To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that the housing of adult male prisoners at HMP and YOI Polmont is being considered, what its position is on whether such an announcement should be made to the Parliament. (S6O-03035)

I am pleased to be able to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I will be supporting Donald Cameron’s amendment.

The issue of Scotland’s relationship with Europe is, indeed, important and is a topic worthy of time in the chamber. Unfortunately, however, today’s debate has focused on some of the old constitutional arguments that we have heard repeatedly since 2016. We may well be in a new year, but the SNP Government’s assertion of and addiction to grievance-fuelled policies and grandstanding about the constitution continue to be an old story.

The SNP’s latest independence wish list, entitled “An independent Scotland in the EU”, follows the same pattern as all the previous independence papers since 2022. The SNP is happy to make bold claims about the future of an independent Scotland, but it is even happier to sweep under the carpet any of the potential problems that may arise from that.

A common theme throughout the Scottish Government’s paper is that it is somehow inherently undemocratic when the wishes of Scotland differ from the wishes of the United Kingdom as a whole. The paper states that Scotland is a devolved nation within the United Kingdom but does not have a seat at the table or a voice in the debate. As well as ignoring the fact that Scotland sends 59 MPs to the House of Commons, the paper has a mistaken belief that having a seat at the table is the same as a political union, which means that the parties will always agree with one another. Political neighbours very rarely agree with one another. The truth is that all political unions involve a certain amount of give and take, and that would be no different for an independent Scotland in the European Union.

As the Scottish Parliament information centre pointed out in its analysis of the Scottish National Party’s paper, even through an independent Scotland, we would have only a small influence in the Council of the European Union. SPICe highlights that it is not necessarily the case that that influence would always lead to the outcome that Scotland wished for, and that Scotland would often have to compromise in order to achieve an EU position.

The minister makes a point, but the best union that we have had is the union of the United Kingdom. The strength that has accumulated over generations and the possibilities that have been realised show that to be very much the case.

It is hardly surprising that the SNP condemns that kind of political give and take, because it does not want give and take. It wants to ensure that it can continue to have the concerns that it has raised. SNP members have made many points in the debate, but they have made them many times before.

There is a similar doubling down from the SNP in its paper when it comes to issues such as trade. The paper is keen to talk about the opportunities of rejoining the single market, but very little is said about the risks of leaving the UK’s internal market. We know that, as we have heard, Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK are worth three times more than its exports to the entire EU. Given that, it is hardly surprising that research by the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics found that trade disruption with the rest of the UK could result in a reduction in Scottish income per capita of at least 6.3 per cent.

I thank the member for his intervention, and I acknowledge the contribution that his late mother made in her time. That is well documented and should be recognised. He makes a valid point, but if this Government could manage to, for example, dual the A9, we would not have to depend on funding from other places.

As I have said, it is hardly surprising that we find ourselves in this position. Even if Scotland were to rejoin the European Union straight away, there would be certain issues and timescales. We have heard about some of the problems that may arise, and SPICe talks about the lack of answers on many issues.

The Scottish Government’s paper does not really address the current volume of trade. The Scottish National Party is happy to celebrate the benefits of free trade when it does not involve other parts of the UK. Just as it did in its previous independence paper, the Government simply shrugs its shoulders and does not confront serious issues when it comes to independence.

Before I address some of the many comments that members have made in the debate, I note that we do not have any members of the Green Party with us in the chamber and that no Green members made a contribution to the debate.

Donald Cameron said that a third of Scottish National Party voters and a million people in Scotland voted for Brexit, and he talked about being chained to Brussels.

We should be talking about the priorities of many people in Scotland today—health, education and law and order. It is well documented that those are people’s priorities. We should be spending time on the issues that the Scottish Government should be addressing.

We have heard about the Government’s failure to meet targets. We know that housing targets have not been met, we know that the Government has failed to meet its A9 dualling target and we know that it is focusing its time on things that are not relevant. The priorities of Scotland and its population are vitally important, but the focus today has been on fantasy politics, as Neil Bibby said.

Debates such as today’s are old debates—they are not about the issues that we should be discussing. They are not about the way forward. They are not about the possibilities of what could happen in Scotland. They are about constitutional division. Willie Rennie talked about the two forms of nationalism—that was a very valid point—the wrangling that goes on and the difficulties that arise. [Interruption.]

My time is tight, so I will need to conclude.

Maurice Golden talked about the vast issue of where we would be with currency, about failure and fantasy, about the money that is being wasted and about how things are not working for the people of Scotland.

Jeremy Balfour touched on the idea that, even though the SNP has been, and continues to be, in government, it is not looking at people’s priorities but is instead wasting time, paper, policies and funding on all of this.

At the beginning of my speech, I spoke about the vital importance of our relationship with Europe and the worth of the historical understanding that we have with Europe at different levels. Despite what the Scottish Government would have us believe, Scotland can continue to have a strong relationship with Europe. We need to have a strong relationship with Europe. That will not be helped by Scotland becoming independent, but it will happen if we keep exploring what we can achieve, rather than manufacturing grievance. People want the UK and Scottish Governments to work together to maintain a strong relationship with Europe. More importantly, that will help the whole United Kingdom to work together.

I look forward to hearing more about that in the future, because I have no doubt that there will be many more debates of this nature.

I support the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron.

We know that Scotland’s exports are three times those of the EU. The London School of Economics and Political Science centre for economic performance has talked about the potential disruption with the rest of the UK that could result in a per capita reduction in Scottish income of about 6.3 per cent.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Learning is critical to attracting the future national health service workforce and ensuring that they have the skills and experience to help healthcare. It is clear that recruitment and retention are issues for NHS Forth Valley, so what actions is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the most experienced candidates are attracted to the workforce in order to drive forward innovation, improvement and health and wellbeing?

Your new concepts, BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, seem to be another way to capture people who come back to watch or listen to content at another time. That is an area that you are continuing to develop. Where do you see that new venture going for you?

Good morning, and thank you for your comments so far.

The record spend is very welcome and shows the commitment that is there. There have been some real successes, which you have touched on. Although audience satisfaction has proved to be good, there has been perceived to be some negativity in relation to how Scotland is portrayed by the BBC. That is an area for you to investigate and seek to make improvements in.

As you have said, you are having to compete to meet the demands of the modern viewer, whether younger or older, depending on what they are looking for. You must try to square that circle to ensure that you capture as many markets as you can. You are unquestionably achieving that in some areas, and I commend you for that, but there is the issue of how you manage to address the negativity.

You have mentioned the audience participation that is available with some programmes, and where you see the organisation going. I want to explore how you will cope as you look to the future. The BBC is unquestionably held in high regard; it has a certain status. However, you are competing with STV when it comes to local and regional news in Scotland and, in some ways, you are perhaps being overtaken.

It would be good to get a flavour of what you are trying to achieve and where you see the organisation going. What do you anticipate happening in the next year or two with regard to those areas that you need to command and control? Some of those areas are within your control and others are not.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The increased money is definitely welcome, as are your ambitions to sustain, develop and innovate. Those are fundamental—there is no question about that at all. However, the committee has heard in evidence criticism from stakeholders that there is a misalignment between the Scottish Government’s culture strategy and the funding that the sector receives. There does not seem to be a clear sense of how the strategy informs the budget process. Do you accept that criticism from the sector?

You have said that we cannot continue in the way that we are and that we need to be thinking about change. I do not disagree with any of the potential opportunities that you have talked about regarding how we could change and develop the sector and support it for the future. However, we already know, and you have said today, that local government does not always have the priority, the need and the financial resource. It might have the ambition, but it might not be able to fulfil it without there being a much more strategic approach to how the culture strategy and the budgetary decisions are managed together.