Yes, just a few. Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the committee’s invitation and I look forward to answering members’ extensive questions.
I thank the committee for conducting its three evidence sessions. The round-table discussions made a valuable contribution to the debate about an independent Scotland’s role and place in the world. They demonstrated the important and influential role that Scotland already plays in global affairs, and the experts’ collective evidence again showed how much more could be achieved following a yes vote in September.
That brings me to a point that I want to stress. Independence is not just about the size of aid budgets or the number of embassies, although they are important factors; it is about Scotland being able to represent itself on the world stage, to make its own decisions, and to be able to influence and interact with other international actors in its own way. That is in contrast to being represented—and, I would say, often underrepresented—by a Westminster Government that, understandably, often bases its actions on different international priorities.
As was highlighted in the committee’s first evidence session, it is already acknowledged that Scotland makes a unique contribution and takes an innovative approach to certain aspects of international development, particularly in our reciprocal relationship and partnership with Malawi. We also have recognised expertise in climate justice, climate change, renewable energy, education, health improvement and academic research. That is an exceptionally strong starting position from which an independent Scotland could make a real difference internationally. We would seek to share our knowledge, skills and technical expertise in, for example, water, sanitation, renewable energy and education.
Being a global leader in international development is not necessarily about a country’s size in absolute monetary terms; it is about the impact that it can make. If we look at various indices that measure overall contribution to international development, we see that countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway—countries of similar size to Scotland—are ranked higher than the United Kingdom.
The committee’s evidence session on citizenship and migration, which I read with great interest, made a thoroughly useful contribution to the debate. One of the topics covered was immigration, and I see a significant gain of independence being the power to develop our own controlled immigration system that will allow Scotland to flourish. Control over our own immigration system will give us the ability to look outside our nation and to attract talented individuals from around the world.
10:00
Of course, we need to continue to support those in our existing workforce to develop their ability to fill specialist roles in sectors such as engineering, science and the medical professions, but domestic recruitment is not always possible. In those cases, we need to be able to recruit international skilled workers. Scotland benefits when we encourage skilled migrants to move here and international students not just to study here but to stay on and work in Scotland after their studies. That is why we propose to reintroduce the post-study work visa. I was happy that, in your evidence session on 15 May, Professor Robert Wright noted the benefits of encouraging talented individuals to stay on in Scotland after their studies.
Control over citizenship will give an independent Scotland the chance to take a different approach. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive model of citizenship that will recognise the shared history of Scotland and the UK by offering dual citizenship. The UK already provides for dual citizenship with other countries, and we welcome the commonsense position—which has been confirmed by the UK Government’s paper on borders and citizenship—that there will be no barriers to joint citizenship with an independent Scotland.
As the committee knows, policy on asylum is currently reserved to the UK Government. Although there is much that we can do on integration with the current devolved powers, the overall circumstance places limits on the real progress that we wish to make on the asylum process. It also makes us vulnerable to the imposition of policies and initiatives that we do not like and which, frankly, are just plain wrong, such as the go home campaign.
In an independent Scotland, the Scottish Government would establish an asylum system that was separate from the immigration system. From day 1, the policy on asylum integration would continue. We would close Dungavel and would end the practice of dawn raids and the inhumane treatment of those who have exercised their legitimate right to seek asylum.
On the topic of the committee’s final evidence session, international policy, it is important to note that our prospectus for independence does not rest on issues such as how many embassies we would have. Those are details that change for all states as their foreign policy develops. Rather, we want to focus on the opportunities that independence would offer and what Scotland could achieve in setting its own foreign policy. Our priorities for that are clearly set out in “Scotland’s Future”. They are based around a clear framework of participating in rules-based international co-operation, protecting Scotland’s people and resources, and promoting sustainable economic growth. We believe that that framework would enable us to deliver a set of policies that are focused on our national interests and are in accordance with our priorities.
I was pleased to hear the experts’ evidence from that session, which reinforced the view that small states have the ability to be influential and successful on the global stage and highlighted that it would be in the interests of all NATO member states for Scotland to continue to be a member of NATO after independence.
I am sure that members will have plenty of questions on a wide variety of issues. I thank you for the opportunity to make my remarks, and I will be happy to answer the committee’s questions.