I declare an interest, having chaired the Scottish Government’s population task force. I am sure that Finlay Carson would agree that Scotland is a country that has endured both emigration and immigration. Population change in Scotland has been a constant. Our challenge is that we do not have all the tools in the toolbox to deal with issues of population change in our immigration system. That is why I encourage him to have an open mind. Conservative Governments in Canada and Australia have been able to see the advantages of differentiated migration systems, and I encourage the Scottish Conservative Party to have an open mind about that.

Emma Roddick talked about the necessity of honesty on Brexit. We cannot just wish or brush it away as if it has not had a negative impact. She powerfully added her voice to the case for a Scottish visa and highlighted the disappointment—expressed on one front page recently—that the Labour Party marched us all up the hill believing that it is in favour of a Scottish visa, only to have us march down the next day, saying that it is not.

Richard Leonard was correct to point out that the United States is the biggest single overseas market. He is absolutely right. However, when counted together, the markets of the countries of the European Union account for significantly more than the United States market. We should not avoid that as a fact; it really matters.

Emma Harper, who is a strong voice for the south of Scotland, pointed out the impact of labour shortages in her part of the country and in the rest of it, which underlines why we should have the appropriate tools in the toolbox to deal with migration.

Rachael Hamilton said that it is important to have an understanding of rural areas, and I agree with her. That is why I am proud that the Scottish National Party represents most rural constituencies across the length and breadth of Scotland. It is members on the SNP benches who take Brexit and its seriousness as a major priority, when her party does not. She had difficulty saying the word “cumulative”. I say to her that that is perhaps understandable when we understand the cumulative impact that Brexit has had on rural Scotland, which has not been good.

Karen Adam brought up the litany of false Brexit promises to fishing communities about the labour market and the export market, and she is absolutely right. Another future is possible.

Alex Rowley was absolutely right to talk about the advantages of a reset in relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments. I agree with him that we should do everything that we can to work out where there are things that we can reach agreement on. We also agree on the advantages of a veterinary agreement—an agriculture, food and drink agreement. I welcome the fact that Alex Rowley is open-minded to a Scottish visa system, and I encourage him to impress on Anas Sarwar and his colleagues on the Labour front bench that they should remain open to that as well. It would be hugely welcome if the Labour Party were to support the position of the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Government on that issue.

Alex Rowley was right when he said that we cannot simply click our fingers and rejoin the European Union, but that is not a reason for us not to try. Surely we must end the self-harm in all of this.

Finally, I turn to Edward Mountain’s speech, in which, perhaps unsurprisingly, he joined his colleagues in minimising the impact of Brexit. He described it as being like soggy cornflakes and said that we should not cry over it. I do not think that he was trying to make a joke about the issue in the sense of suggesting that it should not be taken seriously, but Brexit is a serious matter, and he should know that it impacts on the communities of Speyside as someone who lives in the middle of it.

I reiterate that, as the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands so clearly put it, the time for action is now. The United Kingdom Government has a number of choices before it. It needs to work with us to ensure that the choices that it makes will not negatively or disproportionately impact on the people and businesses of Scotland. The consequences of the hard Brexit that was pursued by the previous UK Government are plain to see. It is far less obvious how the current UK Government intends to mitigate or reverse the harmful impacts that we have discussed today, which is why SNP members, and the majority of members in this Parliament, believe that the best future for the economy and for Scotland is for it to be an independent member state of the European Union.

As Mr Fraser knows, library policy is devolved to local authorities. The Scottish Government provides general revenue funding to local authorities, which have the financial freedom to operate independently and to allocate the total financial resources that are available to them on the basis of local needs and priorities. The Scottish Government provides targeted support for public libraries through our annual funding to the Scottish Library and Information Council, which includes the public library improvement fund, which supports creative and innovative public library projects throughout Scotland.

I commend Ariane Burgess for bringing up the advantages of differentiated immigration systems. Would she acknowledge that they work perfectly well in Canada and Australia? If it is possible to have differentiated immigration systems in such countries, why would it not be possible to have one in the UK, and why would it not be sensible to suggest that the new UK Government should look at that?

I will make a bit of progress, and then I will happily give way to Mr Carson.

We are committed to working together with the UK Government to explore opportunities for progress, including our proposals for a Scottish visa and a rural visa pilot. Those proposals are strongly supported by key stakeholders across Scotland, and their delivery is vital to supporting the sustainability of Scotland’s rural and island communities and economies, which have faced such harm since the ending of freedom of movement.

I turn to individual members’ contributions. First, I congratulate Tim Eagle on his new role and responsibilities. As I used to represent him as his local member of Parliament, he knows that I share his interest in the issues that he spoke of, which I know are very close to his heart. However, what we heard from him today was Brexit denialism. We did not get a straight answer in response to a straightforward question about a veterinary agreement—an agreement on agriculture, food and drink. I encourage Mr Eagle and his colleagues to make efforts in the coming weeks and months to understand the importance of the issue—which concerns a Labour Party manifesto commitment—as it becomes more of a realistic prospect.

To Colin Smyth I say that I was grateful to hear that clarification about the Labour Government’s manifesto commitment, and I am delighted that Labour is following the lead of the SNP in committing support to the veterinary agreement. I will be happy to work with him and his colleagues to make sure that that is delivered.

Ariane Burgess was absolutely right to highlight the damage of Brexit, its scale and the scale of the damage still to come. We are well warned about wishing it away as if it were not going to have an enduring and negative impact. I commend the point that she made about differentiated immigration systems, which, as I pointed out in an intervention, are perfectly possible in both Australia and Canada. There is absolutely no reason why such a system could not happen here, which is the reason why we on the SNP benches will support the Green Party amendment.

Beatrice Wishart was absolutely right to raise the issue of seed potatoes and of food rotting in the fields. Those are Brexit impacts; they are on-going, current and avoidable.

Christine Grahame’s contribution was, frankly, a master-class in inviting Brexit denialists in the chamber to give a single Brexit benefit. Not a single one was heard—not one.

I turn to Finlay Carson, to whom I give notice that I am about to give way to him. In his speech on Brexit impacts, he managed to totally ignore the facts and the issues around the damage of Brexit. Perhaps, when I give way to him, he will update us on any advantages that Brexit has delivered so far.

Supporting international development remains one of the most important ways that Scotland can be a good global citizen. I confirm that those programmes are supported by the international development fund of £11.5 million in 2024-25, as published on 19 December 2023 and approved by Parliament in March. The budget for year 1 of our inclusive education programmes for Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda, which was announced on 15 October, amounts to £1.65 million in 2024-25. Over five years, subject to the usual parliamentary approvals in relation to the annual budget act, we expect the total value of the programme to be £12.5 million.

Scotland’s international development programme is now entering its 20th year and it has—until now, it would appear—had cross-party support. Spending on international development on inclusive education is minuscule when compared with spending on education in Scotland. I hope that Sue Webber will reflect—as, indeed, will her colleagues behind her who were nodding—on the intervention that has just been made and support the modest but impactful way in which Scotland demonstrates its commitment to being a good global citizen.

I appreciate that the culture sector needs to have stable and supportive financial arrangements in place in order to fulfil its potential. This year, we have committed £15.8 million more than in 2023-2024. The Scottish Government budget on 4 December will be in line with the commitment to an additional £100 million per year for culture funding by 2028-2029 and will be subject to the normal parliamentary processes for approval.

In the spirit of welcoming Mr Fraser to his position, I acknowledge that he has come at it from a standing start and is trying to get up to speed with the ins and outs of all the challenges of the portfolio.

I hope that he agrees that it is important that we have an arm’s-length arts funding organisation and that it is not for the culture secretary to micromanage its artistic decisions. He has raised some issues and, no doubt, those questions will be looked at as part of the review, in which it will be open to all colleagues to share their thoughts.

Mr Fraser has views on where funds could be redistributed. Funding will, no doubt, play an important part in the consideration of the review, but it will go beyond that. I encourage him to put his suggestions down on paper. I will read them with very close interest. I hope that we all have a shared interest in making sure that creatives across Scotland are appropriately funded. If there are ways in which the review should consider that, I would very much welcome those suggestions

Creative Scotland distributes a significant proportion of Scottish Government funding to the culture sector, which amounts to £66 million this year. The review is part of a broader review of how the sector is funded and will ensure that the significant extra funding of £100 million a year by 2028-29 is put to best use.

In the coming weeks, I will publish the second annual report on Scotland’s international network. That will again illustrate how Scottish Government and Scottish Development International teams overseas and in London contribute to delivering tangible benefits to Scotland’s people, businesses and institutions, having supported £1.73 billion in forecast export sales and more than 8,500 jobs in 2022-23. Their efforts are a key part of the reason that, for the ninth year running, the Ernst & Young attractiveness survey shows that Scotland has been the top destination in the United Kingdom, outside London, for foreign direct investment. I hope that Mr Kerr will join me in thanking the hard-working Scottish network staff for their successful work in that area.