Yesterday, we were talking about the economy of Scotland and how jobs are being lost in a sector that is vital to this country and our future economic stability.

The Scottish Government says that it is concerned about economic damage, while ignoring the fact that, if we had Scottish independence, we would have economic chaos. The centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics has said that

“disrupting trade with the rest of the UK could lower Scottish income per capita by at least 6 per cent.”

Given that Scotland exports three times more to the rest of the UK than to the European Union, that is not surprising; nor is it surprising that, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, more than 500,000 jobs are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish Government wants to gloss over the problems of rejoining the European Union. It says that it would be quite an easy thing to achieve, but is glossing over many of the issues that it would face.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Government concluded a comprehensive trade deal with India. That is a real opportunity. The deal is the result of several years of negotiation. Although the current UK Government was able to finalise the deal, it was the previous Conservative Government that laid the foundations on which that agreement could be reached.

I know how hard the Scottish whisky industry fought to ensure that that vital sector is central to the trade deal. When I met the Indian trade minister two years ago, he told me that he had never seen a country fight so hard for one particular industry. We have all been fighting for that industry, because we know that it will bring us prosperity and opportunity and will give us jobs in our communities.

The deal will reduce tariffs on Scottish whisky from 150 per cent to 75 per cent, and will further reduce them to 40 per cent within 10 years. It could increase whisky exports by at least £1 billion in the next five years, bringing money into our economy. We should be celebrating that.

The deal will also create countless jobs and opportunities across the sector. The Scotch Whisky Association has called the deal “transformational” and “a landmark moment”. That is very much the case.

The crucial thing here, though, is that that deal would not have been possible if the UK were still a part of the EU. I want more of that—I want trade deals in other areas. It is quite telling that the SNP Government was unable to celebrate the deal, despite the significant possibilities and prospects for Scotland that it brings.

There are also many future opportunities for Scotland, as the United Kingdom engages with faster-growing markets across Asia, Africa and the Americas. I hope that the Scottish Government can at least try to welcome some of the opportunities that lie ahead in those continents, because they are immense and will give businesses and individuals opportunities to prosper.

I turn to some of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. The cabinet secretary spoke about a reset summit that is to take place in the next week or so, and about the challenges, hopes, aspirations and opportunities that it presents. However, we must think about the defence and security challenges. The cabinet secretary also spoke about the Prime Minister’s recent comments being “a new low for Labour.”

My colleague Stephen Kerr gave a passionate speech, as we would expect. He talked about the SNP once again wanting to break up the United Kingdom. The SNP wants to rejoin the EU, abandon processes and drop red lines. However, the biggest issue that Mr Kerr discussed was access to fishing rights and how that issue has been manipulated in the past few days. If what we are hearing is being considered behind closed doors is true, that would be a backward step for everybody.

Taking back control has been touched on. So far, 70 trade deals have been signed—those are opportunities that this country would not have had if we had still been a member of the EU. As I said, the trade deal with India will create real prosperity for the nation.

It has been mentioned that secret summits are under way in which the possibility of giving away fishing grounds is being considered. As we all know, the SNP—the Scottish nationalists—wish to split and take away many of those fishing grounds.

Neil Bibby talked about the politics of the issue. He, too, touched on the UK-EU reset that is about to take place. He spoke about the Scottish nationalists grandstanding and about how the SNP’s record on Europe has not always been as clear as it was presented today.

I pay tribute to Alex Cole-Hamilton for discussing the Ukraine war and for his recent visit to Ukraine to deliver ambulances from Scotland. That was very bold, and I pay tribute to him for that. He spoke about the freedoms that we enjoy in the United Kingdom, security issues, the fact that Scotland has a place in Europe—there is no doubt about that—and the proposed plans for a reset. He also talked about where we can work together.

Instead of our having a meaningful debate about Scotland’s future relationship with Europe, we have had the usual grievance and received lectures from many members in the chamber. We want Scotland to be part of an outward-looking United Kingdom in which we can collaborate closely with the EU while embracing the opportunities from free trade with the rest of the world. That is what we need, and that is we want to create. That is what we need, and that is what we want to capitalise on. That is what we need, and that is what we will stand up for.

I am delighted to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I will be supporting the amendment in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

Once again, today’s debate could have been an opportunity to discuss how best Scotland can exist in today’s Europe. It was a chance to highlight opportunities for improved collaboration within the European Union and with our European neighbours as the trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union continues to develop.

However, one look at the Government’s motion makes it quite clear that the Scottish Government wanted to have a debate on other topics. Indeed, the Scottish Government is rerunning debates on single market membership, customs union membership and freedom of movement. The Government knows that that shopping list is a complete fantasy. However, that did not stop it taking the opportunity this afternoon to stand up and say its piece, so it is important that we do the same.

Instead of setting out a pragmatic and bold vision for how Scotland can exist alongside the European Union, the Scottish Government wants to reopen old wounds and repeat arguments as if it were 2019 again. As usual, the Scottish Government is spending yet more chamber time debating entirely reserved matters.

We should be talking today about what is happening in our education system. We could be talking about what is happening with delayed infrastructure projects, such as those on roads. We could be discussing other devolved matters. However, that is not what the Scottish Government wants—once again, it wants to focus on constitutional grievance.

Plans to build affordable homes for disabled residents in Clackmannan have been delayed while costs are recalculated. The council previously laid proposals to construct bungalows on a site in the town, but those proposals have now been reduced. Given the urgent requirements for more accessible housing in my region, what assurances can the Scottish Government give that it will do all that it can to maximise the availability for that much-needed development to progress?

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has undertaken with stakeholders in response to reported concerns regarding the implementation of the revised non-domestic rates processes for self-catering operators. (S6O-04660)

Increasing visitor numbers at local galleries and museums depends on having innovative collections and material for people to view. Can the cabinet secretary outline what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that collections that are held in Edinburgh and Glasgow are shared with local galleries and museums in order to increase footfall?

You have touched on the vitally important issue of consistency of data, but you have also highlighted some of the practicalities that some of the amendments that you are discussing would give rise to, and the issue of whether local authorities would be able to cope with some of the extra work that would be required to manage the process. I am encouraged by your comments, because I think that the extra burden that would be put on local authorities might mean that the information that was received would not be as consistent as one would expect.

You indicated in response to Mr Kerr’s question that the zones will be set up. We understand the situation around that. Is it Glasgow City Council that will have the power of enforcement and the obligation to ensure that it is acted on? You touched on what will happen to existing traders and any exemptions that they will be entitled to. How will those exemptions be managed and policed to ensure compliance?

There is a significant shortage of accessible housing in Mid Scotland and Fife, which impacts disabled individuals, particularly those who require wheelchair-accessible homes. Although some local authorities have committed to building more accessible homes, the current rates of construction are insufficient to meet the growing demand. What further action can be taken to achieve a resolution to this crisis?

You are making a very valid point about the necessity for local authorities to have flexibility and for rural areas, as you have already identified, to be given the opportunity to be flexible, because they will potentially be marginalised, as we have heard. The points that you make about ensuring that we have consistency and robust timescales are very valid.

Will the member take an intervention?