment, but on five occasions since June, the Labour Party has voted for motions that clearly to say that maintaining membership of the single market is the key issue here, so I am confused about what is in the new ensing position. There may be a bit of new ensing going here that I do not really understand, because the European economic area is the area that provides for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the European single market. If there was established in 1994 and the EEA agreement specifies that members should open to member states of either the European Union or the European Free Trade Association, so I am really not persuaded by Labour's argument unless someone can explain to me what has changed in the meantime. If Westminster Government seriously intends to remove the UK and they are from Scotland, from the single market, then they have a duty of responsibility to provide us with an alternative plan. So what is it to be? A customs union, membership of the European economic area, access to the EU's free trade arrangements or simply left to the exposure of the world trade mechanisms? It is pretty clear that the UK Government has no plan. If Scotland is to be taken out of the EU against her will and face the inevitable consequences that that will bring, then we certainly should have a right to influence and shape the UK's negotiation position. We cannot be kept in the dark any longer to do so will be to treat Scotland with utter disrespect. In all seriousness, I therefore urge the UK Government to properly include Scotland in negotiations and give serious consideration to her viewpoint. Like the cabinet secretary, I would ask all members in this Parliament to unite at decision time to support the Government's motion. A united Scottish Parliament will give us the best chance of securing Scotland's place in the single market. You know that it is time to put Scotland first. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am delighted to yet again be speaking in our weekly EU referendum insert topic here debate. It is vital that in Scotland's Parliament we discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland, and I acknowledge that at this time the democratic decision of the British people to leave the European Union, what sort of deal the UK might strike, what it might mean for open borders, trade, investment security, are important questions. However, I wonder whether it requires nigh on three hours a week, every week, debating what is essentially the same thing, whilst the Scottish Government fails to set out what it is looking for. When out there Scotland faces multiple challenges, our NHS, our schools, our college places, cap payments, economic performance and the systematic fleecing of the north-east council tax, and whether we might in time get round to debating a Government bill. Anyway, the single market and trade. The single market is simply a function of the principle objective of the EU. Make war in Europe impossible through a common system of law, and making member states' economies completely independent, a process since expanded to include the establishment of common currency, fiscal policies and joint action in international trade negotiations. The result is free movement of goods, people's services and capital by removing barriers to trade, such as tariffs or taxes on imports. For well over 40 years, this party has fought for free trade. Keith Brown was clear how much he admired Mrs Stature, who fought for action to get rid of the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time consuming delays, to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance to secure a free movement of capital. We believe that free trade increases wealth and opportunity, and that is why we welcome the work of SDI and the Scottish Government's proposals for trade hubs within Europe. I hope that the Scottish Government backs the UK Government's efforts to build better and improved trade relations with India, China, New Zealand, Turkey and Colombia. Contrary—yes, of course—Hashdenham. Would the member accept the trade deals that everyone is so keen on talking about with America, India and China and other countries like that? Many of the experts are saying that those deals will take a decade or even two decades to negotiate. Would the member accept that? The EU trade deals take much longer. What I will say to Ashdenham is that if she refers to the official record of the economy committee this morning, where those matters were discussed in depth, she will find the answers to her questions. I refer her to that. Contrary to popular belief, the single market is not complete. It remains in flux. Much single market legislation remains to be implemented in member states. Several exploit loopholes and still more have discovered new ways to protect domestic industries. The French ban on British beef imposed in 1996, lifted by the European Commission in 1999, but it took until the end of 2002 for beef to be back in France. The French steak in the energy industry has led to the virtual exclusion of energy from the single European market to date. Many of the more intangible barriers to the four freedoms remain, such as mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications, the need for product certification, import licenses, persistent protectionist attitudes and divergent fiscal regimes. The idea of a true single market is a chimera. Different countries have a different relationship to it. A morning that is lost through membership instead of working constructively to access it going forward helps no one. What will our relationship to the single market look like following negotiations? It is difficult to predict. Perhaps full access to the single market, such as Norway, or other relationships that include almost full access to the single market for goods but restricted trade and services, such as Canada, or a Swiss star relationship. It is doubtful that the EU would want to reintroduce trading tariffs with the UK, not when German cars, French wine, Italian shoes pushed the UK trading deficit on goods with the EU to record levels—£24 billion a quarter. For completeness, let's say that we do withdraw from the EU without agreement. What then? Well, as we've heard, world trade organisation rules, because the UK and EU are both WTO members in their own right. The WTO specifies that WTO members must offer each other most favoured nation deals. It is for that reason that Scotch whisky will not face a tariff on exports to the EU and will continue to benefit from existing zero tariffs. For example, in the US, Canada and Mexico. In many other markets that already demand high tariffs, for example India, Brexit will not make the situation any worse, but perhaps the UK will no longer be subject to EU excise duty or VAT. It is for all the reasons that our amendment asks this Parliament to support the UK Government in securing a positive EU relationship and welcome the opportunities presented. However, there is one single market, one union, that is even more vital, more important to Scotland than the European one. That is the single market that exists within the United Kingdom. Scottish exports have valued around £76 billion, £11.6 a which is exports to the EU, £48.5 billion generated for Scottish business as a direct result of tariff free exports to the rest of the UK. It is the UK economy and the link that is more important to Scotland's interests. Our amendment is clear. Do not put the access to that UK single market at risk. Work positively with the UK Government to deliver the best outcome for Scottish businesses and consumers and move forward, not in fear or uncertainty, but with hope and opportunity. Unfortunately, the UK Government has now lost touch with reality. Recently, that has been demonstrated by the citizen-led foray into forcing the Prime Minister via a court judgment to consult her own Parliament over the details of Brexit. The advisory vote to leave the EU provided no details on what Brexit would look like, and the UK Government has very little in the way of a clear mandate from leave voters. They may have been voting for different or even contradictory models of post-EU membership. Citizens, businesses and both parliaments agree that the Brexit plan must be fleshed out. Is the Brexit mandate for the EEA or for EFTTA or bilateral deals like Switzerland? Who knows? What we do know is that Scotland voted very clearly to stay in. To protect jobs and trade. To protect inward investment. And to protect travel and study opportunities. Clarity from the UK Government must now be a priority. Now is not the time for coiness. Business after business in a variety of sectors have been given evidence to the economy committee inquiry on Brexit impacts, and many of them have been saying exactly the same things. The complete lack of information coming from the UK Government means that they are in a wait and see mode, a holding pattern. Expansion plans are on hold, investment decisions are being postponed, the very viability of businesses put at risk if EU national staff are not available. This is the climate that Brexit has created for businesses, and CBI Scotland concurs warning of a serious deterioration of business sentiment and that Scottish businesses have put their investment plans on hold. A recent survey for the Centre for Economic and Business Research found that nearly half of large companies have cancelled investment plans since July. That £65 billion of investment abandoned since the vote in June. The negative impact for Scotland not being in the single market is huge. The Fraser of Allander Institute has predicted that a hard Brexit would cost Scotland 80,000 jobs. IPPR Scotland forecasts that the Scottish Government's budget could be cut by up to £1.34 billion per year over the next four years due to lower growth and tax receipts following Brexit. Figures from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggest that Scotland's exports could fall by £5 billion if we fail to retain access to the single market. I do not think that the Tories would normally consider themselves to be anti-trade or anti-investment, but if the reports that we are hearing are correct and we are heading for a hard Brexit, an astonishing act of economic self-harm is about to be inflicted by the Conservative Government on to this country. While the UK continues to mismanage this crucial period, jobs, trade opportunities, research collaborations, investments and more is draining out of our economy. Even once the UK Government settles on a negotiating position, the size of the task ahead and the sheer complexity of exiting the EU and negotiating a new relationship seems to be beyond some members of the UK cabinet. Liam Fox charmingly thinks that we are in a post-geography trading world. I am not sure that the WTO would agree with him. Just one example of the current mishandling is the Nissan deal or letter of intent. Assurances should not be given on a case-by-case basis like this. Any sort of sector-specific deal is, according to Dr Margulis of Stirling University, very unlikely to be WTO compliant. Renegotiating trade agreements with the EU and the other 50 countries with which the EU has preferential free trade agreements is a mammoth undertaking. It will be a decade or maybe two decades and that is just to get back to where we are now. The UK is also seriously lacking capacity to negotiate, as I mentioned by Jackie Baillie earlier, having not done these type of deals since the 1970s. I would also cast out on the position maintained by the Conservatives on those benches that the new trade agreements will somehow be a case of pick-and-mix with the UK holding a large paper sweetie bag. The reality is likely to be very different. Dr Margulis said that nobody is getting in line to sign trade deals with the UK. Globally, it is not such an important economy and the UK is not the country that most other countries are lining up to trade with. There must be some realism about where the UK sits in the global picture. The UK Government— I will. I'm afraid that you're in your last minutes, so you will lose time. Thank you, Ash Adam. How do you answer that? The president of Colombia only last week said that he's ready to simply have a free trade agreement with the UK and have the same conditions or even improved. Ms Denham. But the experts are telling us that these deals will take decades to negotiate. Will the member not accept that the UK Tories are in utter shambles on this issue? No plan after five months, no plan for the next six months if the memo from this morning is to be agreed. To Scotland really does deserve better than the three Brexiteers being in charge at Westminster. The UK Government really needs to get a grip on the realities that are facing us at the moment—the risks to trade, the effects that Brexit will have on our economy. Scotland did not choose to be in this situation, but our vital interests are now at stake, and I would really ask the Parliament to get behind protecting Scotland's place in the EU. Thank you very much. I call Neil Findlay to be followed by Richard Lochhead. Mr Findlay, please. Presiding Officer, I found the debate around the EU referendum and indeed the debate post-EU referendum pretty depressing. All of it has been around Scottish exceptionalism and why we are not like those bad folk in England and Wales who voted to leave the wonderful EU that has brought us so many riches and eternal happiness. It is a debate so far from reality that is painful to observe. Little of it has been about the material realities on the ground for ordinary people. Of course, the Tories are clueless, but in this Parliament we have had a series of non-debates to speculate on what might happen and raise the latest round of scare stories. Just this secretary recently claimed that the UK would become a haven for criminals. Stuart Donaldson, the MP, said that we would not be able to watch Netflix and young people would be deterred from having a holiday in Magaluf or Zanti. It would take much more than Brexit to deter the young people that I know from going on holiday. We have heard that there will be a jobs crisis, a housing crisis and investment. It is not my figure, but it has been suggested that the price of visas for our young folk to travel to Magaluf et al will be £120 million a year. Is that likely to be a disincentive, if true? I am sure that tomorrow it will be £350 million a year, because this is the level of debate that we are in. Throw up another figure, throw up another scare story and let's go away from the reality of what people are experiencing on the ground at the moment. I have heard people say that there is a jobs crisis. We have heard the figure of 80,000 jobs being mentioned. 80,000 jobs have been lost in local government in Scotland and not a single tear was shed by anybody on those benches over there. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be difficult times ahead, but endless diversionary debates to take us away from the Government's failings on health, education and local government discredit this Parliament. Let's blame someone else and whatever we do, let's not focus on the here and now and the issues that this Parliament has responsibility for. In relation to the single market, 14 countries across the EU have unemployment rates higher than 20 per cent. In Greece and in Spain, it is almost 50 per cent. Is the munificence of the single market delivering for our Spanish, Greek, Croatian and Italian young brothers and sisters? I think not. Has the single market delivered for the young Poles and Lithuanians forced to leave their homeland in their roots to try and make a living? Or the Romanian women whom I speak to in the morning coming to this Parliament, has it delivered for them, has it delivered fair pay and employment conditions for all workers across the EU? The driving force within the single market is not a social Europe, it's a neoliberal Europe, a Europe that puts competition not co-operation at the heart of policy, that forces competitive tendering heavily weighted in favour of price competition, not social value or benefit. Force tendering lowers costs and, in turn, lowers wages and cuts conditions. Look no further than in this place. When I first came here, canteen workers, cleaners and maintenance staff were paid below the living wage with little protection against sickness and illness on the basis of a contract one under EU single market rules. In the debates that we have had, where is the understanding or critique of any of that? Where is the demand for reform of the single market that produces the very results? The truth is, the EU and many of its component parts have too often, despite efforts that are made, acted as an impediment towards progressive policy making and legislation. Whether we like it or not, as it is currently formulated, the EU in the single market reflects the wishes of capital markets or speculators on of bankers more than it does of working people. When we saw that when we debated the public bodies bill at stage 3, I lodged an amendment to legislate that companies pay their workers a living wage. The minister, Alec Neil, said in reply, my amendment would not do what he said he wants it to do. Had the European Union's Lisbon treaty allowed it, the procurement bill would have incorporated the provision whereby the providers under every public contract would have had to offer the living wage before they could even be considered for tender. When we took advice, we were told that it was unacceptable under the terms of the treaty. So, Presiding Officer, despite the fact that the Opposition wanted it, the minister wanted it and presumably the Government wanted it, this Parliament was prevented from accepting this piece of progressive legislation because the EU told us not to. Yet I haven't heard a single word of criticism of such rules from the Government or a demand for those single market rules to change. That was a terrible decision for workers involved, but it was also a terrible day for our democracy because the wishes of this Parliament were blocked by the rules of the single market that so many people champion. Why would we want to remain part of that system? We should be arguing for a reformed single market that allows and encourages progressive social and economic policy. It does not block it. We need access to a reformed single market that allows state aid and public ownership. Let's start with ScotRail and that allows for conditionality in public contracts, where we can protect jobs and community in tax avoidance and demand fair working practices from companies such as Amazon. I hear none of that from the Scottish Government, just a continued and intensified acceptance of neoliberal orthodoxy. It is single market rules and complemented by an EU-wide austerity agenda that has caused so much economic havoc across Europe. If failure to understand this and address the needs of our communities feeds racism and xenophobia across the continent and if left unaddressed will lead to the break-up of the European Union, I find it incredible. I must ask you to wind up. I find it incredible that the Government is trying so hard to remain part of the EU single market while trying at the same time so hard to leave the much bigger UK single market. Thank you very much. Richard Lochhead to be followed by Patrick Harvie. As indeed Murdo Fraser said at the opening of his speech, it's Tuesday, therefore it's time for another debate on Brexit in the Scottish Parliament. I was a bit confused by Murdo Fraser's opening remarks because he said, of course, that the SNP was only debating this issue as a distraction from domestic issues, and he spent most of his speech attacking the SNP as a distraction from speaking about Brexit. Although he then changed his mind and said that it was good to talk about Brexit because it is important, which was in tune with Jackie Baillie's comment that this is the biggest issue we do face today, especially in terms of maintaining access in her terms to the single market, albeit I thought she did then go on to make the case for Brexit, which I thought was a bit strange and shows a shifting, unfortunately, of the Labour Party's position, but hopefully that's not the case today at decision time. I was also puzzled by Neil Findlay's disappointment and lamenting the fact that we have a different debate north of the border compared to south of the border because quite clearly there is a distinction in the debate north of the border compared to the rest of the UK because 62 per cent of Scots voted to remain within the European Union. Therefore, this is a massive issue. It's about respecting the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland. Does he think—and I make no comment on this—that if we were faced with the same circumstances that we do in England and Wales and the same levels of migration, that we were divended up with the same result? The job of this Parliament, Neil Findlay, is to respect the wishes of the people of Scotland and to fight for Scotland's national interests. That's why we have a Parliament and a Government, and that is why, as Jackie Baillie says, this is one of the biggest issues that we face in Scotland today. As well as being another Tuesday for another debate in Brexit, it's just another day that means that we've got more headlines as we do every day about the chaos at the heart of the rudderless UK Government that we have at the moment, the divided UK Government that is driven by infighting and confusion. Some of the quotes from the memo that's in today's headlines are actually quite staggering—quite hollows working more than 500 Brexit-related projects, and they may need to hire 30,000 extra civil servants. They may need another six months to decide on its priorities. Then it goes on to say that it's likely that the senior ranks in civil service will feel compelled to present potential high-level plans to avoid further drift. Departments are struggling to come up to speed on the potential Brexit effects in industry. That is due to starting from a relatively low base of insight and also due to fragmentation. The killer paragraph in the leaked memo is the last paragraph in the memo that says that industry has two unpleasant realisations. First, that the Government's priority remains its political survival, not the economy. Second, that there will be no clear economic Brexit strategy anytime soon because it has been developed on a case-by-case basis as specific decisions are forced on Government. It's utter chaos and a huge vacuum in leadership from UK ministers and UK Government. They've turned the UK into a laughing stock. We're now left with this Brexit-burek, and I commend the Scottish Government and Scottish Ministers for working hard to protect our national interests. As I said, Scotland voted to remain, and the economic benefits of EU membership will have been a big feature in terms of those who voted to remain in Scotland in terms of their thinking. I also expect, however—and this is a very important point for this debate—that most people in terms of 38 per cent of Scots that voted to leave the EU did not expect to be heading towards a hard Brexit. Yet, with each day that passes, a hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely as the outcome of the UK voting to leave, but even more worryingly looks like the preferred option of many UK ministers. Given the lack of UK strategy and political divisions, it's clear that the EU now holds all the cards and a hard Brexit effectively becomes the default position. The UK Tories don't want to be seen as a weak immigration and also EU leaders will not want to see the UK getting a good deal because that'll set a bad example for other populist movements in Europe. Therefore, it does seem, unfortunately, that we're heading towards a hard Brexit. What's also worrying is that we now seem to face a Tory party in some right-wing commentators that are more excited by prospects across the Atlantic than across the English Channel or the North Sea. Since last week's Brexit debate, we've had the election of Donald Trump as US president, and it's really important that we have those debates in the context of what's happening globally, because John Bolton has now been tipped as an executive state for Donald Trump. He wants to take on Russia, Iran and China—all countries that represent about 20 per cent of the world's economy. In terms of having security here in Scotland, it's really important that we maintain links to the European market, given what's potentially going to happen to the global market. We don't have the luxury of turning our back in any markets in this world at the moment in terms of our dependency on exports and employment in this country. The outlook for world trade is perhaps quite uncertain as well, and that's why we need that security of the European markets. In my constituency, the food and drink sector is very, very important, and I know that we have companies who are watching this debate very closely and where this debate goes in terms of maintaining our links with the European market. Walker Shortbread, based in Aberlour my constituency, 30 per cent of their exports goes to Europe. Understandably, they're very concerned about the future holds if we break our links with the single market in terms of the common regulations that other members have spoken to. In terms of customer reactions in Europe, will European consumers be less likely to buy Scottish or UK products because we're walking away from the single market? That's a real concern for many food and drink producers at the moment in Scotland in something that we have to heed. The reason why we need membership of the single market and not just access to the single market is because Walkers and many other businesses in my constituency and many members' constituencies rely on EU nationals in terms of plugging skills gaps and for labour purposes. Primary sectors as well, fishing and farming also rely on EU nationals. That's why one of the key four freedoms in terms of free movement of people is so important, and that's why I make a plea to Labour Party vote today for membership of the single market, not just access to the single market. I urge ministers to continue to fight for Scotland's national interests and make sure that we do maintain membership of the single market. I call Patrick Harvie. We're followed by Gil Paterson. Mr Harvie, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, not least because of the very many commitments that were made by Brexit campaigners during the referendum campaign that the single market was not something that we needed even to worry about losing our participation in. Indeed, since the referendum result, many of those continue to say that we would remain part of the single market. I can only assume that when Mardo Fraser criticised the Scottish Government saying that he's sure that they know it's meaningless to be in the single market and outside of the EU, I'm sure that he was also referring to Ruth Davidson, who pretty much said that the same thing should be the priority within days of the referendum result. I think that it may be—yes, indeed. Mr Fraser. I think that I have to correct—I'm grateful to him for giving me—Ruth Davidson was campaigning for us to retain our membership of the EU and of the single market, because she is clear as we are that those two things go hand in hand together. You cannot separate the two. Mr Harvey. And since the result was known, she agreed that one of the priorities should be remaining in the single market, including with free movement. I think that that position is bizarre, frankly, to be inside the single market and outside the EU, because the only thing that would change, the only thing that would change, as Jackie Baillie rightly said, is that we would lose our participation in the democratic process that determines the rules of that market. I think that that is very relevant to some of the speech from Neil Findlay, some of which I agreed with, some of which I disagreed with, but I think that it was the most substantive speech that we have had this afternoon. The pillars of the single market are not just a common approach to competition law, but a common approach to regulation as well, a common approach to external tariffs, a common approach to free movement, not just of capital and of goods and services, but of people as well. That is inherently a co-operative endeavour, and that is not to say that I agree with every decision that has been made within the single market or with every policy position that it has taken, but to see the value of a system that has protected people's rights in the workplace, has protected people's rights against exploitative businesses in the marketplace. To see the value of that, to commit to protecting it for our citizens, not just for our businesses, has absolutely nothing to do with so-called Scottish exceptionalism. It is to recognise that this framework is flexible enough to encompass reasonable debate about the balance between a free market ideology and the proper role of government in regulating the market in the interests of the common good. There has been that ethos of co-operation for the 50 per cent of young people in Greece and Spain who are unemployed and for those young people in Croatia, Italy and all of the rest of the 14 who have got unemployment at over 20 per cent. I think that Neil Findlay is talking about aspects and decisions that he and I would agree with in condemning absolutely, but that is not to say that there has been no value to people in those countries or people in Scotland from the ability to move freely within the single market to decide where they want to sell their labour. That is the most valuable thing that most people have to trade in the single market. Most people are not businesses who have the ability to make profit by trading anything other than their own labour. I think that there is a real value in achieving that. The contradiction that is developed within the Tory government, the ideological advocates of deregulation, small government and free trade, who now want to restrict where people are permitted to sell their labour, I think that that is an unresolvable position. The consequences of leaving the single market will not be a return to some of the more socially just and proper approach to government's role in regulating the market, as Neil Findlay and I might want. The consequence of leaving will be a threat to the hard-won regulatory standards and to people's freedoms in an environment in which far too many people are now almost adopting the language of that vile spef who has just been elected on the other side of the Atlantic. I think that they have been reading his book, The Art of the Scam. They are just going to say, we will have more deals, better deals, they will be the best deals ever, as though free trade deals are the only thing that we need to achieve in relation to this challenge of leaving the single market. That will simply be furthering this race to the bottom to an ever more deregulated, ever more exploitative free market ideology. It will not achieve the proper response to some of the anger that is justified, which Trump and some of the Brexiteers tapped into. Some of the arguments that Neil Findlay tapped into with anger that is justified about the negative consequences of a free market ideology that has been dominant for too long. In closing, I think that the Prime Minister's speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet demonstrates an astonishing degree of disconnect. It seems that she has only just encountered the revelation that decades of that free market mania and ever lower taxes for the wealthy and for corporations have led to chronic inequality. This Prime Minister is someone who clearly will never offer a progressive response to that reality. Instead, she is simply throwing her lot in with the fashion for self-destructive and xenophobic responses. I will be supporting the Government's motion tonight. I am not able to support the Conservative or the Labour amendment. In relation to the Liberal Democrat one, I can see the case. My colleagues in the Green Party of England and Wales, where they represent people who voted by majority to leave, I can understand why they are also open to the idea of a second referendum on the terms. I do not personally think that it is the place of the Scottish Parliament where we represent people with a mandate to remain to make that case. I remind members that, if they go over their time—I am sorry, we are so short for time—you cut the time of lots of other people. Collgill Patterson, followed by Alexander Stewart, Mr Stewart, you know that, from then on, we are down to five minutes in speakers. Many thanks, Presiding Officer. On 9 June 2016, a Conservative MSP appeared alongside the former chancellor of the Exchequer, George Orsburn, when he highlighted a trend treasury analysis suggesting unemployment, and Scotland could rise by around 43,000 in two years following a Brexit vote. That MSP was also quoted with saying that thousands of Scottish jobs are reliant on exports that we will sell within the EU. I will be voting to remain in order to ensure that we can create thousands more jobs over the coming years. On 22 June 2016, the same Conservative MSP said that, if the UK leaves the EU, then the rest of the EU would impose tariffs and taxes. Now, swing only a few months forward and the same MSP post referendum is now saying that we need to make Brexit work. That MSP now talks about opportunities of Brexit, despite the evidence mounting on the potentially huge damage Brexit threatens to jobs, investments and Scotland's economy as a whole. That MSP is none other than the leader of the Scottish Tories. In the referendum Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU, every local authority said to remain, including local authorities that contain the Conservatives. The Scottish people have spoken so why is not this so-called Scottish party listening? Why is it abandoning what it has stood for pre-referendum? Why has it become born again Brexiteers? I think that they should try and explain that to the country. How much more does it take to convince Tories what the people of Scotland want? Is 62 per cent now not good enough? I remind the Tories that Scotland is an equal partner in this United Kingdom, the union that they strive to defend and protect. There is no doubt that Scotland is and remains an attractive and stable place to do business in, but the referendum outcome presents a significant challenge to our economy. As I mentioned, even the former chancellor suggests that unemployment could rise around 43,000 in two years following a Brexit vote. However, as many have already said, according to the Fraser of Ireland paper, a hard-right Tory Brexit threatens to cost 80,000 Scottish jobs and cost Scotland's economy by up to £11 billion per year by 2020. Indeed, those figures can be put into context when you consider the concerns from various businesses and associations about the effects on losing access to the single market. As a member of the economy jobs and fair work committee, I recently heard the concerns from the food and drink industry identifying three top issues. The first was on trade, highlighting that roughly 76 per cent of all food that is exported from Scotland and goes out of the UK goes to the European Union. Emphasising the continued access to the European market is, as a primatic tariff free sensible and a way possible must be a priority for all of us to achieve. The second issue was access to labour. Approximately a third of our food manufacturing workforce comes from the European Union. The committee heard that reassurances to the existing workforce and on-going access to the EU workforce after Brexit are absolutely crucial to achieving the ambitions for further growth. The final issue was access to future funding and what might that mean for the agricultural support in particular? The committee understands that around £40 million to £500 million is paid directly to farms throughout the EU through EU funding and another £350 million is paid through rule development measures. That is what supports much of the raw materials that goes into food and drink manufacturing. The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union and it is vital that any Brexit negotiation acknowledges and respects that choice. I welcome the Scottish Government will, by the end of this year, bring forward its own detailed proposals to protect Scotland's interests. I would expect all Scottish parties to be supportive of at least in protecting Scottish interests. Presiding Officer, I commend the cabinet secretary's motion to the Parliament tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Alexander Stewart. We fall by Stewart's team. It is a tight five minutes, please, Mr Stewart. Very pleased today to have the opportunity to discuss the issues surrounding the single market and international trade. Early this year, the member state of the European Union and the People of the United Kingdom made a collective decision to leave the EU. Of course, that now has some momentous decisions taking place and a plethora of information is coming forward. However, there is a real opportunity here for Scotland, and Scotland does have a world of opportunity as we move forward. Although the UK Government has begun the process of making preparations for our eventual departure from the European bloc, our First Minister has only postured. European leader after European leader has dismissed the First Minister's opportunistic pleas to negotiate with Scotland on a bilateral basis and has made it quite clear that it is solely the UK Government who is the member state. At the same time, the new UK Government has been actively engaged in forging new trading relationships with countries around the world. The recent trade delegation to India, for example, secured £1 billion worth of business, and that is to be very much welcomed. The UK export finance has also contributed £1 billion towards Colombia, and the chancellor has agreed new deals that will help to increase trade between the United Kingdom and China. Those are all very good stories that are happening around this place and time. In stark contrast, the Scottish Government has said little or next to nothing about the proposals for future Scottish trade with countries around the world. We on those benches very much do welcome the announcement from the Scottish Government of increasing the number of staff levels in the Scottish development international and the creation of new trade hubs, because they are very welcome, but there is much more that can be done to ensure that we go beyond that. I have made it quite clear in this chamber before that the most important single market to Scotland is the United Kingdom, to which we export more than four times as much as we have done to the European Union. In fact, it is not often heard that political discourse, however, is a fact that we end up exporting more outwith the EU than within. Yes, 15 per cent of our exports go to the EU, but 20 per cent go to other nations. That reflects the changing dynamics of the economic strength within countries around the world, and the European Union has continued to grow in terms of membership. That share has meant that the grossed-americ product has shrunk in 1980. There were nine member states accounting for about 30 per cent of the world's GDP, but now we have 28 member states and they account for 16.5 per cent of the world's output. The point of the differences in relative GDP is that I do not think that I might have something to do with the rise of China and India in the intervening period. I think that there is no doubt that there are rises across the world, but we are tapping into those rises, and I want us to continue to ensure that we develop across the world. That will very much take place when we are no longer part of the EU. We can only be described as the Scottish Government's illogical obsession with the European Union, regardless of the impact on the economy. People in the party would think that nobody voted in Scotland to leave, which is obsessed with the whole process. That is not the fact. We know for a fact the number of people who voted, and we are aware that there are a number of people within your party who voted to leave, and there are a number of MSPs who voted to leave. You have to start taking cognises of that and understanding where we are going. I am sorry, but the time is tight. I have only taken one intervention, dear friends and officers. I want to continue. One of the export stories and successes that we continue to move forward is the United States of America. Between 2004 and 2014, our exports to the United States rose from 2.4 to 4 billion, an increase of 67 per cent. The trade deal between the United States and the UK, something that was extremely important. I think that, after recent events, we can look forward to continued processes with our friends across the pond. Thank you. I think that I am now in my last minute.  If you listen to the rhetoric from the Scottish National Party, as I say, you would believe that nobody voted to leave. We must remember that Parliament should represent the views of the Scottish people, and that is very important. Last week, in the statement from the First Minister, she said that, while the outcome of the presidential election was not what she wanted, she would respect it. That goes against the position that she is not prepared to respect what is happening with the EU referendum. She has now even jumped on the bandwagon of using the courts to frustrate the democratic will of the British people, and I find that totally unacceptable, so to conclude, Presiding Officer. The First Minister, her Minister for UK Negotiations for Scotland in Europe and her Government should look at the opportunities, the new opportunities that the powers bring to Scotland, to bring and do all that we can to develop strong trading relations with countries around the world. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That's it. Thank you very much. I call Stewart Stevenson to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Mr Stevenson, please. Presiding Officer, let me just start by gently saying to the absent Neil Findlay that it's not helpful to suggest that anyone here would describe friends and neighbours south of the border as nasty people. My English relatives and my relatives in England remain my friends, however they may have voted on whatever subject. Indeed, my American relatives and friends also remain friends. He devalues and contaminates his broader arguments by such in temperate language. We've heard from almost everybody on those benches and indeed from Jackie Baillie numbers about Scotland's exports to England. Let's just examine where those numbers come from and what credibility we should place on them. Let me start with a paper produced by the previous Labour Liberal Executive in 2005, which says that, in relation to those numbers, the main difficulty arises because taxes are collected at UK level and, since Scotland is a region, the requirement for companies to report financial information at sub-UK level isn't there. It goes on to say that the global connections survey is difficult for practical and sexual reasons and is difficult to say where things are exported. Let me continue, and may, if time permits, let me continue and go to 2013 and look at the paper that the UK Government produced in the run-up to the referendum in 2014, Scotland Analysis, Business and Macphal Economic Framework. Indeed, that quotes £45.5 billion. I'm prepared to agree, by the way, that the figure has probably got 11 digits in it. That's probably correct. However, if you look one paragraph down, there's a neat little footnote that says it may be £35.651 million lower than the estimate produced in Scotland's global connections survey. I've another four to do before I get there. That is precisely illustrating the imprecision about the way in which we produce the figures. I'll have more, if time permits. Looking at the export statistics for 2014, produced by statisticians in Scotland, it, interestingly, provides something that perhaps illustrates where some of the difficulties may arise. It points out that the Netherlands is our second-biggest export market and the biggest in the EU. Of course, that seems rather surprising. It has a footnote that says, Netherlands and Belgium are consistently reported as our top trading partners, however, those countries contain key ports where many of our exports are exported. They go on and deal with the HMRC, regional exports of goods figures. Here, it gets really, really interesting. When you look at the figures, in the figures for the UK, the various countries of the UK, there is an quote, unknown region, which exported £37.3 billion. That's quite interesting, because if that were to be attributed to Scotland, our exports beyond the UK exceed the £45 billion that are represented. Is it likely that that's the case? It could be quite likely, because that is the oil region, and it's only by omitting oil that you get the result that you do. Let's just talk about the business of ports, and I'm now out of time. It is something called the Rotterdam effect. The Rotterdam effect—I have a paper that is so pervasive that it is part of the A-level syllabus in England and Wales. I have a study note here about the Rotterdam effect. It is about how the export is booked at the last point that touches the ground. Given that Scotland doesn't have many ports equivalent to Felix Stowe, to Zebrugge or to Rotterdam, most of our exports touch the ground and are counted somewhere else. We need to be very cautious about these numbers. By the way, I don't say they're wrong. I just cannot possibly, on the basis of the evidence that's before us, say that they're right. There is evidence that suggests that they may be actually the other way up from what we're saying. It's been an absolute delight to have the audience listen to me here. I hope that we'll talk about more numbers as the debate progresses. Daniel Johnson to be followed by Emma Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's always something of a challenge following up Stuart Stevenson in the chamber, but I'll give it a shot. I'm very pleased to be speaking in the debate this afternoon because we've had a great number of these debates about Brexit in the EU, but I think that this is perhaps the most important one because trade is at the very heart of the EU, not because the EU is narrow and purely about trading but because trade was the foundation of something much bigger, a project to make war impossible. With the creation of the European coal and steel community in 1951, it was about tying the European nation's production and distribution and market for steel together, the very materials for war, so that the war would become impossible. It was an explicitly political project that is explicit in the Schuman Declaration. I would say to the Brexiters that I do get very tired when they claimed that it was just a trading pact that we were part of. It was not. It was always a much wider political one, but it was also one that explicitly understood that the importance of trade is both political as much as economic. Is that in order to facilitate it, you need political institutions as well as economic institutions? I think that as the EU has progressed, as our economy has developed, our trade has become increasingly complex and reliant on single markets, both the EU and I would also say the UK single market. We cannot split one from another in terms of the importance to our economy, so we need clarity and we need a plan about how to deal with the situation. It is far too important to be used for political ground standing. Keith Brown I want to take an intervention on that point of clarity. Can he just make clear whether he supports, as I think he voted for on 27 September, maintaining membership of the single market, or does he agree now with Jackie Baillie's new position of just seeking access to the single market? Which is it? Daniel Johnson It is not a new position. What we are seeking is clarity about how we maintain access to the relevant markets for our industries. Let me talk for a few moments about financial services, an industry that is incredibly important to my constituency in South Edinburgh and one that broadens the argument somewhat. I know that we have heard a number of speakers, especially from the Tory benches, talk about brand new export deals—a billion pounds here, talk about Colombia now—I do not want to do Colombia and injustice, but I find it slightly bizarre that Liam Kerr is virtually raising trade deals with banana or indeed coffee republics. It is no substitute for the value of the trade that we have. The financial services industry employs 100,000 people directly and another 100,000 indirectly. In Edinburgh, that is 35,000 people on its own—it is banking, insurance and pensions. At the point that I would like to make is that those industries, those jobs, are reliant on the passporting rights that those industries enjoy within the EU. That is the ability of a financial institution based on one state to be able to sell its services into any other state than the European Union. We think of trade as crates on ships. When we discuss trade deals, we talk about tariffs and the possibility that our goods are becoming a little bit more expensive. The reality is that the loss of passporting is much more serious than that. It prevents trade completely. Given the importance and the reliance of this country on financial services, we need to ensure that we maintain access to it because the decisions are already being made. The warnings are clear from the British Bankers Association. Banks are not waiting around to see what kind of Brexit we get. They are already drawing up their plans about how to move their operations so that they can ensure that they can continue their trade. Liam Kerr I just wondered if Daniel Johnson wished to reflect on the economy committee this morning in which we heard evidence that passporting rights and the issues for the banks would not be that significant for Scotland as they would be for the city. The final minute, Mr Johnson—oh, terribly sorry, Mr Kerr. I thought you had concluded my apologies.  If Liam Kerr can disentangle our financial services industry from that of the rest of the UK, a good luck to him. That brings me neatly to the next challenge or the next point. Through all of that, we are suffering from a great deal of a lack of clarity. It is ironic that Murdo Fraser listed off all the different permutations of Brexit that the Scottish Government was failing to outline because the UK Government is equally guilty. Likewise, I would put to the Scottish Government that the jobs that we have in this country are reliant on access. They need to stop posing a false dichotomy between EU membership and UK membership because, as I have just pointed out to Liam Kerr, the valuable jobs that we have in this city and in this country are reliant on access to both the single market in the EU and the UK. Emma Harper, followed by Graeme Simpson. Since joining the European and External Relations Committee, I have learned and continued to learn more about trade agreements than I ever thought I would, and how important and crucial trade is to our economy. While listening to witnesses and reading evidence, the override message that I receive is that the European Union has been the most successful attempt at regional economic integration within the world trade organisation. To replicate that outwith the EU will be a challenge indeed. I represent South Scotland, a region that has benefited profoundly from membership of the single market in terms of agriculture and the food and drink sector. I am acutely aware of the best way to protect the interests of my constituents and the rural economy is to maintain that membership. I have spoken to several farmers and dairymen who tell me that the threat of a hard Brexit is very likely to damage their business. They tell me that, while subsidy is important and it supports and allows for new ventures and improvements, trade is the key. Trade is the bedrock that their business stands on. In a recent report passed to me by a dairy farmer in Dumfries and Galloway, the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board concluded that trade between the EU and the UK dominates Scotland's agricultural sector. That makes access to the single market imperative to the economy in the south of Scotland. As most of you will be aware, without the UK EU agreements, standard world trade organisation or most favoured nation rules would apply, so UK exports would be subject to EU tariffs and vice versa. Those tariffs would be especially harmful to the agricultural sector. Just to note, I am not sure where all the farmers are in the chamber today, because agriculture is extremely important when we are talking about trade, so I am not sure where they are. Professor Stephen Wolcock of the London School of Economics estimates that the trade-wade average of EU tariffs is 22 per cent on agricultural products compared to 2.9 per cent on manufactured goods. Professor Wolcock also estimates that there could be tariffs of approximately 42 per cent on dairy products. The two major dairy processors in the UK are European, and those tariffs could prove crippling to them. However, as well as threats, there are opportunities as we move forward. It is important to acknowledge that Scotland's brand is strong when it comes to food and drink, and the importance of developing trade with other markets outwith the EU is key, particularly in the dairy industry. However, the fact remains that it is in the best interests of Scottish producers to avoid EU tariffs. Without membership of the single European market, of course, we can still trade, but the reality is that we will always be at a disadvantage compared to our main competitors. Another critical issue raised with me recently by representatives from the NFU Scotland, the importance of EU nationals working in Scotland in the food supply chain. Specifically, it was expressed to me about the uncertain future of Polish dairymen in Dumfries and Galloway. Those are extremely skilled workers who make a vital contribution to both the employers and the workers, and they need a guarantee that they can stay and work in Scotland. Sadly, they have been offered no hope from those on the Conservative Government benches. Last month, those in the Commons voted against an SNP motion to protect the rights of EU nationals. Safeguarding the right of people from other EU countries to remain here is both a moral imperative and economic necessity. However, free movement remains a sticking point for Theresa May's Government, which is intent on ignoring the tremendously valuable contribution of EU nationals in the UK in favour of anti-immigration rhetoric. It is vital that, today, this Scottish Parliament shows a united front in backing Scotland's continued membership of the EU single market, so that Theresa May receives the message that Scotland's interests must be protected during Brexit negotiations. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on Scotland's man in Westminster to relay that message to his boss. In an appearance before the European and External Relations Committee last month, Secretary of State David Mundell was alarmingly unable to answer straightforward questions regarding what input he will have into the Prime Minister's Brexit Cabinet Committee. When it was revealed last month that the UK Government was seeking a special deal to keep the city of London in the single market, myself and my colleague, John McAlpine, contacted Mr Mundell asking him to match those attempts by pressing for a deal for workers and businesses in Scotland. There shouldn't be one— You have to close now, please. Okay. Almost a month later, we are yet to receive even an acknowledgement. That is an indication of how seriously Mr Mundell takes his role, representing Scotland in those negotiations. My first speech in this chamber came before the vote to leave the European Union and was about that very subject. It came less than a month before the vote, and I would like to think that my prophetic words had some influence here, particularly on my good friend Alex Neil and maybe a few others. I welcome the setting up of a cross-party group on Brexit. There was much guff talked during the campaign and much, much more since. We have heard plenty in this chamber. Let's get one thing clear. Scotland didn't vote to remain in the EU. The UK voted to leave, and Scotland voted to remain in the UK. The UK is the member state, and it is the UK Government that will do the deal on leaving this rotten organisation. Will you want to make an intervention? No? Of course. You may. Keith Brown. I thank the member for taking the intervention. On the subject of guff and the UK Government, would he agree with a statement by Liam Fox that British business is too lazy and fat? Also, by Liam Kerr, who has just left the chamber, that the passporting issue is not significant in Scotland, is that his position as well? Graham Simpson. I am going on to discuss the trading opportunities for the minister. Of course, we in Scotland and in this Parliament should have an interest, because we stand to gain a great deal. Extra powers in agriculture and fisheries, for example, and an end to meddling from Europe in this Parliament's decisions. It is those powers that the Scottish Government's Mr Brexit, Mike Russell, should be concentrating his efforts on instead of posturing and agitating. Mr Russell is a skilled operator, and he could bring home the bacon—British, of course—if he applies himself in a more positive manner.  If he carries on like this, he will be out of breath soon. But there is a better way, a healthier way for Mr Russell and the Scottish Government to go about their business, one that will bring positive results for Scotland. Instead of whining about Scotland having its own deal on the single market, it should work with the UK Government to identify new trading relationships that could help Scottish business. There is a whole world of opportunities out there waiting to be grabbed. Only 6 per cent of British companies do any business at all with the rest of the EU, yet 100 per cent of our firms must apply 100 per cent of EU regulations. Our aim should be to exempt the 94 per cent from EU directives and regulations. When we talk about the single market, most people think of it to mean one big free trade zone. It is in fact one big regulatory zone. Access to the single market and membership of it are two very different things. Britain has a relatively large economy that exports more to non-EU than to EU markets, which could easily trade freely with the single market without belonging to it. We need to look at Brexit as an opportunity, not see it as a hindrance. It is an opportunity to look outwards and strike trade deals with the rest of the world. Whatever you thought about the outcome of the US election, the president-elect stated during his campaign that under him America would be first in line to sign a post-Brexit trade deal. Given that the US is our largest export market, that would be hugely beneficial. The US is just one country that EU has failed to strike a trade deal with, meaning that we don't have one either. India and Japan, both massive markets are others, but now we can do our own deals. We could look, for example, to the Commonwealth, where we have obvious historical links but also similar legal frameworks. As part of the UK, we have an incredible opportunity to strike out with renewed entrepreneurial zeal. We can do a deal with EU, they will do a deal with us, and we can be free to choose our new trading partners free from the shackles of Brussels, so let's grab it. The last of the open speakers, Gordon MacDonald, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There are three key pillars to Edinburgh's economy. The university sector, financial services and tourism that are all dependent on the EU to varying degrees for funding, trade or a skilled workforce. If we don't remain in the single market, there is a potential for these sectors to be undermined, impacting on the Edinburgh economy. The Institute of Fiscal Studies produced a report in August on the EU single market, the value of membership versus access. It states that full membership of the EU single market substantially reduces the costs of trade within the EU. It continues that, although any country has access to the EU as an export destination, membership of the single market reduces non-tariff barriers in a way that no existing trade deal, customs union or free trade area does. Looking at the impact on Edinburgh, across Scotland there are 13,000 EU nationals studying at higher education institutions, with many of them based in Edinburgh where there are four universities. Edinburgh University alone has 4,700 EU undergraduates and another 1,000 EU postgraduate research students being supported in their studies by an academic staff that has a quarter of its number as EU nationals. Alasdair Sim highlighted the economy committee on 8 November that there are 4,600 EU staff and universities across academic and professional services who have long-term unanswered questions. If they are given the right to remain, what would happen to access to public services and will they be able to access them on the same basis as a UK citizen? If salary thresholds are in place for tier 2 visas, then researchers at the start of their academic careers would fall beneath it and we have to ensure that many early career people who have modest salaries but have huge talent to offer can remain in this country. Alasdair Sim again at committee, free movement of talent is the lifeblood of universities and we do not want it to be restricted. The university and research sector in Scotland has access to £95 million per year of research funding. Assurances have been given by the UK Government regarding existing funding, but what happens post Brexit? Edinburgh University has identified that Europe is the university's biggest collaborator and a third of research is co-authored by EU members. If we are outside the single market, how will our universities gain access to EU funding? As junior partners, if so, will they lose the ability to influence future research policy? Another aspect of the Edinburgh economy is the financial services, where it is estimated that 35,000 people are directly employed out of 90,000 across Scotland. The International Public Policy Institute of the University of Strathclyde reports highlights that financial services contribute around £8 billion a year to the Scottish economy. The financial service sectors that may be impacted by Brexit relate to asset management, where Scotland provides services to clients around the world, including the EU. An investment fund managed in Scotland can attract investors from all over the EU. However, if we are outside the single market, then those funds could lose their exemption from national regulations in individual EU countries. Scotland is the leading centre for asset servicing, where large international banks carry out operations for other financial institutes. Those companies may see a disadvantage with dealing with companies in Scotland if we no longer have those passporting rights. The Association of British Insurers stated in her briefing that, if any future migration policy must enable the employment of high-skilled professionals from both inside and outside the EU. Given the difficulties facing the sector, it would be no surprise that Jenny Stewart of KPMG highlighted recently that Dublin, Frankfurt and Luxembourg are making a play for financial services institutes following the Brexit decision. Tourism is another important part of the Edinburgh economy, with around 4 million visitors a year injecting £1.3 billion into the local economy. The hotel sector is booming, with occupancy levels running at 92 per cent for most of the summer. The Edinburgh hospitality sector, however, depends on EU nationals to service this demand with 7,000 working in that sector. Why is it that most academic studies show that attracting skilled migrants to the country is good for the long-term health of the economy, yet the UK Government believes the opposite? People of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, and we need this Parliament to send a united message that Scotland must remain in a single market. We now move to the closing speeches. Mr Rennie, no more than seven minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that it has been a pretty good debate. We have had some good contributions. Bruce Crawford is talking about the 80,000 jobs that are dependent on the European Union. We have had Jackie Baillie talking about the benefit of the United Kingdom as well as that significant job contribution to our economy. Ash Denham is talking about everything being on hold, especially for what will be a year by the time that the UK Government makes up its mind about what Brexit means. We have had Stuart Stevenson reading out a lot of numbers and then concluding that he does not know what any of them mean. I only use his own words, and then bizarrely we had Conservative Alexander Stewart saying that everybody else was obsessed with the European Union, which I find quite remarkable, since that is all the Conservative party has been obsessed about for the past 30 years. The contribution that I thought was excellent was from Gordon MacDonald talking about the benefit of the European Union to our university sector. That is something that is very important to me with St Andrew's University, in terms of grants, students and staff. The risk is considerable, and we can already see some behavioural change as a result of all three of those measures, especially in terms of grants and some other European leaders of grant projects turning away from United Kingdom institutions, from students making up their mind whether they want to come and staff members who are perhaps going to commit to a considerable period of time coming to the United Kingdom thinking again about coming to a UK university. The threat there is considerable. Likewise with Richard Lochhead, who talked about the risk to the food and drink sector, and Emma Harper talking about Polish dairymen. All of those issues are incredibly valid issues and concerns and fears that we need to work through and try and resolve. I have to gently say to those members who made those points that those issues could equally be applied to our membership of the United Kingdom. However, we were accused of project fear when those concerns were raised about what independence would mean for Scotland in those terms. I think that a little bit of self-reflection on that would do no harm. Keith Brown urged us towards unity today. I am afraid that I will have to decline on this front, because the last time I was asked to unite around about Europe was from the First Minister. The First Minister promised me on the phone that this was not about independence. Murdo Fraser says sucka, perhaps, because she spent the whole summer talking about nothing else, and that is why we are no longer signed up to that effort. I am disappointed that the First Minister could not keep her word and tried to make it a cross-party consensus to explore all the options and respect those who are against independence, and that is why we will decline Mr Brown's offer today for unity. The SNP's approach has been bedivalled by one central problem. The central problem is that they think that the only solution that is available is the solution that is for Scotland only. They do not contemplate a UK-wide solution as possible. I am not. I have not given up on the United Kingdom and I will not give up on the United Kingdom. However, I am worried about Murdo Fraser. Murdo Fraser seems to be enjoying Brexit far too much. The language that he is using now was the language that Nigel Farage and Michael Gove were using before the referendum. He spends all his time trashing the European Union in terms of the economy. Liam Kerr joined in and was using all the old scare stories about beef in the energy sector, and then Alexander Stewart likewise on the declining fortunes of the European economy. If he is going to give me more European traction, I am not so sure. I am most grateful to Mr Rennie for giving way. Of course, the difference between Mr Rennie and those of us on this side of the chamber is that we are Democrats and we accept the outcome of the referendum of the British people and the decision that they made. Mr Rennie claims to be a liberal Democrat. Is he now just a liberal? Willie Rennie. Mr Fraser, I presume, will not be supporting our amendment this afternoon and denying the people the democratic choice to decide on the destination following the Brexit deal negotiations. If he calls himself a Democrat by denying them that choice, then that is his definition of democracy, but it certainly is not mine. He may be right that we voted for Brexit. We voted to leave the European Union. We did not vote for a destination, and that is why I think that the British people should have that say. Perhaps he should reflect on being a little bit too enthusiastic about trashing an institution that he urged everybody else to stay a member of just before June. I will not give up on the United Kingdom and the European Union. That is why I favour having that Brexit deal referendum. I am not prepared to write a blank cheque. I am not prepared to accept anything that comes along, anything that the Conservative Government negotiates. No matter how bad the deal is, I think that we need to have a get-out clause. The get-out clause needs to be the British people having a say on the final deal. If the SNP wants to reject that, that is up to them. If the Tories want to reject that, that is up to them, too. I think that the British people will regret that decision by both parties. I urge the SNP finally to get behind the campaign. The SNP holds a big number of seats at Westminster. If the SNP is true to its word that the SNP wants to stay in the European Union, the SNP should use those votes to have that Brexit deal referendum. Richard Leonard, no more than seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In closing this debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I wanted to make a couple of points. The first one is this. Leaving the European Union does not mean leaving Europe. We are in Europe whether we like it or not, and we are about to re-enter a Europe of Belgrade and Reykjavik of Zurich and Oslo, so we will need new dialogue, new exchanges, new trade and a new destiny. I hope to Graham Simpson that that new destiny does not include t-tip. Bruce Crawford asked about the Labour Party's position on membership or access. The Labour position is not nuanced, as he suggested. It is that we need the fullest possible access to the single market. It has been privately briefed to the BBC this morning from an SNP source that might, for example, mean joining after, which in turn would allow us to become a member of the European economic area so that we would not be members of the EU or the single market but would have maximum access to the single market. Of course, I reflect that nuance in may not be in the SNP dictionary because the SNP motion calls for membership of the single market, which means membership of the EU, which in their book means the creation of Scotland as a separate state. That is why we cannot support it. Secondly, in the chamber, we have heard once again of businesses and even industries in Scotland that have become reliant on migrant labour from elsewhere in the European Union, particularly the 2004 accession states, so to leave the single market would put those enterprises in jeopardy. However, this Parliament is bound to ask those business owners what they did before 2004. Access to a talented and skilled workforce is clearly highly desirable, but surely there is a leadership role here for the Scottish Government and its agencies like Skills Development Scotland to make sure that there are no skills gaps to make sure that we are educating and training people for the jobs of the future. I think that it is also the duty of this Parliament to ask the question around the scrupulousness or, otherwise, some businesses who are looking for the freedom of movement of capital, the freedom of movement of labour but maybe are asking for the freedom of movement of cheap labour because that is what we must guard against because a market single or otherwise does not have its own moral compass, it is up to us to formulate it and then direct it. People have been rightly praising Ken Loach's palm door-winning film, I, Daniel Blake, and a few of us have even appeared in a trailer for the film. However, I want to direct members of this Parliament to the film Ken Loach, which was made back in 2007 about European Union enlargement, called It's a Free World. In it, Ken Loach and Paul Lavarty show how migrant workers from European Union accession states are hired, fired, mistreated and underpaid with impunity, how migrant workers are on temporary contracts of employment if they are on contracts at all, they are hired through agencies, employment agencies, payroll agencies, umbrella companies, they are outsourced and subcontracted and anyone who believes that this kind of exploitation does not happen in here in Scotland is deluding themselves. Of course, many migrant workers have taken intervention. Patrick Harvie. I'm grateful that the member makes a strong case for good standard of regulation of employment practice, not for varying standards of regulation of employment practice in different European countries, but I genuinely still want to understand the labour position. If maximum access to the single market means free movement, labour, goods, capital services and common approach to external tariffs, competition and regulation, what is the difference from membership? Is it just that we don't get a say in the rules? Is there some other difference that he's looking to achieve? Richard Leonard. Well, the difference is that people didn't vote for it. People voted to come out of it. We'll come on to referendum in a second. Let me just turn to a couple of things that I want to say in the context of the treatment of workers in this country. We want to say loud and clear to migrant workers who make a big contribution not just to our economy and to our exchequer but to our society, our communities and our public services as well, that we are on their side. We want them to stay and make this their home. That's why today we repeat our call to the Conservative Government to confirm the existing legal status of all European Union citizens already living and working here. We also want all of them, whether skilled or unskilled, to be paid the rate for the job. We will want all of them to be treated with dignity, paid overtime, when they work overtime, allowed to join the union in employment that is secure with holiday pay and sick pay. We don't think that that is too much to ask for. To the cabinet secretary, I say that this is not simply about Scotland PLC or Scotland, as he described it, as open for business, as if money and the maximisation of profit was to be all and end all. It really is about the kind of country and the kind of society that we want to live in. I tell him that, in the end, that will demand a change in the balance of power in industry and commerce, so that working people, whoever they are and wherever they are from, are not just hired hands but citizens of industry as well as society. Next year, we will see the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. It will also see the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the single European act. Keith Brown praised Margaret Thatcher earlier on for bringing in the single European act. The single European act introduced qualified majority voting to provide for the free movement of capital and services, opened up public procurement contracts, centralised common customs tariffs, but unanimity was still required to give working people social and employment protection. At that time, an Italian economist Paolo Ciccini produced a report on the cost of non-Europe. In winding up, I want to say that we need a plan now, our own plan, to make our own assessment of regional impacts and sectoral impacts of being outside and inside the single market. Incidentally, the export figures, we quote, are the Scottish Government's own figures from their own surveys and their own input-output tables. We need not just to act defensively but to act affirmatively too, so that we can proceed step by step with an element of trial and error, bold and confident. We need to rise to the call that the circumstances we find ourselves in demand upon us, and I hope that we can unite together around that at least. I welcome this 11th debate on Brexit, this one discussing the implications on our trading relationships. I also welcome the contributions made by members across the chamber to this debate. Although I must highlight the irony of hearing Mr Brown lecturing others on trade policy, that comes after a week in which the SNP has been called the Scottish shambles by senior Chinese trade officials.  Previously only people in Scotland referred to the SNP as a shambles, now the rest of the world are joining in. Not only has the SNP upset global investors in Asia, but the SNP has suddenly found themselves in a position where they have a deeply damaged relationship with the newly elected president of the US. A new president that the SNP recently sacked as a trade ambassador and even wanted to ban from entering this country. Following a week in which the SNP has managed to damage our trading relationships with the largest and the second largest economies of the world, the SNP's lectures on trade policy are wearing a bit thin. After 11 debates on Brexit, it is very clear what the differences are between our approach to Brexit and the approach that is taken by the SNP. First of all, we respect and we will follow the democratic vote taken by the UK electorate to leave the EU. Unlike the SNP, we respect the outcome of referendums. As Graham Simpson highlighted, the UK is the member state and the UK voted to leave. It is now time for the SNP to recognise this as well and to work positively with the UK Government to secure the very best possible trade deal for Scotland. Last week, the Irish Government made this very point when it said that it would only discuss Brexit with the UK Government and not with the SNP. If the SNP does not want to listen to our friends in Ireland, I am sure that they will listen to their very own esteemed colleague Alex Neil, who has reminded us recently that Scotland cannot retain EU membership because it is not the member state. The second issue in which we disagree with the SNP is on the question of trade priorities. Our priority, as a number of my colleagues have mentioned, is to secure and expand our relationship with the rest of the UK, a market that represents 65 per cent of our trade and exports. Mr Brown, I know that you are not an economist, but surely you recognise that a market worth 65 per cent of our exports is more important than a market worth 15 per cent. It is simply true. The trade priority with the rest of the UK has been emphasised by various experts at the economy committee with the Scottish Development International member commenting last week that it is paramount that we protect free trade with the rest of the UK. At the same time as protecting the UK single market, we want to retain the maximum possible access to the EU single market, which accounts for 15 per cent of our exports. In another key difference between us and the SNP, we want to significantly expand our trade opportunities with the rest of the worl