He does not know.

Tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of Scotland being taken out of the European Union. Scotland was not only removed from the EU but forced out of the single market and the customs union. The United Kingdom Government imposed an end to freedom of movement, and it removed opportunities for our young people by abandoning the Erasmus scheme. Moreover, as we all knew would happen, the UK Government once again broke its promises to Scotland’s fishing communities. In short, not only did the UK impose Brexit on Scotland, but it imposed the hardest and most damaging of Brexits.

All of that was despite the fact that people in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union. The Scottish Parliament expressed its support for remaining in the EU and the single market on many occasions, yet the people of Scotland and their elected Parliament were ignored time and again. The Brexit referendum and its aftermath did not just relate to the relationship between the UK and the EU; it revealed something fundamental about the very nature of the UK, which is that the UK can no longer be described as an equal partnership of nations. It is a Westminster-knows-best state that routinely ignores the views of the people in Scotland, and that is democratically unsustainable.

From a practical point of view, Brexit is an on-going economic disaster. The leader of the UK Labour Party, Keir Starmer, says that his priority is “growth, growth, growth”, but unfortunately the obvious problem with that is his commitment to Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. Brexit has already increased inflation, harmed trade and reduced investment—the list goes on. Scottish workers have lost income and consumers have to pay higher prices for food, which makes the cost of living crisis worse.

A recent study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that the UK economy is now 2.5 per cent smaller as a result of Brexit. That impact equates to a cut of around £2.3 billion in public revenues for Scotland. Estimates from other bodies, such as the Centre for European Reform, suggest that the damage has been even worse. That is not the end of it; analysis by Cambridge Econometrics estimates that the economic damage will continue, reaching 10 per cent of gross value added by 2035.

The impact of Brexit is not only economic; it has severely reduced the opportunities for Scotland to collaborate with European partners on cross-border challenges. It has removed our ability to live and work freely across the EU, and we have lost out on access to EU exchanges and funds. Despite the huge benefits of European Union membership, the overwhelming evidence of the harm of Brexit and the predictions that the damage will only get worse, neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party—nor even the Liberal Democrats—say that they are fully in favour of rejoining the European Union.

The Scottish Government takes a different position. Scotland’s interests need not continue to be wrecked by the UK Government’s approach to Brexit. The views of people in Scotland, as expressed through democratic elections to Westminster and Holyrood, need not be able to be ignored or overridden. The powers of our devolved institutions need not be able to be altered unilaterally by Westminster, without the agreement of the Scottish Government, this Parliament or, indeed, the people of this country.

The seventh paper in the “Building a New Scotland” series sets out the Scottish Government’s alternative. Our vision is for an independent Scotland to join the European Union. Doing so would offer Scotland the chance to regain what has been lost because of Brexit. It would provide Scotland with what devolution cannot deliver—notably, a framework to collaborate as equals, with relationships governed by values, co-operation and law. It would mean that, for the first time, Scotland would be at the table, advancing its interests directly in the European Union. It would allow Scotland to contribute to the EU, bringing our expertise and resources to work towards shared goals.

I noticed that Alexander Stewart was not prepared to reflect on the relative economic decline of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, as clearly demonstrated by the Financial Times. That is a great shame, because it is there for everybody else to see.

On Scotland’s opportunities, I have made the point in answers to others that the single European market is significantly larger than that of the United Kingdom. I have great hope and great expectations that Scottish business and exports, strong as they already are, could be even stronger within a much bigger international market—namely, the single European market—while, of course, we protect and enhance our trade position with the rest of the nations on these islands. That does matter tremendously, but being part of the bigger single European market is absolutely key to reaching our full potential.

Our commitment to the European Union is grounded in more than the practical benefits that that brings, substantial though those are—and I have pointed them out to detractors in the chamber today. More fundamental is our shared commitment to the EU’s founding ethos of peace and security, and the core values of human dignity, democracy, freedom, equality, human rights and the rule of law. In an age when intolerance and volatility seem to be on the rise, the EU’s values are more important than ever, and co-operating with the EU improves our ability to tackle challenges at home and amplifies our voice in international negotiations.

The European Union has demonstrated that countries can deliver practical benefits for each other through peaceful co-operation, so we will seek to rejoin the EU as soon as possible after independence. After 47 years as part of the EU, Scotland has a thorough understanding of how the EU operates. We have developed networks among policy makers in the European Commission, the European Parliament, EU member states and their regions. We are committed to EU values and already have a high level of alignment with European Union law.

In currently reserved areas, Scotland would build capacity as required to ensure that it fulfilled all EU membership obligations. Scotland is therefore well placed to move smoothly and quickly through the EU’s merit-based accession process. That view is shared by many distinguished experts, including Fabian Zuleeg, the chief executive of the European Policy Centre, who said that, for Europe,

“rejecting a country that wants to be in the EU, accepts all conditions, is willing to go through the appropriate processes and follows European principles … should be inconceivable.”

Moreover, when asked about the level of support in the EU for an independent Scotland joining the EU, the former president of the European Council and now the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, said:

“Emotionally I have no doubt that everyone will be enthusiastic here in Brussels, and more generally in Europe.”

We will therefore rejoin not simply as a country with much to gain but as one with much to contribute. Just as the EU has lots to offer Scotland, so Scotland has much to contribute to the EU as a member state. Our vibrant culture would make an important contribution to a dynamic and forward-looking EU. Our academic sector is a leading source of innovation and research and could help deliver new technologies of EU-wide importance. Our strengths in renewable energy could contribute to the transition to net zero.

Reaching net zero is an environmental, moral and security imperative. It will help us reduce our dependence on gas and oil imports from around the world. Scotland’s large sea area and high average wind speeds mean that we have a key role to play, and our significant offshore wind and tidal energy potential could help the EU deliver its sustainable growth strategy. Scotland is already home to the world’s leading wave and tidal test centre, the world’s largest planned tidal stream array and, according to its makers, the world’s most powerful tidal stream turbine.

Scotland is among the best-placed nations in Europe to deploy carbon capture and storage because of our unrivalled access to vast carbon dioxide storage potential in the North Sea. We could also support the EU’s priorities to develop offshore grid and renewable energy potential in the North Sea.

It is widely recognised that green hydrogen has a crucial role to play in decarbonising heavy transport and energy-intensive industries, and Scotland’s surplus hydrogen production could help the EU to achieve its hydrogen targets as part of its transition towards renewables. We also see it as a way of enabling ourselves and our European partners to make collective decisions that reflect Scotland’s priorities.

Our paper provides evidence of what the people of Scotland have known all along: EU membership is central to Scotland’s future economic, political, security and social prospects. It is no wonder that people in Scotland voted decisively to remain in the EU in 2016, and no wonder that polling that has been undertaken since the 2016 referendum has consistently found large majorities in favour of EU membership.

That is why I believe that Scotland’s future will be best served by being part of the EU. The UK Government did not get the fantastical deal that it promised, nor is it willing to acknowledge that being outwith the EU’s single market and customs union is dragging the economy down, despite the evident damage that Brexit is causing. Given the position of the main parties at Westminster, the only route back to the European Union is for Scotland to become an independent member state. That is why Scotland needs independence.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government’s paper, Building a New Scotland: an independent Scotland in the EU, and believes that Scotland’s economic, social and political future is best served by being part of the EU.

Willie Rennie knows that the European Union single market is, as I think that I am right in saying, seven times larger than the United Kingdom’s. Unlike him, I am not in favour of economic dependency. He is keen on the Scottish economy remaining dependent on the UK single market. I am much more confident that we can be like Ireland, which has been able to succeed economically and to have a significantly higher gross domestic product per head of population than the United Kingdom. We should take no lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who, once upon a time, were a pro-European party but, sadly, no longer are.

I am in favour of Scotland being part of the world’s largest single market, with free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

I agreed at that time that people should have a view and should be able to cast a vote in favour of the European Union. That was my support for there being a referendum at that stage. I also note that Mr Bibby did not take the opportunity to confirm whether the Scottish Labour Party’s position now is to rejoin the European single market and the customs union. I invite everybody to listen very closely to his speech in the debate to see whether he clarifies that.

I was making the point that Scottish businesses trading in the EU would have reduced barriers to trade and free flows of data as well as less bureaucracy, and that they would benefit from the EU’s network of highly favourable trading relationships across the world. Trading would be cheaper and quicker, online shopping would be easier and safer, and Scottish firms would be able to trade freely with more businesses and sell to more customers.

Indeed, EU membership would provide more job choices and more career opportunities for people in Scotland. Our citizens would have access to more training, more research, more exchange opportunities, and the opportunity to improve language skills through the Erasmus+ programme. We could attract and retain people from across the EU to sustain our businesses, our world-leading universities and our public services. Scotland would regain access to the EU’s law enforcement tools, which would help in the fight against cross-border crime and other threats. Our citizens’ rights, such as guaranteed minimum working conditions and social security rights, would be protected by EU law, and, of course, Scotland would, for the first time, have a seat in its own right at EU decision-making tables.

With a voice in debates and a vote on outcomes, Scotland could contribute directly to the policies of one of the most influential actors in global trade negotiations on international human rights and equality. The evidence is clear. For countries of Scotland’s size, EU membership works.

People here have a choice. We can continue down the road of a Brexit-based UK economy that suffers from low growth and low productivity, high inequality and increasing isolation—

I am going to finish this point. We can continue down that road or we can seek to emulate the success of comparable independent countries in Europe that are wealthier and fairer than the UK—countries such as Finland, Denmark and Ireland. Indeed, the Financial Times reported in 2022:

“Far from simply losing touch with their western European peers, last year the lowest-earning bracket of British households had a standard of living that was 20 per cent weaker than their counterparts in Slovenia.”

Perhaps Alexander Stewart would wish to reflect on that.

Will Mr Choudhury member give way?

On the point about relief in the sector that we are turning a corner in funding, a significant number of people in the sector have been very kind about the fact that we have been able to secure increased funding for culture while, unfortunately, because of budgetary constraints, that is not the situation elsewhere, in other parts of Government. I am grateful for the support of people in the sector in being able to make their case. It is important that we do everything in our power to ensure that the sector thrives.

On the difference between sustaining and developing, Ms Forbes echoes a point that Donald Cameron made at the previous evidence session that I attended, about organisations that may perform a very important community role but that might not be on a trajectory to be financially self-sustaining. Such organisations may clearly have an important community or wider role to be supported.

I am very alive to this point. There is, indeed, a tension between sustaining what matters—which may or may not be self-sustaining or profitable in a budgetary sense—and developing the sector writ large. I underlined this point in my opening statement, and I am trying to find the wording that I used. I am very keen—as, I know, Creative Scotland is—to consider how we can help cultural and arts organisations to build in the resilience, financial sustainability and, importantly, capacity that they need to thrive.

We can do a lot more of that, because it is different from what Skills Development Scotland or Scottish Enterprise might offer in the wider economy. However, given the experience that we have gone through with the changing nature of society and its interaction with the culture and arts sector, we need to help the sector to manage its room for success more effectively. We need to think anew about how we make that happen. That is where joining up our financial capabilities and additional funding streams will be the answer to Ms Forbes’s conundrum.

I have just confirmed, again, that it is cumulative, so it is just over £40 million additional.

I have now said this three or four times, I think, so there should be no doubt about the clarity of the commitment that has been given about the additional £100 million. However, in terms of the route to get there, we are talking about £15.8 million in this budget and an additional £25 million in the following one—so that will be an additional £40.8 million—and then, in the two years after that, the numbers will be dependent on the budget discussions that take place in the usual way.

If I think back to previous discussions, there was a sense of doubt from some colleagues about whether this is a real thing. It really is a real thing. It is not an aspiration. In comparison to other Governments in the United Kingdom, including Labour-run Wales, which has cut its culture funding, we have increased it. Unlike the UK Government, which has cut culture funding this year, we are increasing it.

We have given the commitment—the Deputy First Minister did it in the budget statement—on the £25 million additional in the financial year 2025-26. As soon as I can, I would want to be able to confirm what the subsequent years will deliver.

I totally understand that the sector wants the front loading of funds. It is what I want—absolutely. It is what I argue for internally, and I want this to happen as quickly as possible. It is correct to say—and Iain Munro is absolutely right to say—that what we are able to do this year is very much within the sustain phase of the culture and arts recovery. As we are able to secure the additional cumulative totals that will boost the culture and arts scene, we will be able to support the sector in a much more significant way to develop and innovate.