Absolutely—just so. That is part of the problem, and it should outrage democratically elected parliamentarians in this place that people who are not elected to deal with these matters can make such opaque decisions and run roughshod over the democratically elected representatives of this country. The issue is actually not that complicated. We have in place a system that we have agreed that we wish to make work. Why do we not just get on and do that, and bin that which we have commonly agreed is not fit for purpose?

However, it is important to recognise Mr Harvie’s service.

In some respects, we are in the foothills of post-European Union membership changes and the operation of a UK internal market. It started out as a focus on a very small number of issues that many people might see as distant from their lives or priorities—things such as single-use plastics, the deposit return scheme and glue traps. However, it is true that there is an ever-growing list of areas in which the internal market’s potential imposition, or the non-delivery of common frameworks in those areas, will have an impact. That situation is continuing. That is all the more reason to get the certainty and agreement that stakeholders have suggested to the committee that they wish to see. I agree. The uncertainty is the result of not knowing whether the internal market act will be applied in those areas. That is undermining certainty.

The Scottish Government meets with the office for the internal market, our officials meet with one another and I have met with the office. The officials have great expertise and are scrupulous in meeting their duties in an even-handed way, which is important. However, I am sure that they would be the first to concede that the office’s role is limited to considering the economic and trade implications of any policy. I go back to the point that I made to Mr Harvie about the very real example that we had of minimum unit pricing. If the OIM looked at the issue today, it would be able to consider it only in economic and trade terms, even though it was a policy innovation that was introduced for a public health purpose. That answers the question in that, yes, the office plays a role, but its limitations underline the point that it reflects a system that is not fit for purpose, because it has to consider things in the round, if anybody is to consider anything in the round.

On the point about an arbitrator, we already have one and it is called the UK Government. It makes decisions regardless of the position of this country’s Parliament and Government—the examples show that to be the case. To me, the UK Government cannot be the ultimate arbitrator, because it is a party to the process and has shown in its actions that it is prepared to override democratic consent. I do not know how an arbitration process would operate.

I go back to the positive ground where I have planted my flag, which is to say that common frameworks are commonly agreed to be the way in which we should make things work. Let us end the bad faith that there has been from the UK Government by getting the internal market act off the statute books. That is the position of this Government, this Parliament—having voted on the issue on a number of occasions—and our Welsh colleagues.

I end by reiterating a quite simple point: we have a system, so let us make it work. Let us get what is not helpful to intergovernmental relations and the operation of devolution off the statute books.

A properly functioning internal market regime looks very different from the internal market act. The way that the act operates is different from the way that a well-designed internal market regime operates, and it is very different from the regime that operates within the European Union.

The internal market act replaces broad legal principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination with rigid statutory requirements that apply in almost every case.

It is really important to understand, as I said in my introductory statement, that the internal market act has no proportionality or subsidiarity principles. Those are common features in other internal market regimes, and that was the case in the European single market. That lack of proportionality and balance is a recipe for confusion and uncertainty and does not ensure a functioning domestic market. Therefore, when stakeholders say that they want certainty, one has to understand that the internal market act does not provide that.

The feature that I have drawn attention to is not a bug and it is not hidden away. The act is a crude, clumsy and undemocratic attempt to constrain devolution, and it is one that masquerades as an internal market regime. That is not just the position of the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that, among your deliberations, you have had a close look at what one of our country’s most pre-eminent legal minds, Lord Hope, has had to say on that subject and others. We are of exactly the same mind about what the internal market act is and how it does not replicate what the European single market did. Among many other things, it is missing the key principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

No. Unsurprisingly, I do not agree with Mr Kerr, who I think is confusing the outcomes that, I think, we both share in wanting to ensure that detrimental approaches are not taken to managing the single market in general, with support for the internal market act. I am unaware of evidence having been presented by the organisations that he quotes that they require the internal market act to stay in place. I would be very grateful to see that—

I begin with the many kind words about our dear colleague Christina McKelvie. She was a friend and a first-class ministerial colleague. We were a team working to promote Scotland internationally, promoting Scottish culture and international development. My condolences, as those of others, are with Keith Brown and Christina’s family.

In reflecting on military service today, it is worth recalling that Keith Brown is the only member of the Parliament who served in front-line combat during the Falklands conflict. Our thoughts are with him today.

I am delighted to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. I thank Liz Smith for bringing forward the motion and members for their contributions. However, I speak with some personal trepidation, as those who know their Jacobite and Perthshire history will know where clan Robertson came from—in highland Perthshire. They might also be able to guess on which side it fought in the 45. I will not be dwelling on any family connections.

However, regimental campaigners will know how involved I was as the Scottish National Party’s defence spokesman in the House of Commons during the campaign to protect and sustain the regimental traditions of the Black Watch in 2006.

The Scottish Government—primarily through its excellent Minister for Veterans, Graeme Dey—has continued to be clear in its support for our entire armed forces community. That includes serving personnel—regular and reserve—veterans, their families and the wider sector, including our outstanding partners in the third sector.

Members will have heard Graeme Dey and others reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that our veterans, service personnel and their families are not disadvantaged as a result of their service and that Scotland is a destination of choice when they leave the armed forces. I do not think that I will be speaking out of turn when I say that that commitment and dedication to our entire armed forces community is shared by members across the chamber.

We have heard excellent speeches by speakers from all corners of the chamber. We were joined at the start by the First Minister, John Swinney, who, as we know, has long represented the recruiting heartland of the Black Watch. He also comes from a military family; his uncle was posthumously awarded the Victoria cross.

I am sure that all members who spoke in the debate, and those who did not, will support me in welcoming members of the Black Watch Association and other veterans to our proceedings. They are very welcome here today. It is important to stress that there is cross-party support for our Scottish military, regimental traditions and everybody who has served.

In preparing my closing remarks today, I anticipated that little would be left for me to say about the Black Watch and its tercentenary, which we have come together to debate today. Members have already reflected sensitively and considerably on the honour, gallantry and devoted service of the Black Watch, including its extensive involvement in military campaigns throughout history. I reiterate this Parliament’s recognition of all the soldiers of the Black Watch who lost their lives in those conflicts, including the 14 who received the Victoria cross.

The Scottish Government recognises not only the sacrifices made by the soldiers of the Black Watch but those made by all our armed forces men and women, many of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms that, sadly, we so often take for granted today. When we remember those sacrifices, we are not seeking to glorify war but to recognise the hardships endured and the courage displayed in the face of extraordinary adversity. When we reflect on the impact of conflict, we must also remember the suffering of families at home facing the uncertainty of the future and being unsure what would become of their loved ones serving elsewhere. It should go without saying that for those whose loved ones did not return home, that suffering never ends.

Members will know that Fort George, home of the Black Watch since 2007, is still expected to be closed by the Ministry of Defence within the next decade. That move will end the Army’s association with the Fort George area, which is a relationship that has existed for more than 250 years. The Scottish Government has significant concerns over the potential impact of the proposed cuts to the defence estate, and we caution against any further proposals to close bases in Scotland due to the negative impact on local communities and economies.

The member is aware that, as the member of Parliament for Moray between 2001 and 2017, I had the good fortune to represent a constituency that had the most significant military footprint of anywhere in Scotland. I am very well aware of the role that accommodation plays in the viability of military bases, as in the cases of the two Royal Air Force bases—there is now one—the Army engineering base and Fort George, which is absolutely an historic site.

We need our armed forces to be provided with appropriate base facilities and accommodation, but I observe that the armed forces’ footprint in Scotland is now the smallest that it has been since the Napoleonic wars. Unfortunately, we are living in times in which there is a conflict in Europe and a requirement for us all to get behind appropriate defence spending in order to make sure that our armed forces are properly supported.

Today’s motion gives us the opportunity to underline how important it is that we support our veterans and their families. Members will know that the Scottish Government offers its full support and commitment to our veterans and their families, primarily through our veterans strategy action plan and our role in responding to—and supporting the delivery of—the Scottish veterans commissioner’s recommendations.

In December last year, Graeme Dey delivered his latest annual update to Parliament, in which he outlined how the Government had supported the entire armed forces community throughout the previous year. As ever, that was accompanied by a published report, which fully detailed what the Government and its partners had done in the preceding 12 months. He made particular reference to successes such as the Government’s support for veterans’ physical and mental health; its encouragement of collaboration throughout the sector to best support veterans and their families; its obtaining detailed veterans data, from the census in particular; and its continued funding of projects through the Scottish veterans fund.

The Scottish Government remains committed to providing the very best support for our veterans, their families and service families. I give my personal thanks to all the individuals and organisations who continue to support our veterans and armed forces community and who work hard every day to do so. I thank Liz Smith for bringing forward the motion today and members for their contributions and reflections on the Black Watch’s decorated history throughout the past three centuries.

I agree with John Mason that the level of support will vary from one part of the country to another. I will use his intervention as a springboard to encourage the local authority areas that are not yet playing a part to begin to do so. I hope that, through encouragement and with the support of campaigners, we can broaden, widen and enhance the fair trade movement’s impact across Scotland. He is right to wish that the level of support be increased, and I would welcome the minority of local government areas in Scotland that are not yet part of the process being part of it in the future.

Edinburgh, where my Edinburgh Central constituency is located, obtained Fairtrade status in 2004. I commend the work of the Edinburgh Fairtrade city steering group for its work to support and promote fair trade across the city. I particularly congratulate the steering group and Scottish Fair Trade for their successful bid to host the international Fair Trade Towns conference in Edinburgh later this year, which will be the first time that the prestigious event has been held in Scotland.

Today’s global challenges—climate change, pandemics, conflict, poverty and inequality—can be addressed only if the global south and the global north work together.

I am proud to have the opportunity to open the debate, which will celebrate Scotland’s renewed status as a fair trade nation.

The title of fair trade nation is one that Scotland has held for more than a decade. We share it with only one other nation, namely our friends in Wales. However, being a fair trade nation is about more than just a title. The motion recognises the dedication and hard work of fair trade campaigners, businesses and communities across Scotland to achieving and, importantly, sustaining fair trade nation status. I had the chance to meet some of them at a reception ahead of the debate, and I am delighted to see them in the public gallery today. I thank them for their work in championing the cause of fairness in global trade, and I look forward to hearing more about their efforts from colleagues across the parties during the debate. I also thank Scottish Fair Trade for its leadership in promoting and strengthening Scotland’s fair trade commitment.

The report “Is Scotland Still a Fair Trade Nation?”, which was published earlier this month, notes that 97 per cent of the Scottish population have heard of fair trade. That is a phenomenal result, which reflects the work of Scottish Fair Trade and its members to ensure that fair trade remains at the forefront of people’s minds.

The report also reminds us of the turbulent context in which renewed fair nation status was achieved. It has been seven years since the previous assessment. Since then, we have had a period of unprecedented upheaval, with Brexit’s trade realignments, the economic and social disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the heightened urgency of the climate emergency. Yet, in the face of those immense challenges, Scottish civic society has held fast to its commitment to justice and equity in trade.

This year also marks a significant milestone in Scotland’s commitment to addressing poverty and inequality overseas, as it is the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Government’s international development programme. That milestone is significant not only for the Government but for the whole Parliament.

Twenty years ago, the G8 met at Gleneagles to discuss the challenges that Africa was facing at the time. Shortly after, the Scottish Parliament hosted an event called “Malawi After Gleneagles”, which brought together key Scots and Malawians from across Government, Parliament and civic society. The approach that was mapped out at that event—with a clear focus on people-to-people links and dignified reciprocal partnership—has guided our international development work ever since. That is reflected in the new international development principles that we co-developed with our partner countries and international non-governmental organisations in Scotland in 2021.

At that Scottish Parliament event in 2005, the then First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Jack McConnell, made a point that is as true now as it was then. He said:

“The primary duty of this Parliament and our devolved government is to use our powers for the betterment of the people of Scotland. But we have another duty too, as elected politicians and as citizens of the world: a duty to be good neighbours and to play our part in global challenges.”

Strong cross-party support for international development in the Scottish Parliament has been a feature that has underpinned the international development work of successive Scottish Governments since 2005. It has been fundamental to the international development programme and therefore to the difference that has been made by contributions from Scotland over the past two decades to the lives of those who live in our partner countries and, through our wider aid, to the communities that live through humanitarian crises.

My express hope is that the Scottish Parliament will continue our proud tradition of supporting our partner countries for the benefit of the most vulnerable communities globally and that the Parliament will continue to show leadership on the global stage.

Members here today will, I am sure, share concerns about the deteriorating global order at this time and the cuts to aid that have been made over the past weeks by Governments around the world. The freeze and now newly-announced termination of 83 per cent of US Agency for International Development spend has seen the largest donor of humanitarian and development assistance pause and then cancel the majority of its programming. We know that that will have a serious global impact on the most vulnerable, including in our partner countries.

The United Kingdom Government recently announced further cuts in aid, with the amount of UK gross national income being spent on overseas development aid dropping from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent, which will further compound that global impact.

The Scottish Government has been clear that, although we welcome the UK Government’s commitment to increased defence spending at a time of such acute need across Europe, we are deeply disappointed by the cut to the overseas aid budget, which will be the lowest percentage of UK finance spent on aid in over a quarter of a century.

This is a time when, globally, we all need to step up to support the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world. One of the simplest ways that we can do that as a nation is through our support for fair trade. By promoting and purchasing fair trade, we support producers, workers and enterprises, particularly in the global south, to build a fairer, more sustainable trading system—one that supports the rights, dignity and livelihoods of people throughout the supply chain.

Businesses, schools, churches and local communities across Scotland are doing just that. The assessment report “Is Scotland still a Fair Trade Nation?” noted that fair trade activity regularly happens in 22 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas. That level of civic engagement across all sectors of society in Scotland speaks to the deep and unwavering commitment to justice and equity in trade that exists across our communities.