Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth
Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions. In order to get as many members in as possible, I would appreciate short questions and answers. Regrettably, Margaret McCulloch did not lodge question 1.
Demography (Independence)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to address demographic impacts on the economy in an independent Scotland. (S4O-03462)
With the full powers of independence, the Scottish Government will be able to achieve healthy population growth through creating both opportunities for young people to build their lives and careers within Scotland and an immigration system that best meets Scotland’s needs.
In our paper “Outlook for Scotland’s Public Finances and the Opportunities of Independence”, we illustrate how even a modest increase in Scotland’s population growth can help to strengthen Scotland’s economy and could boost tax revenues by as much as £1.5 billion a year by 2029-30.
Paragraph 4.57 of the fiscal commission working group’s report states that,
“whilst there is expected to be little change in the gap between the Scottish and UK ratios over the next 15-20 years, from 2026 it is projected that without action, Scotland’s dependency ratio will increase more rapidly compared to the UK”.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the key words are “without action”, and can he provide further details on the action that is proposed to stem the historical flow of skilled migrants from Scotland?
Rod Campbell highlights the key point that those factors can be addressed. Indeed, the Scottish population has continued to grow in recent years, and the Government wishes to invigorate that approach in order to boost the working-age population of Scotland. Among other measures, we will centre our activity on creating more employment opportunities, particularly for young people, to reduce outmigration from Scotland. We will also ensure that we create the necessary economic opportunities to attract individuals from Scotland who are living abroad as part of the worldwide diaspora. All of that will create a more vibrant economy in Scotland and will be at the heart of measures that will be taken to boost the working-age population in Scotland.
New Cancer Centre and Women’s Hospital (Aberdeen) (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth has allocated sufficient budget to meet in full the costs of revenue funding arising from capital investment in the proposed new cancer centre and women’s hospital in Aberdeen. (S4O-03463)
Those costs will not arise until future financial years, but when they do arise they will be met in full by the Scottish Government.
I am sure that NHS Grampian will welcome that commitment. For staff and users, the big question is when the work on the new facilities will begin and when it will be completed, given that the Government announced its intention to progress the projects earlier in the current financial year. Can Mr Swinney tell us in which financial year he anticipates that construction of those projects will begin and whether national health service staff and patients can expect to see work begin on the ground before the next election?
Mr Macdonald will be familiar with the financial model that we are using for the development of the cancer centre and women’s hospital in Aberdeen. On 26 June, I announced the extension of the non-profit-distributing programme, and the hospital developments in Aberdeen will be part of that programme, which will run across a number of financial years culminating in 2019-20. As Mr Macdonald will know—I have made this clear to the Parliament on numerous occasions—it takes a significant period of time for projects to be prepared before they can be rolled out. It normally takes 19 to 20 months of preparation before projects can begin on site, and work will be undertaken to assess the practicalities, as some complicated issues of site development will require to be addressed in relation to the projects. Nevertheless, I give Mr Macdonald and his constituents the absolute assurance that the developments of the women’s hospital and the new cancer centre, which will form part of the Aberdeen Royal infirmary campus, are a guaranteed part of the Government’s NPD programme.
I take this opportunity to welcome the investment in those facilities that the Scottish Government is making.
Can the cabinet secretary advise how much capital investment is currently being made in Aberdeen by the Scottish Government, and the background that that investment is set against?
That will be with regard to health, I presume.
The capital allocation for NHS Grampian in 2014-15 is £17.1 million. For the sake of completeness, I note that the capital allocation for all NHS boards for that year is £347.8 million. Of course, that is the general capital allocation, which is the part of our budget that has been under such pressure, given that it was reduced by about 26 per cent in recent years. The NPD programme has been the initiative by which the Scottish Government has tried to ensure that we boost capital expenditure in Scotland and take forward projects that ordinarily would not be able to proceed because of the limitations of our capital budget.
Scottish Enterprise Annual Review 2013-14
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Enterprise annual review for 2013-14. (S4O-03464)
I offer you and all members an apology for my late arrival in the chamber.
Although Scottish Enterprise’s full annual report will not be published until September, figures released in July give the welcome news that Scottish Development International has helped to create or safeguard 7,446 jobs through inward investment in the year 2013-14.
On the international trade side, SDI supported 2,708 companies to operate in international markets, including 228 that have the potential to generate £1.2 billion in international trade over the next three years.
I thank the minister for that extremely positive response.
Does the minister agree that, with a yes vote in September, we will be able to take forward greater opportunities to ensure that Scotland is an even more successful country?
I agree with Mr Robertson for a number of reasons. Scotland is already a great place in which to invest. We have a highly skilled workforce, great universities and colleges, a marvellous quality of life and an extremely supportive Government and enterprise network. However, we cannot offer the additional competitive advantage that comes from having choice over things such as visas and air passenger duty. Scotland is the most expensive place in Europe to travel to because we do not have the choice to determine our own rate of air passenger duty, which means that we cannot change Scotland from a great place in which to invest into the very best place in which to invest.
Financial Forecasts (Independence)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent report by Fiscal Affairs Scotland. (S4O-03465)
The Scottish Government has set out detailed forecasts for Scotland’s public finances under independence in “Scotland’s Future” and in the “Outlook for Scotland’s Public Finances and the Opportunities of Independence” report. That analysis demonstrates that Scotland will start life as an independent country with strong and sustainable public finances, and that, by using the powers of independence to grow our economy, we could be £5 billion per year better off by 2029-30.
The Fiscal Affairs Scotland report, which was published yesterday, states that, in order to be better off with independence, we need to inherit just half our population share of debt or get double the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimate of oil revenues. Which of those scenarios does the cabinet secretary think is more likely?
I simply refer Kezia Dugdale to the detailed report that we published some weeks ago on the outlook for public finances, which sets out our assessment of the finances of an independent Scotland and demonstrates that the fiscal position of an independent Scotland would be either identical to or very close to the position that we would be in as part of the United Kingdom.
The difference is that independence offers the people of Scotland the opportunity to change the landscape of their public finances by boosting economic activity and generating greater growth within the economy and the public finances.
I gently point out to Kezia Dugdale that the financial challenges that an independent Scotland would start off addressing are a product not of independence but of the existing constitutional arrangements, which have delivered us a position in which we live in a country with an extraordinarily high degree of indebtedness.
Oil and Gas
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the N-56 report on oil and gas. (S4O-03466)
We welcome the new report, which endorses the Scottish Government’s commitment that a new Scotland-based energy department, co-headquartered in Aberdeen and Glasgow, along with an Aberdeen-based oil and gas authority, would create the right conditions for a close, constructive and effective relationship to be forged between the Scottish Government, the OGA and the industry, creating an opportunity to realise the full potential of the oil and gas industry in Scotland.
Does the minister agree that moving the decision making closer to those in the industry who are affected by it would enable us to ensure that future decisions were more sensitive to the industry’s requirements and were not about last-gasp tax grabs by the London Treasury, which we have seen on far too many occasions?
What has been absent from the United Kingdom stewardship of the oil and gas industry is the presence of oil and gas ministers in Aberdeen.
I am on my fourth UK energy minister during my relatively short tenure of three years. Mark McDonald is absolutely correct. The industry needs a Government that spends a great deal of time to understand its needs extremely carefully. It needs a stable and predictable fiscal regime. That is precisely what it has lacked in the UK, whose stewardship has been characterised by a series of unheralded tax hikes, most recently a 12 per cent increase in the supplementary petroleum tax rate, which was introduced in 2011 without warning and seriously impaired confidence throughout the world in the oil and gas regime in the UK.
Therefore, we offer for the first time ever a Government that works with the industry closely but which understands that a stable, predictable tax regime is the absolute sine qua non of maximising recovery and achieving the maximum possible economic benefit for the people of Scotland.
Latin as well.
The minister will be aware that, when the First Minister spoke recently at the annual oil and gas conference in Aberdeen, he appeared to suggest that the only bit of an energy department that might be based in Aberdeen would be the oil and gas policy division. Where does he anticipate that the director and the ministers of any energy department in his plans would be based? Would they be based in Aberdeen or in Glasgow?
We have already said that the oil and gas department will be based in Aberdeen. Of course, we have said that we would expect that energy functions such as electricity regulation would be located in Glasgow. I assume that it is not Labour policy not to want the jobs in Glasgow to do with those matters, especially since the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets and Scottish Power have their offices in Glasgow. I assume that Labour is not saying that it would take jobs away from Glasgow.
The real issue—why it is so important that we have our headquarters in Aberdeen, which is the topic of the question, and why it must be properly resourced—is what Sir Ian Wood said in his report. He said that, in the 1990s, the UK had 90 fields and 90 people in the regulatory body working on licensing. Most recently, there are 300 fields—three times as many—but 50 personnel, which is half as many.
By contrast, Norway has 200 personnel dealing with oil and gas regulation. Perhaps that is why Norway has accumulated an oil and gas fund that is worth £500 billion and the UK, like Iraq, has an oil fund of zero.
Oil and gas figures that were published this morning by the Scottish Government show that we collected £4 billion in the financial year 2013-14, which is down from £5.5 billion in 2012-13. The Scottish Government said that we were going to collect between £7 billion and £8 billion in 2013-14. Can the minister explain why the Scottish Government has got it so spectacularly wrong for the second year in a row?
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts, which are the UK’s forecasts, are that 10 billion barrels of oil will be extracted between now and 2040. There are various problems with that. First, it contradicts the UK’s strategy, which estimates that the recovery will be far higher than that. [Interruption.]
Let Mr Ewing answer the question, please.
The basic flaw of Gavin Brown’s analysis is that it rests on OBR figures, which are contradicted by people such as Professor Alex Kemp and by Oil and Gas UK, who indicate that the amount of gas recovered, looking forward to 2040 to 2050, will be far higher. That is in accordance with the UK’s oil and gas strategy.
The oil price this morning was $103 a barrel. That figure is extremely satisfactory—[Interruption.]
Mr Fraser.
—and nobody in the industry anticipates that oil will be anything other than an enormous advantage, rather than a problem, as Gavin Brown seems to think.
Will the minister advise the chamber of the Scottish Government’s view that although large quantities of oil might lie beneath the sea bed of the lower Clyde, such resources cannot be explored or exploited due to the UK Government’s obsession with Trident, which has led to a UK ban on such exploration and exploitation?
I note with interest the recent comments of the former defence secretary, Michael Heseltine, which were reported in the Sunday Post, which give some credence to the point that Kenneth Gibson makes.
Production of oil and gas in Scotland is about to increase substantially because of new fields such as BP Clair, in which production will begin shortly and continue until beyond 2050, EnQuest’s Kraken field and Statoil’s Mariner field. I can run through many others: Chevron, Premier, Nexen—on and on it goes. There are new fields and extensions of existing fields, and production will increase massively over the next few years.
On new discoveries in the Clyde and elsewhere, Norway—just across the water—has seen discoveries such as the Johan Sverdrup field, which is the fifth largest field ever discovered on the Norwegian shelf. Of course it is certain that there will be more fields, more discoveries and more finds off Scotland’s waters. It is not improbable that some of them will be on the scale of the Norwegian Johan Sverdrup field, ensuring enormous wealth and opportunities for the people of Scotland, especially young people, for the next half century.
What a shame it is that on every occasion the Tories and their Labour friends talk down this industry, deterring young people from seeking the enormous opportunities that exist. The Tories and their Labour friends think that this is a game, but it is not a game. For decades they have deterred young people from going into this industry by talking Scotland down. It is time that that came to an end.
I wonder whether perhaps the minister is hard of hearing. I will ask him again my colleague Gavin Brown’s question. The Scottish Government’s figures, published this very morning, show that for the last financial year the revenue from North Sea oil amounts to £4 billion—precisely one half of the Scottish Government’s estimated figure. Why did the Scottish Government get it so wrong?
I dispute the mathematics that Murdo Fraser set out and the conclusions that he draws from them. It is clear that the enormous oil wealth over the next several decades will be a massive advantage, provided the right decisions are taken.
Sadly, the wrong decisions have been taken during the past 40 years. That is not just my view. It is the view of Sir Ian Wood, someone of international repute and a world leader, whose report said that if the right policy decisions are taken, the prize will be £200 billion. That is not the OBR’s figure, which is a small fraction of that £200 billion. Sir Ian Wood also said that the industry believes that the stewardship of the regime has been characterised by fiscal instability and the lack of predictability, and that regulation has been so poor that an entirely new body requires to be set up to start the job afresh.
Banking and Currency (Independence)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the comments by the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive and chairman, Sir George Mathewson, that the better together campaign’s claims on banking and currency in an independent Scotland are “nonsense”. (S4O-03467)
Sir George Mathewson is one of a number of individuals who are involved in the financial services sector who have indicated that the financial services sector in Scotland will prosper with independence because we have the skills, the talent and the connections that are necessary to thrive. That is the most effective response to Mr Dornan’s points.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the better together position on the currency is political posturing, as predicted by the fiscal commission working group in its first report, which states:
“In that respect, it is important to acknowledge that political considerations will play a role and may cloud prereferendum comments and policy statements. However, these are likely to differ from the actual decisions taken post-referendum when agreement is likely to take place where there are common interests.”
The fiscal commission working group anticipated the development of the current debate in its prescient remarks, to which Mr Dornan referred. The arguments around a currency union are well stated, and the advantage is clear to see for an independent Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There is the opportunity to ensure, as a consequence of currency arrangements that will be put in place, that businesses outwith Scotland, in the rest of the United Kingdom, are not exposed to increased costs for doing business in Scotland, which represents a significant market for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government’s position takes up the fiscal commission’s arguments and demonstrates the advantages of the currency union proposition for an independent Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The core of Sir George Mathewson’s argument in the Financial Times piece to which the question referred is in the sentence in which he says:
“Banks such as RBS and Lloyds Banking Group have strong Scottish connections but they can scarcely be described as Scottish banks.”
That is not what he used to say when he was running RBS with Fred Goodwin. What is the cabinet secretary’s view? Is RBS a Scottish bank or not?
RBS operates across the whole United Kingdom and in a variety of different markets. A significant proportion of its activities are located outwith Scotland in other markets, particularly south of the border. The Scottish Government is, however, pleased to have RBS headquartered here in Scotland. It is a bank with strong Scottish roots, and the Scottish Government is determined to make sure that that continues.
In the light of Sir George Mathewson’s comments, why did the governor of the Bank of England today announce that emergency measures are in place to deal with currency instability if Scotland becomes independent?
I am glad that Annabel Goldie raised that point. The remarks that the governor made this morning represent the type of considered contribution that we have heard from him constantly during the debate. He set out the crystal clear position that, on 19 September, if Scotland has voted yes in the referendum on 18 September, the current arrangements will remain in place, and they will remain in place for some time thereafter, as the Scottish Government has said. The Bank of England will continue to undertake its functions without interruption or change from 19 September onwards throughout the transition period that the Scottish Government has set out.
The Bank of England governor did not set out emergency measures. He set out quite clearly that the Bank of England will take into account any contingency across a range of contingencies that the bank considers. His crucial point, which I welcome, is that the Bank of England has clarified beyond peradventure that it will, in the aftermath of the referendum, continue to function and exercise its existing role, as the Scottish Government has set out as being the case.
Question 8 has, I regret, not been lodged, but a satisfactory explanation has been provided.
Set-up Costs (Independence)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position on the set-up costs for an independent Scotland. (S4O-03469)
“Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland” explains that a number of factors will influence the size of the one-off investment that Scotland will make in the transition to independence, including the negotiations that will need to take place between the two Governments.
Since the publication of “Scotland’s Future”, we have of course had Professor Dunleavy’s report, “Transitioning to a new Scottish state”, which completely vindicates the Scottish Government’s position and demolishes the figures that HM Treasury has produced.
We are told that everything is in the white paper, but I was told in response to a recent freedom of information request that the Scottish Government has done so much work on the estimates and modelling of the transition costs that the information cannot be put in the public domain because of the cost of locating, retrieving and providing it.
Will the minister now make all the information on transition costs available by placing in the Scottish Parliament information centre a copy of the estimates and modelling?
I am not familiar with the response to the freedom of information request to which Alison McInnes refers. The Government has set out the information on transition costs and the necessary arrangements that would have to be considered in the document, “Scotland’s Future”.
There has been further discussion of that, and of the input of Professor Dunleavy, which—as I indicated in my earlier answer—vindicates the Scottish Government’s approach.
The UK Treasury originally quoted Professor Dunleavy in support of its very high figure for set-up costs. However, Professor Dunleavy later accused the Treasury of
“very crude misinformation”
and
“taking our figure and making it ludicrous”.
Is the cabinet secretary aware of whether the UK Government has apologised for or retracted its figures?
It has not, to my knowledge, but the permanent secretary to the Treasury has indicated that the material was “misbriefed”, which is certainly a new term on me in civil service parlance.
Coal Levies (Reinstatement)
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in its discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding reinstating coal levies to Scotland. (S4O-03470)
I wrote to the UK Government on 17 September last year and again on 20 November to request that royalties collected by the UK Coal Authority for coal produced in Scotland be made available now to help to fund the restoration of legacy opencast sites throughout Scotland.
A holding response was received from Michael Fallon, the UK Minister of State for Energy, on 8 January this year to say that the request was being actively pursued at that time.
I met Michael Fallon on 5 May and took the opportunity to discuss, among other matters, the coal levy issue. I received a further letter from Mr Fallon on 29 May this year, in which he stated that he was continuing to pursue the issue and that he would send me a substantive reply in due course.
We continue to pursue that line of inquiry with the UK Government.
Does the minister agree that, if the money was allocated, it could go some significant way towards funding the necessary reinstatement of former opencast coal mining sites?
A great deal of work is being done to ensure that that objective is fulfilled over time. However, Colin Beattie is correct that the money—£15 million—that was paid from the coal industry in Scotland to the London exchequer would, if it was returned to Scotland, make an enormous contribution to tackling a problem that is of great concern to many communities throughout the country.
What progress is being made on the restoration of opencast mining sites, particularly in my area of East Ayrshire, which has, as the minister is well aware, been hardest hit by the failure of coal companies to fulfil their historical obligations in that regard?
Adam Ingram is correct—progress is being made and restoration is actively under way, with boots and machines on the ground in Dumfries and Galloway, Fife, East Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire. East Ayrshire Council is applying an extensive monitoring regime, and restoration is under way at various sites in the area, including the Netherton, Greenburn, House of Water and Duncanziemere sites. East Ayrshire Council continues to work through the process of calling bonds. We are working collaboratively with the Scottish Mines Restoration Trust on preparation of restoration plans for the legacy sites.
Of course, that progress could really be hastened if we just got a reply from the United Kingdom Government to a cross-party request that was made by the Scottish opencast mining task force. All parties in Scotland felt that the money—£15 million—should be returned to Scotland. If we cannot achieve that through a cross-party request, and if this Parliament cannot get a response from the UK Government to a request that was first made last September, I hope that many members, and not just I, will begin to conclude that it really would be better if we had control of all such matters here in Scotland.
Exports
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the latest figures from the Scottish index of manufactured exports, which show that there has been strong growth in Scottish-manufactured exports over the last year. (S4O-03471)
I welcome the latest figures from the Scottish index of manufactured exports, which show that the volume of manufactured export sales to overseas markets grew by 3 per cent during the first quarter of this year, with significant growth in food and drink exports and in the refined petroleum, chemical and pharmaceutical products sector.
The figures come at a time when Scottish Development International has announced that it has supported 2,708 companies in the past year, including 228 that have the export potential to generate £1,200 million in international trade over the next three years.
The minister will be aware that, under the previous Labour United Kingdom Government, even before the recession struck, Scotland lost 37 per cent of its manufacturing employment, which was more than 100,000 jobs. In Ayrshire, the figure was 53 per cent, or more than 14,500 manufacturing jobs.
Does the minister agree that rebuilding a manufacturing economy with a focus on high productivity, leading to higher wages, will improve Scotland’s economic growth, deliver prosperity and help to reduce inequality? Does he agree that the opportunity can be fully realised only with the full powers of independence?
Yes, I do, which might not be an enormous surprise to members.
Another point is that, with independence, we can have a different approach. For example, we can work more closely with the workforce representatives. I notice that Grahame Smith from the Scottish Trades Union Congress is in the public gallery listening to this. We can have a better, closer and more reasonable relationship in which we work together as team Scotland to build and support our manufacturing sector, which has such outstanding human resource and excellence in so many areas.
Local Government Finance (Post-referendum)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of future local government finance following the result of the referendum. (S4O-03472)
I call the cabinet secretary, Derek Mackay.
Not quite, Presiding Officer—I am a minister, but I will take that promotion, thank you.
My apologies.
We are currently in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, representing our local government partners, on the local government finance settlement for next year. I expect similar discussions to continue after the referendum.
The Scottish Government’s preference will always be to have a fair and equitable financial settlement for all councils that is based on local needs and that gives the maximum opportunity to deliver strong local services for local people. We will continue to work closely with COSLA to ensure that that is achieved.
The minister might be aware of reports in the Financial Times of 7 August that the Local Government Association in England is expected to back the scrapping of the Barnett formula. Does the minister share my view that the only threat to local public services comes from a no vote next month, which could lead to a potential £4 billion cut to the budget that is available to the Parliament?
I and the Scottish Government share that concern. A number of advocates of the no campaign keep company with those who call for a reduction in Barnett consequentials to Scotland and for an overall review. It is fair to say that voting no has consequences—the double whammy to Scotland of continued austerity and a revised Barnett formula.
We can do better than Barnett by having access to our own resources through independence. The real danger to Scotland’s public services is from the no campaign—better together—and continued austerity from successive United Kingdom Governments.
Question 13 was not lodged; a satisfactory explanation was provided.
Oil and Gas Discoveries
To ask the Scottish Government what information it has regarding the recent discoveries of oil and gas in the west of Shetland area. (S4O-03474)
Investment in west of Shetland fields such as Clair and Schiehallion is welcomed by the Scottish Government. Almost half the yet-to-find reserves are estimated to be in the region, so exploration and appraisal drilling are essential for maximising economic recovery.
To use the operator of Clair and Schiehallion as an example, the BP-operated greater Clair area is thought to hold about 7 billion barrels of oil equivalent in place. Production is expected to continue to 2050 and beyond. Furthermore, BP’s wider North Sea activities highlight the positive outlook across the North Sea. Production from the Kinnoull field will start over the next few months, and Rhum is expected to restart production before the end of the year. BP and its field partners will invest about £10 billion between 2012 and 2017.
Does the minister agree that, on all the available evidence and given a consistent regulatory and fiscal regime of the kind that he touched on in answering Mark McDonald’s question, the long-term future of Scotland’s oil and gas sector will be extremely bright? Does he, like me, find it unforgivable that the better together parties are intent on talking the industry down to try to ensure that the revenues that flow from oil and gas continue to line the coffers of Westminster, instead of being enjoyed by the people of Scotland, as they should be?
I do. The simple reason why total tax revenues from oil and gas have reduced slightly over recent years is that there has been record capital investment of £13 billion to £14 billion. That investment is set against income, so it reduces taxation revenue. Unplanned shutdowns have been another source of difficulties with which the industry is grappling. Outside the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties, everybody knows that revenue and production will increase substantially in the next few years.
We are talking about what is happening with the oil off the shores of Scotland, but the icing on the cake is that, last year, Scottish oil and gas companies generated more revenue—£10 billion—from international work. Not only do we have enormous resources to exploit here for the next half century, but we are now world leaders in areas such as subsea. That will bring the country enormous opportunities, provided that the right policies are pursued.
Tourism (2014 Events)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact on tourism has been of the various events across the country in 2014. (S4O-03475)
The full detail on visitor numbers and expenditure in 2014 will be available in spring next year, but we already know that visitor expenditure was up 4 per cent in the 12-month period to March 2014 in comparison with the previous 12-month period; that 890,000 people attended funded events in our homecoming programme between January and May; and that the hugely successful Commonwealth games saw 1.2 million tickets sold. We look forward to receiving the independent research on visitor numbers in the Commonwealth games highlight report, which will be published later this week.
We have all that and many more events to come, such as the Ryder cup and over 300 more homecoming events, including Highland homecoming, the Forth bridges festival, the Royal National Mod and the MTV Europe music awards.
Please be brief, Mr Adam, and please be brief in response, Mr Ewing.
Does the minister agree that the Commonwealth games showed the world Scotland at its best? Does he agree that that and all the other events that will come to Scotland can have only a positive impact on our tourism industry?
I will be brief. Scotland is the place to be and Scotland is the place where people have been. [Laughter.]