 Rhyw hwn yn cillw'r besodeg ymosae nr 1, 4, 1 i ddefnyddio Michael Russell mewn ddim sunflower a cynrychiwch o'r eu rheffordd springo communicationaeth yr Unedig. Rydyn yn fwy o'r felly mae'r gweithio ar hyn o'r ddybaith ymolio o gynnyddiaeth dros rôl i diwethech am yr awsiau honno. Rwy'n ceisio i'r ddyddoch i'r ddydd ac yn ddyddoch i'r ddydd. Rwy'n ceisio i'r ddyddoch i'r ddydd yn ddydd. Fy fwyaf, mae'r First Minister oedd y scrifen gynllun i'r ffwrdd sydd y ddechreuwng ddefnyddio y r Fergusadau Europea. Rwyf i'n dahlwch yn cymdeithaswn i'ch castion o'r dyfodol? Rwyf i'n ddych chi'n ddesgylch gael eich cyfnodd. Mae'r ddweudd i fynd yn ei wneud gwrin am gwmwyntu i amddangos ysgolol dros y frons. Fy fyddai ei gallu'r drosiaethau ar gyfryddol, ydw i'n inteilio'r eich tynnu a chysylltyn must be the shared aim of every member in this chamber and everyone in our country. I would like at the outset to echo her welcome for the European Committee report this week, which makes a valuable contribution to this urgent debate and which rightly prioritises access to the single market and reassurance for EU nationals living here. Harold Wilson, a key player in the engagement of the UK with Europe, once observed that success in political office required the ability to get a good night's sleep with a key sense of history. I'm not expecting too much sleep in the coming weeks, but I do think that the history of the UK's post-war engagement with Europe is instructive. Britain stood aside when the nations of a divided and devastated continent came together and envisaged a common future in the 1950s. But when confronted by steady British decline and the resurgent economies of Germany and France, we changed our mind in the 1960s, de Gaulle vetoed British applications to join on two occasions. Concerned that the UK had what he described as a deep-seated hostility to European engagement. He was talking from experience, but he was also very prescient. For that deep-seated hostility drove in part at least the leave campaign this year, and it still drives some of the hardest Brexiteers. Only in the 1970s was the third attempt to secure membership successful. Yet we are now back to where the Prime Minister at that time, Ted Heath, feared we might end up if his efforts had not been successful. The UK has decided to deny itself and its people in Heath's words in the final House of Commons debate on EU membership in October 1971 the opportunities available to us on a wider and more prosperous stage. Leaving, as he feared we might, so many aspects affecting our daily lives, as he put it, to be settled outside our influence. The question for us in this chamber today is therefore very clear. How do we stop that happening? How do we avoid the damage that will be caused by a Brexit that we did not vote for and which we do not believe will improve or assist this nation? On 28 June, we participated in that vote as members of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom voted to leave. We were part of the United Kingdom. I am sure that Mr Finlay is delighted by the Tory cheers. That proves the point. There is a basic difference between Mr Finlay and I on our understanding of nationhood. I understand that the people of Scotland are sovereign. They have the right to be sovereign. They should be heard. On 28 June, the Parliament entrusted the Scottish Government with a mandate that gave practical effect to the democratic will of the people of Scotland. We were asked to explore all options, which must include independence, to protect our relationship with the EU, place in the single market and the benefits that flow from that. Since that debate, the Scottish Government has sought clarity from the Prime Minister and her new secretary for exiting the EU on how they will engage with the Scottish Government. I will come back to that later. First, I want to take the opportunity to reiterate the Government's commitment to delivering on the mandate and invite the Parliament to continue to engage in all our efforts to do so. The First Minister has already got that process well underway. Her Government has reassured business, taken measures to stabilise the economy and ensured that EU nationals who have chosen to make Scotland their home continue to feel welcome. In July, the First Minister outlined five vital national interests, which must underpin the actions of the Government as we chart away forward. Those are the democratic interests, the economic interests, the maintenance of social protection, the principle of solidarity and the ability to exercise influence on decision making. As we go forward, according to the mandate that is set for us by the Scottish people and by this Parliament, we must continuously examine how those interests would be affected by and might be best protected within all the options that are open to us. To provide, of course, the mandate given to us by our votes here in the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister said, quote, emphatically not a vote for a second referendum for independence. That's why we supported it. It seems to have changed since that vote. It's changed tall, but I would advise the member to listen to his own ex-leader, Nick Clegg, who was telling people yesterday that he would have voted for independence in these circumstances. Mr Rumbles is out of tune even with his own party. In July, as I said, the First Minister outlined five vital national interests. I want to make some progress, thank you. As we go forward, according to the mandate that is set for us by the Scottish people and the Parliament, we will continuously examine how those interests will be affected by and might be best protected within the options that are open to us, all the options. To provide the best advice from a wide range of experience and expertise, the First Minister established a standing council of experts that has met twice. The new cabinet sub-committee, which will deal with those issues, will meet for the first time next week. All Scottish ministers have been fully committed to working with stakeholders on the result of the referendum. The Deputy First Minister provided reassurance to EU students. The Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science is working with University Scotland. Roseanna Cunningham has met a wide range of environmental organisations, and they have strongly reiterated the key role of the EU membership in tackling environmental challenges. On 1 September, I attended the first in a series of sectoral summits organised by Fergus Ewing. Agriculture, forestry and fishing are crucial areas where exiting the EU will have consequences, with some such as the fisheries sector showing enthusiasm for what they regard as new opportunities. All ministers are continuing their regular programme of engagement and dialogue, but with a new focus, ensuring that they understand and that the Scottish Government then addresses the challenges brought by the referendum result. Today, I want to restate the First Minister's offer for me to meet with party leaders to listen to and discuss their suggestions and ideas. In addition, this Government has proactively reached out to our European partners with a range of visits and conversations led by the First Minister and Fiona Hyslop, who I will mention later this afternoon. Scotland's voice is being heard across the EU. We want Europe and the world to know that Scotland voted wholeheartedly to remain in the EU as it befits a nation that is outward-looking, open and will remain so. Since the new Prime Minister took office, the First Minister has met her and has spoken with David Davis. I have also, in the last three weeks, written to him on two occasions. Nonetheless, the message from the United Kingdom Government has been confusing and largely devoid of content. Not even if there is no road map, there does not even seem to be a direction. It may be that a hard Brexit, with all the damage to jobs and the economy that it would cause, is the desired destination. Indeed, just last weekend, a foreign secretary lent his weight to a hard-line campaign that demands UK control of laws, borders, money and trade, as it puts it, and moreover appears to demand such control immediately. Most alarmingly of all, we have no idea, none whatsoever, whether or not the UK wishes to remain within the single market, although almost three months have passed since the referendum. We do not, of course, know the full scale of the impact of that result, though the UK Government's own analysis suggests that Scotland's GDP could be more than £10 billion lower if we leave the EU. That is why the First Minister has talked with such passion about the single market and the importance of the four freedoms that underpin it. Freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and people, of what makes the package work. The last intervention, I think. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. The First Minister, in her statement last week, talked about membership of the single market. The minister, I think, is alluding to that in his remarks this afternoon. Will the minister agree with me that there is no such thing as membership of the single market? The question is, how much access to or participation in the single market do we now consider to be in the national interest? I think that it has been commonly described as membership because it requires active participation to secure the four freedoms. There is a difference between that and the image of a single market as a sort of shop at which you knock at the door. If you allow me to develop the point, I shall make it. The freedom of movement, as I said, for goods, services, capital and people, of what makes the package work. They create a fair competition, which is a whole raison d'être of the single market. Without them all, there is no such thing. It is about a level playing field, which, of course, extends to the social protections that we value so highly. For equity for Scotland's workers, as well as for prosperity for Scotland's people, we must not be dragged by the hard-lined Brexiteers out of that single market. That is a case that we must make loudly and clearly. In doing so, we will find many across these islands who believe the same and who can join us in the fight. I am therefore today, in the motion before us, inviting this Parliament to add its voice to the millions who recognise that the best way to protect Scotland's and the UK's interests is to be a member, a participant in the single market. Our approach to those negotiations has to be detailed and comprehensive, but it has also got to be rooted in our values and our principles. It has to be based on a vision of who we are as a nation and how we see ourselves going forward as part of the world around us. For example, our core values of equality and inclusiveness mean that when we talk about economic growth, what we value is inclusive growth. Growth is in keeping with our social and environmental as well as our economic needs and that benefits the whole country from Lerwick to Leng. Our desire for participation is not only rooted in democracy, but also in recognition of the progress that the European Union has made in protecting and promoting human rights. Our belief in equity will drive our demand for continued social protection. Our care for our heritage and our country will ensure that environmental issues are at the heart of our negotiating stance. It is time that that negotiating process got under way in order that we can start to bring forward those views. Presiding Officer, we took Theresa May at her word when she said that she did it to Andrew Marr two weeks ago that the Scottish Government will be fully engaged and fully involved in the discussions. We are prepared to accept at face value her commitment that she won't be triggering article 50 until she thinks that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations. It's unfortunate that I can't today report in detail on the processes and structures that have to be put in place to deliver the UK approach. I understand the challenges there are in obtaining agreement to that across all administrations. I'm sympathetic to the practical nature of those problems. However, in the intervening period, this Parliament would not expect me to be idle. To that end, I've sought a bilateral meeting with David Davis, and as the First Minister announced earlier, I'll meet him tomorrow in London. I'm not known as a taciturn politician. This Parliament is founded on the principle of transparency and expects openness. Of course, there will be a place for discretion and appropriate times for reporting to this chamber, but there also has to be a place for open discussion, democracy and devolution, demanded. That's a key point. I was pleased to see it raised in evidence to the House of Lords EU Select Committee last week. When the nations of these islands do start to talk about the future, we will stress, as no doubt others will, the absolute necessity of respecting the devolved settlement and the areas that devolved responsibility, and of respecting and living up to the modern idea of an open, accessible, distributed democracy, which the devolved Parliaments of these islands embody. Presiding Officer, we said that we stand ready to listen and to speak, to listen to the community's interest groups and citizens of the country and understand their many concerns, to listen not just to those who voted to remain, but also to those who voted to leave and to address their hopes and fears as well. As we do so, we'll build our negotiating stance informed by those conversations, so it's focused firmly and relentlessly on how we get the very best deal for Scotland, as well as help to get the best deal for the UK. We'll work together across this Parliament, across the country and across these islands to achieve it. My job is and will be a collaborative one, tasked with co-ordination and communication. I'll work across government and, of course, with this Parliament. I'm pleased that this is only the first of the parliamentary debates on the issues that we're having today, and the committees of the Parliament will be active too, and if I can be assistance to them, I will be. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, let me finish where I began. Scotland's engagement with Europe didn't begin in 1973 with UK accession, nor were the post-war growing together of former adversaries. Scotland's history is intertwined with the countries of the wider continent. Our goods were sold there, our soldiers fought there, our students attended European universities. They brought things back too—goods, learning and ideas. In those very cities, Sir Robert Sibbled, a first professor of physics at Edinburgh in 1685, returned from studying at Leiden and went on to create one of my favourite places, our famous botanical gardens, based on Dutch models for medicinal gardens. We are and always have been an outward looking people keen to adapt to new ideas and tackle difficult problems. European engagement made us, at least in part, what we are. So who we become going forward from here will be dependent on continuing in that same way. I look forward to working with everyone who shares that view and who wants to ensure that whatever the current problem, Scotland as a European nation continues to flourish. I speak in support of the amendment in my name, which I formally move. On 23 June, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. After a heated political summer, if not a weather-warm summer, we moved from heady excitement, immediate political confusion, wishful hot speculation and partisan fancy to the more mundane but extended period of pragmatic preparation within and between governments ahead of the moving of article 50 and the negotiations that will determine the future shape of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU, certainly, but the wider world just as importantly. Last week, we heard from the First Minister just as the Europe and External Relations Committee did at lunchtime today. I made clear last week my dismay at the statement to Parliament made by the First Minister, which I noted if designed to enhance Scotland's influence in the development of the UK negotiating position was in its tone and content entirely self-defeating. This is not a Scottish Government of diplomats and it is certainly on the evidence of last week not led by one. However, I took far greater encouragement from published and more nuanced remarks from Mr Russell at the weekend. Indeed, I was almost moved to flatter them on Twitter before my better judgment took hold, so let me welcome Mr Russell to the front bench in his new role. This Government may lack diplomats but it has in Mr Russell one capable of diplomacy and that above all else is the skill that can secure advantage for Scotland at Westminster as the devolved Administrations seek to ensure that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish interests are secured. Before returning to this, I want to address the recent sub-political context, the suggestion that the Conservative Party is the Brexit Party. The referendum in June 23 took place following a legislative process at Westminster. In the crucial vote at second reading, 320 Conservatives voted for the referendum with none against. 206 Labour MPs voted for the referendum with none against. Seven Liberals voted for the referendum with none against. The only Green MP voted for the referendum and not against. Yes, it is true in the deepest of ironies that 53 SNP MPs voted against and not for a referendum. The party that favours endless Scottish referendum until it gets the result it wants voted to deny the UK vote on Europe. The point is clear. This was a referendum supported by all but one of the political parties represented in this Parliament and by an overwhelming mandate at Westminster. Indeed, all the political leaders in this Parliament actively fought to remain, even though 38 per cent over 1 million Scots chose to leave. Indeed, as I have observed before, although this is a proportionally elected Parliament, we did not in our vote here represent the Scottish electorate. Some 49 MSPs and not a bare dozen, half dozen, would have had to voted to leave had we done so. Mr Russell makes reference to the former Prime Minister, Ted Heath, in 1975. I have looked to see what SNP leaders were saying in 1975, too. The leader of the SNP parliamentary group at Westminster in 1975 said that the European community, Donald Stewart says, represents everything our party has fought against, centralisation, undemocratic procedures, power politics and a fetish for abolishing cultural differences. The doyen of the SNP, their subsequent President, Winnie Ewing, said that a vote to stay in the European Union would be tantamount to a death warrant, destroying Scotland's hopes of long-term economic prosperity. So the rest of the country may have listened to Mr Heath in 1975, but the SNP did not. Cabinet Secretary, you might do a fondness for praising me, might move a step further by perhaps saying that we turned out to be prescient and the Tories did not. Mr Carlaw. Dream on. I voted to remain, but I have never assumed that I understand what finally motivated Scots individually to cast their votes either way. I am perplexed at the early and repeated assertion by the First Minister that she does. As one of those who voted to remain, I certainly did not do so to revive and escalate a failed campaign to withdraw Scotland from a market four times as important to us as the European Union, but, in that way that she does, the First Minister asserts that she knows my mind and all others better than I do myself or they do themselves, like my mother. She at least has the virtue of being 85. My Eastwood constituency had one of the 10 most decisive votes to remain of any authority across the UK, yet the mood is one of acceptance of a UK referendum result, a wish for clarity and a desire for politicians to get on with it. I mean standing in the Newlands bakery, a successful local chain of bakers in my Eastwood constituency, more often than not, one with enthusiastic cues full of anticipation, people have regularly engaged over the summer. The highlight for me was a contribution that met a chorus of shopper unanimity when one shop assistant joined in and made her view clear. I had enough of this consultation. I let you and pay you good money to represent me, and if I do not like what you do, I can get rid of you. I do not want the responsibility of having to make permanent decisions about the country's future. I actually worried and had sleepless nights, feeling the weight of that responsibility while also being under informed to make it. Enough, get on with the job and leave me alone. As politicians, we should understand just how weary the public are. Not the evangelists and party activists, but the general public. Two years, two general elections and two referendums. What is the point of breaking the tradition of our representative democracy to conduct referenda if we then choose to ignore the result? The SNP has been on the losing side of all three referenda in the last five years, has denounced the result of each and would happily seek to set each aside. Presiding Officer, I believe that the responsibility of politicians is clear. Whatever the variable results across the UK, the result was to leave. That is what politicians are charged with delivering, what Europe and our allies, however regrettably now expect and accept, will happen. Presiding Officer, I wish you to make specific reference to our amendment and the interim report of the WERC, in which it is noted that, as a consequence of the committee visit to Brussels in July, we met various EU member states and other ambassadors that our, quote, European partners would be open to a distinctive Scottish approach to maintaining our relationship in Europe, as long as that approach had been agreed with the UK Government first. Those Brussels meetings were held on an attributable basis, but one senior ambassador spoke plainly. The Scottish Government must take on fully the opportunity offered by Theresa May, play a wholehearted and sincere and constructive part. If they do so, then those discussions with EU member states would proceed with the UK member state agreement and could bear fruit. However, if the atmosphere is soured and confrontational and I use his words, then the shutters will come down all over Europe to any separate discussions with Scotland. In other words, the Scottish Government can both make or break our influence and an opportunity in the exit negotiating strategy and discussions. If the siren tone of last week's First Minister is the on-going model, then the best outcome for Scotland in the discussions will be doomed. We look to Mr Russell to prevail and to keep the First Minister working on our day job here in Scotland, one that, frankly, needs and deserves every moment of her attention. Presiding Officer, the First Minister's tone has not been encouraging. Her obsession with independence reluctantly persuades us, notwithstanding her protestations, that her view of Scotland's interests can only be viewed through that prism. It is why Ruth Davidson has set up a group of advisers to report to me and her and through us to the UK Government, and I would encourage other parties to consider how best they respond to the conflict of loyalties with which Nicola Sturgeon has clearly wrestled for so long. We fully support the work of the European External Relations Committee and its consideration of evidence and hope that this will help to substantially inform both Parliament and the Scottish Government. As Ruth Davidson said on Monday in London, just look to evolution. Brexit is not a process, not an event. There are responsibilities beyond just the negotiations with our European partners. We expect the UK Chancellor to acknowledge the economic challenges arising and to address these substantially in his November autumn statement. We recognise the voices of Scottish fishermen and others who see opportunities for Scotland and their particular sectors in our shaping future policy, currently the preserve of the EU to meet our own needs. Indeed, it was Nicola Sturgeon who remarked in the early years of this Parliament and I quote, centralised EU management of fishing over the last 20 years has been disastrous. It is time to return control more closely to fishing communities. Well, now we can make good on that sentiment. Beyond fishing we have the chance to think afresh about other industries and how they are integrated with the UK. Scottish Conservatives urge the Scottish Government to work closely and with all sincerity to achieve the best possible outcome from negotiations which will see Scotland and the UK leave the EU. That best outcome extends beyond trade. Can that best be achieved with restrictive led lines? I doubt it. The EU itself is not fixed on stone. Significant national elections take place in its larger member states next year alone. Pressures for change are evident across the UK. Our negotiation is not with a fixed edifice, but with an evolving union and the shape and terms of the best outcome for Scotland and the UK will evolve too. We will encourage, contribute to and support the Scottish Government and Mr Russell when that too is their priority. We expect to hear from him regularly and wish him well in the discussions which must inevitably contend comments in detail in deed tomorrow with the Secretary of State David Davis. I ask members and openers to try to keep to their time. It is very tight. I call Lewis MacDonald to speak to and move. Thank you very much. Michael Russell's opening speech was well-trailed, both in the press on Sunday and by what the First Minister had to say at the European and External Relations Committee earlier today. He also added a historical perspective, which is welcome, although, of course, there was nothing inevitable about the sudden and complete reversal of 60 years of UK policy on Europe, which happened only a few weeks ago. The Government's plans for a series of debates on British exit from the European Union are welcome. There will be many consequences of Brexit and there will be many questions that ministers will have to answer about their approach to this process in the months ahead. I hope that we will hear more of the detail in coming weeks, but I want to focus today on the big picture of overall objectives. It is, of course, not just Scottish ministers who have questions to answer. Theresa May has so far failed to answer the most important question, which is what outcome her Government is seeking on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. To be or not to be in the single market is not a matter of tactics or of horse trading to be kept under wraps until Tory ministers have seen what is an offer across the negotiating table. It is a matter of the utmost strategic significance. Mrs May has disowned the assertion by David Davis that membership of the single market is very improbable, but she refuses to say whether she regards it as desirable. We are left to speculate on what not being very improbable actually means. The Conservative amendment today rightly highlights, as we have heard, the need for the United Kingdom as the member state to endorse any proposals that the Scottish Government wants to discuss with other European Governments or institutions. Mr Carlaw drew the conclusion that Scottish ministers therefore need to work in good faith with the UK counterparts in negotiations with Europe. He fails, though, to acknowledge the equally obvious point that ministers in the UK will have to tell Scottish ministers and everybody else what their objectives in those negotiations actually are. If they choose not to reveal their strategic objectives, the suspicion will grow that what the Tories really want is to have all the benefits of membership of the single market with none of the obligations. A Europe of free trade and high profits, with fewer rights for working people, fewer protections for consumers and lower environmental standards, I doubt if many leave voters in Scotland's inner cities or the fishing ports of Murray or Buchan thought that that is what they were voting for. Before the Conservative Party calls for the devolved Administrations to work in good faith with Mrs May's ministers, they need to show their good faith by telling us what kind of British exit from the European Union they are trying to achieve. Transparency is not just for Tories, of course. Scottish ministers also need to set out their stall as they engage with the UK Government and tell us how they will seek to balance the many different interests that are represented in this Parliament and across Scotland as a whole. I accept that a start has been made on that today. The motion before us reiterates the importance of membership of the European Union, as the First Minister did earlier, and affirms that a key objective for the Scottish Government is for Scotland and the UK to remain inside the EU single market. Mike Russell, right, Rumble? According to the motion, the Scottish Government wants to participate fully in all negotiations between the UK Government— Just a minute, Mr Rumble, your microphone wasn't on. Do you want to repeat it, please? According to the motion, the Scottish Government wants to participate fully in all negotiations between the UK Government and the EU. In other words, it seems to me that they want a veto here, and surely that is not the purpose of this amendment, and I would be astonished if Labour are supporting that. Mr McDonnell? The position that we all agreed as a Parliament was that the Scottish Government should negotiate and explore options, and that remains the position that we support. However, as the statement in the motion of seeking to remain within the single market, it is the first strategic objective publicly endorsed by either Scottish or UK ministers, and therefore it is worth being absolutely clear about precisely what that means. Because there is indeed a single market that includes the United Kingdom, and remaining inside that market is a clear objective. It is not, however, a European Union market. It is the single market of the European Economic Area, which we are also inside by virtue of Britain's membership of the EU, but which is not confined to European Union member states. Nicola Sturgeon confirmed earlier today her objective that Scotland and the UK should remain inside the European Economic Area, even as the British Government implements its commitment for Britain to cease to be a member of the European Union. Adam Tomkins' intervention was quite wrong. It is indeed possible to be a member of the European Economic Area, even outwith the European Union. That is why the European Committee met in Brussels with the ambassadors of the two leading such countries, Norway and Iceland, which are full members of the single market in just the same way that we are. I will not accept that membership of the EEA was designed as a way into the European Union, not as a way out of the European Union. The EEA members have to accept the full subjection of supranational law from the European Court of Justice, so there is no sense in which national legislation—sovereignty can be returned to national legislation—so there is no taking back of any control with EEA membership. Adam Tomkins confirmed that that is indeed a membership organisation, and that the single market is something that you can be a member of. We have membership, and, like Norway and Iceland, we should seek to maintain that membership. However, there is a question for the Scottish Government. If that is secured by Britain remaining in the EEA and the single market after we have left the EU, the question then will be whether the mandate that this Parliament gave the Scottish Government of protecting the benefits to Scotland of our relationship with the EU will then have been discharged. If the UK remains in the single market, so does Scotland. Do ministers at that point conclude that their mission has been accomplished and that there would then be no further need for a distinctive Scottish approach and relationship with the European Union? Does the independence option then come off the table if the UK Government successfully negotiates continuing membership of the single market? If so, that clearly puts the ball back firmly in the Conservative court. Not at some future point, but right here and now, Mrs May will then have to decide what matters more, keeping ministers in her cabinet who want to leave the single market or getting an independence referendum off the table. If, on the other hand, SNP ministers would wish to press on regardless in pursuit of a separate Scottish outcome, they need to tell us what else is a key objective for them in those negotiations, in addition to the one that they have highlighted today? Is membership of the single market the red line for the Scottish Government or is achieving that objective not enough? Scottish Labour wants to see more rights for working people and better protection for consumers, not fewer rights or less protection. We want higher environmental standards and trade and investments that create good and well-paid jobs. We see remaining in the single market as a means to achieve those ends and we will work with other parties on that agenda. Calling for openness is more than just a slogan, it does not just apply to someone else. The Scottish Government is right to seek full participation in the talks that lie ahead, but they also need to be clear and open about what all of their key objectives and priorities will be. On that basis, Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. I have to warn members that we are already five minutes over, so that means, of course, the way that we are going, we are going to have the later speakers in very short speeches. Therefore, I have the next lot of speakers, please, a tight six minutes and a little less, if you can manage. I call Joan McAlpine, follower of our Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also join in those welcoming Mr Russell to his new role. Almost three months on from the EU referendum in which 62 per cent of voters in Scotland voted to remain, we are no clearer as to what the UK Government means by Brexit, it remains a mystery. It is now almost exactly two months since the Prime Minister visited Edinburgh, her first engagement since assuming office, and the visit was described by some observers at the time as the Prime Minister loved bombing EU inclined Scots. But beneath headlines like that came very clear commitments from Mrs May, who quite explicitly stated that article 50 would not be triggered until a UK-wide approach was agreed. If I can quote from the Prime Minister's comments immediately after that meeting with Nicola Sturgeon in July, the Prime Minister said, we have discussed the upcoming EU negotiations and I am very clear that I want the Scottish Government to be fully involved. I reminded the First Minister of that July quote during her evidence to the European Committee this morning and she confirmed that this was also the personal assurance she had received from Mrs May in those discussions, which were described at the time by both women as very constructive. In the two months that have passed since then, we seem no nearer understanding how the Scottish Government will feed into the process of agreeing a UK-wide position ahead of article 50, as Mr Russell has indicated today. That is not due to any lack of effort on part of the Scottish Government. I welcome the news that Mr Russell will meet the UK Brexit Minister David Davies soon. We have progress, but it seems that progress is very slow. It also seems to me that there has been a change of tone at UK level. Certainly, publicly, it seems to be cooling off from those warm Prime Ministerial words in July, for example, David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is supposed to speak for Scots in the UK Cabinet, gave a television interview recently in which he appeared to throw in the towel and accept that we would be outside the single market. He also suggested that only one of what he called Scotland's two Governments would be involved in determining the Brexit process in the UK position. That is the Government that only got 14 per cent of votes in the Scottish general election last year and where he is the sole Scottish MP. Perhaps David Mundell and his colleagues, Liam Fox, like his colleagues, was expressing a personal opinion when he said that, I hope so. As an observer of the process, it seems to me that the UK could be doing a bit of an evil as regards Scotland and the EU, just as it did last year in undermining the role of Scots MPs in the Westminster Parliament. We were promised a UK-wide approach, not an appeasement of English Brexit voters, which ignores Scotland, Northern Ireland, London and Gibraltar. Even the FM of Wales, Carman-Jones, which, of course, that country voted to leave, Mr Jones on 9 September, said that Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast must be at the negotiating table. Today, it offers an opportunity for this Parliament to send a strong signal to the UK Government to keep Theresa May's promise made back in Edinburgh in July. One comment that the Prime Minister has made since July, which has not been written off as personal opinion, regards Norway, which many people view as the least worst option when it comes to our future relationship with the EU. During the referendum campaign, even many Brexiteers held up Norway as a possible model for the UK outside the EU, and I won't go into all the arguments against that, but, certainly, its EFDA EEA status means that it is part of the single market, albeit that it cannot set the rules and must also pay for the privileges. However, during the European Committee's visit to Brussels over recess, we heard of the advantages of EFDA EEA status and how much it is valued by the participating countries, although it meant that they had to agree to the movement of people. However, Mrs May has already dismissed all existing models, suggesting that she can negotiate a bespoke deal for the UK, which curtails EU immigration while retaining the benefits of access to the single market. She specifically seemed to rule Norway out in one of her public comments, which I think is very disappointing. Nobody who knows anything about Europe believes that you can square access to the single market with the restricting free movement of people. That was the overwhelming evidence taken by the European Committee to date. Our overwhelming amount of evidence found that continued access to the European single market was the preferred option. The single market is built on for freedoms, freedom over movement, capital, labour, goods and services. Free movement of people is not something that sits separately from the single market or even sits alongside it. Free movement of people is integral to the single market because it is one of those four freedoms. The evidence to the European Committee by the Fraser of Allander Institute was rather sobering in the sense that it looked at different options for the UK and the economic impact that it would have. Certainly, the hard Brexit, which has been alluded to by several UK ministers, was certainly the most damaging option in terms of the forecasts. It could result in a loss of GDP to the UK of anywhere between 3 and 8 per cent. I very much hope that that does not happen and that the UK Government listens to the Scottish Government and other parties in this and comes up with a solution that enables us to have free access to that single market going forward. Thanks very much. One of my favourite quotes of all time is from Robert Frost. He says, The afternoon knows what the morning never suspected. It is with this sentence in mind that we discuss the outcome of June 23. The ballot paper asked, Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? England and Wales voted to leave. Scotland, like Northern Ireland, voted to remain, as did other parts of the UK, such as London. In accepting the result as Jackson Carlaw's amendment to the motion recognises, we should support the views of 17.4 million voters across the United Kingdom. Of course, hindsight is a great thing, but democracy always wins the day. The most effective countries in the world are those who accept consensus. The Prime Minister is quite rightly demonstrating caution before deciding when to trigger article 50 in a bid to thrash out the framework of the sort of departure deal that the UK can expect. As soon as article 50 is invoked, the clock will start ticking and the UK and devolved Governments will have two years to prepare for withdrawal from the treaty. The timeframe is crucial and will allow the Scottish Government to feed policy positions into the UK policy. Theresa May said that our task is to negotiate a deal for exiting the EU that is in the interests of the entire nation. It must be pointed out that European heads of state are sympathetic to Scotland's majority remain vote, however they are not prepared to intervene in internal UK discussions. Practical detail must be at the top of the agenda before Brexit negotiations can take place. I look forward to the Scottish Government fully engaging and being involved in the process of negotiating our withdrawal. Teams of Brexit negotiators are being formed in the UK Government, and now that Mike Russell has been appointed Brexit Minister, he will meet David Davis tomorrow and we look forward to hearing his progress in his recruitment plans for his team and of joint collaboration plans. European parliamentary committees have gathered evidence from industry and academics, and now it is time for us to work together in the best interests of the people of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. It would be a step forward to see a post-Brexit display of unity amongst the devolved and UK Governments to ensure our enduring success within Europe and on the wider world stage. However, to put this conundrum in perspective, our biggest trading partner is the rest of the UK, and Scotland's trade is worth four times that of with the EU. Businesses are seeing potential in Brexit. It will not have escaped your attention that it is Scottish food and drink fortnight, and this sector is growing based on a strong home market and an expanding export presence. Further details on trade negotiations are vitally important to this sector. In particular, producers want the process of transferring goods and services in and out of the UK to present a smooth journey, ensuring that their sector reaches a projected turnover target of £16.5 billion by 2017. I thank the member for taking an intervention. She may recall that when Scotland Food and Drink gave evidence to the European Committee, they were extremely concerned about the effect of Brexit on access to labour, and they made the point that EU citizens formed a very important part of the labour force in their industry. How can she address their concerns if her Government is determined to restrict migration and free movement of people? I thank Joan McAlpine for that question. I think that you are absolutely right, and it is an important part of the food and drink industry, in particular tourism. The makeup among EU migrants is high within that industry. Mike Russell and his team need to address that and communicate that in collaboration with the UK Government. Businesses are seeing potential in Brexit, and it will not have escaped your turn. Sorry, I have repeated myself. Further details on trade negotiations are vitally important to this sector. The Scottish National Farmers Union reminds us that primary producers are the foundation stone of the food and drink industry, and their members are integral to the continued success of agricultural production and its wider partners. The Scottish farming industry is interpreting our withdrawal from the European Union as an opportunity to allow access to new markets and for future arrangements to work better for Scottish farmers and crofters. It is important that current EU funding streams that benefit agriculture are negotiated to replace the common agricultural policy. Of course, we cannot stress the importance of research and innovation funding in the farming sector that generates significant economic return and food security. Indeed, the opportunities of leaving the European Union also present the Scottish fishing industry with many opportunities to reinvigorate its coastal and island communities and deliver a thriving, profitable and sustainable fishing industry. We have been concentrating mainly on discussions on trade relationships within the EU. That is because we consider countries within Europe that are reliant and independent on our relationship with the UK, and that presents us with a positive future. However, the world is our oyster, and that presents new prospects. We must consider the scope of negotiations, and they go far beyond the confines of the European Union. Independent or bilateral trade discussions with countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia and India will bear fruit as we develop relationships and these must be nurtured. Our role must be to mitigate economic downturn by opening up new opportunities to Scottish industries. We need to protect what works for us and drop what does not work for us as we move closer to forming a new relationship with the EU and the wider world. Thank you, Ms Hamilton, for keeping your time, despite interventions. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Neil Findlay, Mr Stevenson. Presiding Officer, the common fisheries policy of the EEC and EU has hung over our fish catchers in my constituency ever since the Tory Government sold out our interests when they took us in. You will not find a single occasion when I have stated that it was good for us. I agree with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation when they say in the helpfully concise briefing that we need fairer and more appropriate shares of catching opportunities for the Scottish fishing industry within our waters. It is worth parenthetically saying that the establishment of the 200-mile limit did not necessarily extinguish access for countries who fished on those waters prior to its establishment. It is not clear whether leaving the CFP delivers all those waters to Scotland, but that is for another day. My first speech on the CFP was here in 2001, the day after I was sworn in to Parliament. I was able to say then that I am happy to agree with Jamie MacGregor, who was then a Tory MSP, who spoke yesterday of the need for more local control. We in the SNP have advocated that for many years. I go further in two respects. One of the most frustrating aspects of the common fisheries policy for our fishermen lies in our ability to suspend fishing rights in an area of our interests but only to apply to our own boats. Other nations' boats can continue to fish in areas where our boats cannot. That is something that must end. Secondly, the right to fish is essentially provided by our grant of quota from government and at no cost to fishermen. Therefore, I suggest that any value associated with quota must remain a public asset. We must look for ways to make it an asset from which local fishing communities as a whole can benefit. Equally, we need to find a way to be fair to fishermen who have paid for quota in good faith. If we need any knowledge of Tory thinking on this subject, we need Luke no further than Philip Booth of the Institute of Economic Affairs. He writes on conservative home that the solution is to establish property rights in sea fisheries and goes on to suggest an international trade in those rights. That is absolutely opposed by our fishermen and runs entirely counter to broader community demands for local control. Once again, it is an indication that the Tories wish to sell out the interests of our fishing communities. Tories, in doing so, are departing from their previous MSP, Jimmy McGregor's position with which I was able to agree in 2001. As the Fisherman's Federation and others acknowledge, we need a new fisheries management system. Like those in Iceland, the Pharaohs and Norway, our fishermen need to be inside the room while the local detail is determined. That fundamentally means that control of fisheries in ours waters cannot be left to Westminster, the people who took us into the CFP and have a track record of selling us out when negotiations on fishing take place. It must instead be controlled here in this Parliament, but with significant local decision making by local communities embedded in the process. However, it is also worth saying, of course, that fishing is simply not about catching alone. The economically larger part and larger by-employment is fish processing. Its interests require the free movement of people and unfettered access to the very large market that is the EU single market. I was interested that Mr Tomkins appeared to suggest that Brexit means leaving the EU single market. I thought that the question in the ballot paper said leaving the EU. It did not commit us to leaving the EU single market. I will. Mr Tomkins. My view is that Brexit requires us to ask what kind of access to the single market is now in the national interest. The national interest is clearly expressed as access to all the rights and privileges of being able, without visas, without paperwork, without costs, to be able to continue to sell into the market and to engage people from across the European Union in our industries. In my constituency, in the fish processing industry, it has proved impossible to rely solely on local labour. Factories, in my constituency now, even after local lay-offs, continue to have vacancies. Secondary schools in Fraserborough and Peterhead illustrate this point with a couple of dozen languages in each of them. Being in the single market could cut us off from all of that. Merely having access can mean that all of those barriers are likely to be created and we damage the interests of Scotland and, indeed, for that matter, the wider UK. Let me just say a word or two about what the Tories appear to want today. From the Government motion, they wish to delete agreed UK approach, meaning that they want Westminster to decide. The delete objective of Scotland to remain inside the EU market, meaning that it wants to damage our exports. The delete protects social protection, meaning that it wants to remove safety nets for the vulnerable. Finally, I understand that many of my constituents voted to use June's vote to get out of the CFP, albeit that the leave vote in my constituency was only 1,000 more than in East Aberdeenshire. However, Scotland now has interests that are important. We should, for example, lead on fishing negotiations for the UK as a whole, not delegate decisions to Westminster, but I am not holding my breath, Presiding Officer. Thanks, Presiding Officer. I voted to remain in the referendum after much soul-searching, and whatever reason that happened, the result will have a significant impact in changing our politics, our society, our economy and our relationship with our neighbours, our neighbours around us at home and our overseas neighbours. However, what has concerned me before and since the referendum is the way in which the political class, particularly here in Scotland, has very narrowly and uncritically framed the narrative that has emerged. A narrative that says that, on every level, Brexit is a bad thing and that we must do anything and everything to remain with the EU and the nirvana of the single market—a single market that, if you are to believe the spin, is the magic rainbow that leads us to a land of fairness, justice and plenty. A narrative that fails completely to question the economic policies that have driven austerity, caused mass youth unemployment, constrained demand across the many EU states and crippled the Greek economy. A narrative that offers little by way of any critical analysis of the reasons why so many people, 17 million of them, including 38 per cent of our fellow Scots, were so disenfranchised that they decided to vote leave. 38 per cent who appear to be getting airbrushed out of the debate, unlike the 45 per cent on the losing side of the independence referendum. Leave voters are being portrayed as little people who made the wrong decision and they should just leave it to the wise people of the political classes. They know better, they know how to fix it. I believe that that is anti-democratic and downright dangerous. It is this Parliament's role to hold those in power to account and never ever to accept anything without a critique. If we fail to address those issues and have an honest debate about the future of our relationship with the EU, we do the voters in our democracy a massive disservice. A simplistic EU good outside the EU bad mentality will not do. So there are very difficult and serious questions that need to be asked and answered. Yes, indeed, there appears to be a little plan from the UK Government. However, prior to the vote, the First Minister said that her Government was planning for all eventualities. Well, if that is the case, why does the Government not share their plans? Why have they failed to release the plans under FOI when I have asked for them? Do they indeed have a plan? Are we really saying that we must have access to an unreformed single market, which is, with its much heralded, four freedoms that Joan McAlpine referred to—freedom movement, goods, people, services and capital—a single market predicated on the belief that those freedoms drive prosperity? Well, have they drove prosperity? Well, not for the 50 per cent of under 25s unemployed in Greece, or the 43 per cent in Spain, or the 37 per cent in Italy, nor the 12 EU states with youth unemployment above 20 per cent. No prosperity for millions of our fellow EU citizens. Where is the debate on that? Because we should not be, certainly. Mr Greer. Does Neil Findlay agree with our comrades in Greece, who called for a main vote here, that the only way to reform the single market is by staying in and fighting for that reform, and it is for those reasons that many of us in this Parliament call for continued membership of the single market? Exactly where I am coming from, that we have to make that argument. I do not hear it. I do not hear that being said so far, because we are kidding ourselves in this debate. We seem to be kidding ourselves on. According to the Government, it is the rules of the single market that meant that we had to tender the Kalman contract. It is the rules of the single market that say that we cannot take the railways or the buses into public ownership, procurement rules that do not allow us to end zero hours contract or demand the living wages paid to public sector contractors or address the massive tax avoidance across the European continent. Where is the Scottish Government challenged to the failings of the so-called free and single market? What chance do we have of addressing them through the minister who is a free marketeer? He is long on the record. Is it likely that Mr Russell will grasp the thistle and hold out for those changes? That is a fat chance, I would suggest. I want us to argue for access to our goods and services, but also for change that allows us to take industries into public ownership if we choose to do so, to collect the taxes that are owed to us and to set the living wage that we want to see set. I want to see collective bargaining encouraged, not traded off for bail-outs. On free movement of people, some would believe that that policy is an egalitarian policy to allow people to visit the opera houses of Milan or to study at the Sorbonne. For some, that might be true, but what it is really about is profit maximisation and a neoliberal policy driven by the desire to allow capital to locate wherever they want in order to get the cheapest supply of labour, all the time driving down wages and not enhancing workers' rights, undermining workers' rights. In the UK and Scotland, we see a steady supply of migrant labour, where workers are being ripped off by gangmasters, by rogue landlords and unscrupulous employers who exploit their plight. They need protection like any other worker. What are we demanding for them from the single market? Finally, we have had two referendums. We voted to remain part of the UK, and as a UK, we voted to leave. The Government must respect both of those democratic decisions while seeking to get the best possible deal from a reformed single market. I call Claire Hawke to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I first congratulate Michael Russell on his appointment as Minister for UK Negotiations in Scotland's police in Europe? In June this year, a week before the EU referendum, while speaking in a motion welcoming the increased trade union membership in Scotland, I warned that the greatest threat to workers' rights would be a vote to leave the EU on 23 June. If I was deeply concerned then about the impact of Brexit, I am even more pessimistic now about its potential effect on ordinary workers. Some briggs tears would have us believe that, following the initial post-vote shock things, we are getting back to normal, that they will get the deal that they want from the EU, once they have worked out what they actually want, and that there are few, if any, downsides. This is just a mirage. In fact, little has changed since the 23 June in terms of what Brexit actually means or the development of a coherent UK negotiating position. They could not tell us what Brexit meant then, and we are none the wiser now. What we do know is that it means different things to different people, and that is just within the Tory negotiating team. In truth, the real impact of leaving the EU has yet to be felt, and that impact, particularly if it is a hard Brexit with no access to the single market, could have serious negative consequences for almost every section of Scotland's population and economy. We send almost half of our international exports to the EU, so retaining membership of the single market matters is quite simply in Scotland's economic interests. For our manufacturing, engineering, food and drink and finance sectors, any loss of access to the EU market matters, the benefits cannot easily be replaced by instantaneous access to markets around the world. That access takes many years to develop. Potential trading partners such as the US, Japan and Australia have already signalled that they will not negotiate with the UK while exit negotiations are on-going with the EU, and even then they would prioritise deals with the larger EU trading bloc. Our universities benefit from EU funding, and many have flagged up serious concerns that uncertainty in this area will harm research projects. Ensuring access to competitive research funding and global collaborations that flow from that matters. Free movement of people matters to allow EU students to continue to study here and for our students to have the opportunity to study in Europe. Many things that we have taken for granted have only been possible with the help of EU funding. I know that the member is taking interventions, Mr Johnson. Especially in areas such as my constituency of Rutherglen, where traditional industries have declined or disappeared altogether. European regional funds have supported many projects in the area. Clyde Gateway successfully bid for EU funds for a variety of projects, including the reclamation of contaminated industrial land at Shawfield for development as a business park. Whitlerburn community energy project received £2.3 million to provide tenants with low-carbon heating and lower energy bills. Bill continued benefit from European structural and investment funding is now at risk if Scotland is pulled out of the EU against its bill, as the UK Government refuses to guarantee similar levels of funding will be available post Brexit. One of the most concerning aspects of withdrawal from the benefits of EU membership from me is what we stand to lose in the area of social protection. Many of the core rights that we have come to regard as normal are underpinned and guaranteed by EU legislation. The right to 20 days paid holiday, maternity protections, including paid maternity leave, time off for antenatal appointments, employment protection when pregnant, limits to working hours, health and safety protection, the right not to be discriminated against in the grounds of your age, your religion, your sexuality or your gender, the right to trade union representation, equal treatment for part-time workers and equal pay for equal work. Protection of employees acquired rights on the transfer or sale of a business. All of those protections matter to workers. However, they will be seriously at risk if they left to the devices of a right-wing UK Tory Government. Given the unelectability of labour at Westminster, we are potentially facing a decade or more of UK Tory Governments that Scotland did not elect who will not think twice about eroding workers' rights to seek economic competitiveness. The UK Government is all over the place when it comes to what Brexit actually means. The Chancellor wants to remain in the single market. The Brexit Minister thinks that it is improbable. The Prime Minister will not say what she wants. The foreign minister has a record of insulting most of the foreign dignitaries that he must work with, and the international trade minister calls UK business leaders fat and lazy how to make friends and influence people. Just as well, then, that here in Scotland we have a Government who is taking positive action to protect Scotland's interests. It is right that the Government looks to all options to protect our police within the single market, and all options to protect our workers' rights and entitlements. They are the hallmark of a fair society. Distant, centralised and monumentally complex processes, which produce exactly what might be expected from such a structure, a continuous stream of largely dysfunctional rules and regulations. The watch just popped into your head. You might be forgiven for thinking that we have gone back in time in this chamber talking about the EU in its entirety, but those are not words describing the EU. Those are words used by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to describe the common fisheries policy. This is a federation that is the voice of an industry that has been suffering for decades. An industry in which the workforce is now at half of the levels enjoyed in the 1970s and an industry in which, for years, was forced to dump perfectly good fish back into the water to meet quotas. An industry that sits by and watches foreign fishermen in its waters whilst local boats are docked in our shores. An industry in which described Brexit as a once in a lifetime opportunity, as it involves a systemic change in the restoration of our exclusive economic zone. However, the fishermen of Peterhead are just a part of the song of voices in this debate. 38 per cent of people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU on June 23 came from across Scotland, from Greenock to Glynrothys, from Dingwall to Dumfries. We can all agree with the First Minister that the Brexit referendum has created uncertainty in this country, and she should be no stranger to that. Every referendum, with a single question, invariably creates diametrically opposed views on the outcome. One side will have one, the other will have lost. As Oscar Wilde might have said to the First Minister, to have lost one referendum might be considered a misfortune. To have lost two looks like carelessness. Does she really want to try a third? The reality is that everyday life has gone on. We are obliged as democrats to respect the outcome of our collective nations. A million Scots voted to leave the EU, and just as we respect the First Minister's desire for independence, she needs to respect the views of those Scottish people who wanted to leave the EU. The EU has struggled in its current form to survive just a few decades. The UK has survived for centuries, because our bonds are deep, our interests are similar and our lives and family trees cross the border. The First Minister said just a few hours ago that she admitted that the EU, that she wants Scotland to remain part of, needs reform. Mr Eunger stood up in the European Parliament this morning and asked for even more money to fund an even bigger EU. Trouble is brewing in the EU. The First Minister said this morning that we will examine all options to protect our interests, including independence. Of course she has to say that, but we are obliged to listen to the very real concerns that caused over one million people in Scotland to vote leave. The member is here talking about the least worst option. I would like to make progress. The member is here talking about the least worst option for Scotland. What sort of defeatist language is that going into negotiation? There is an opportunity here to make our own mind up about the thousands of EU acts that we have to adhere to in the farming business. Are they all really relevant? Are they all in Scotland's interests? There is the opportunity to do deals on fishing with countries that bilaterally benefit each party. There is the opportunity to assess common agricultural policy and reinvent where it does not work. There is the opportunity to put some real thinking into the long-term strategy into how we manage our land, how we grow our food and how we export our produce. I do not need brussels to tell me how to manage the Scottish landscape. For the first in a very long time, albeit unwillingly for some, we have been presented an opportunity to break the endless cycle where farmers' inevitable loss is broken even with a subsidy. Inevitability is not good enough. It is not just the SNP failure to pay our farmers on time. It is the failure of the entire EU system that has locked farmers into this inevitability. Brexit presents us the opportunity to create a farming, fishing or forestry industry that works for Scotland—the opportunity to do trade deals with a world that wants to trade with us. People do not invest in Scotland just because it is a means to export to Spain or Luxembourg. People invest in Scotland because we have a brilliant, creative and innovative workforce. The success of Scotland does not depend on brussels. I know that, for many, the EU means outward looking, engaged and internationalist politics. I like that, too. I love Europe, but Europe and the EU are two different things. Trading with the EU and unconditional acceptance of single market obligations are two different things. I believe that we can create a Scotland within a UK that has global ambitions and relationships. I believe in the union between our great countries, one united kingdom. What I need right now is a Scottish Government that rolls up its sleeves and gets on with building a strong Scottish economy, not one that threatens its success with its never-ending rhetoric on independence. I sincerely hope that Mr Russell is willing to negotiate with the interests of all Scotland in mind, not just the interests of the SNP. Now, while the ramifications of Brexit are not fully known yet, an area where the Brexit vote is starting to have visible repercussions and a very real impact is in local government, particularly in relation to funding. That is the element that I would like to focus on today, as it has already been touched on by Claire Hoy. Local authorities are responsible for the delivery of one third of Scotland's allocation of EU structural funds, and it is that funding alongside the transnational funds, which is an immediate concern. Without wanting to dwell too much on the referendum debate itself and the arguments put forward on both sides, one element that I felt was missing was the extent to which the EU funding underpins a huge number of local projects and the impact of those funds locally and nationally. Local authorities, alongside community planning partners, universities and colleges, rely on EU support to deliver work in vital areas. Research and development, business support, employability, economic development, tourism, support for small medium enterprises, rural development, community work and tackling poverty. So what are those funds and what do they mean on the ground? There is the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, which fund employability programmes and business gateway activity, where ERDF funds enable additional business support to be delivered. There is the leader rural development programme and European maritime and fisheries fund, worth £2.7 million to Angus and £2.8 million to South Aberdeenshire, both in my constituency and community led. So far, they have helped to fund community hubs, tourism activities as well as the innovative crowd funder project in Angus, which has been the first of its kind anywhere else in the UK. Then we have the transnational funds. Those funds over and above what we get back from the EU is net contributors. Erasmus, Horizon 2020, Interreg, Creative Europe and Cosmi have also played a huge role locally and to our colleges and universities. Just to give you an idea of some of the values and projects that are involved in some of those funds, in the last programming period Dundee University was involved in over 20 research projects and had secured €65 million worth of funding, as well as an additional €5 million for the small and medium enterprises involved. This last year alone, yes. Mr Tomkins. I am very grateful to Mary Evans for giving way. Would the member not accept that a country does not have to be a member state of the European Union to have access to those funds and participate in those programmes? Indeed, Turkish universities participate in those programmes. Ms Evans. The member is absolutely right, but until we know exactly what position we are going to be in, we do not know what the answer to that is going to be. This last year alone, Dundee University secured Horizon 2020 funding to the value of £7.6 million. Those funds have also lied extensive investment in renewables and carbon reduction programmes, Aberdeen hydrogen buses being one example, but what those figures do not include is the other investment that funding brings in, and that is when the amount becomes staggering. I chaired the East of Scotland European consortium until being elected to the Parliament earlier this year. An organisation that represents eight local authorities across the east coast of Scotland aiming to influence EU policy affecting our region and looking for further European funding opportunities. The combined total of projects in just four of those local authorities, including the private and public monies that are levered in on the back of the EU grant funding, was worth £383,235,000, and that is in the last funding period. That is just the four local authorities that I happen to have the figures for. Aberdeen has been a particular beneficiary at one point, the biggest recipient of one of those transnational funds in the whole of the UK. What does the uncertainty of that funding now mean? That there is a reticence on behalf of local authorities to develop new projects, as well as a reticence on behalf of EU partners to take part in projects with a UK partner. Because of the lead-in and decision time taken for some funds, local authorities are deciding that they cannot take the risk to bid. The Interreg Fund, for example, which funds transnational co-operation, can take up to a year from the point of application to final decision. Already anecdotally, UK partners are not being considered for those transnational programmes. At this moment, there is absolutely no guarantee that anything will replace EU funds, and, as we all know, there are quite a few bids in for the £350 million a week that we are apparently going to have. I do not have time. Although we know that committed projects such as those through leader vital for our rural communities will continue to be funded, many local authority areas across Scotland are only just getting those funds off the ground and operational. EU funds, by their very nature, are designed to provide added value, focus on key themes and areas that are not covered by domestic funding. Without the investment from the current allocated funds, if they are halted or completely withdrawn, there will be a serious detrimental impact both locally and nationally. Without assurances for funding beyond the next couple of years and without knowing if those areas will be specifically ring fencer protected, we are in very real danger of doing extensive damage to our national and local economy and ultimately on the people living in our local communities. I hope that I have managed to convey the scope and scale of some of what that impact might be. The Scottish Government is doing everything within its power to reassure, but there is only so much that the Government here can do when we still have no idea what the negotiating position of the UK Government is going to be and if Scotland's voice will indeed be heard in that. Brexit may well mean Brexit, but until we know what that means, the uncertainty and the damage that it is doing is set to continue. Again, we find ourselves in a strange position in this debate. We are not quite a full player, although I expect that today this Parliament will once again assert our right to play a full and significant role in the process. Nor we observers commenting from the stands while two teams go head to head in front of us. The situation itself is far from simple. In so many ways, things have moved very quickly indeed in the last few weeks. Events are progressing and the key players are becoming clear, and yet we are not fundamentally any further forward. Article 50 will not be activated any time soon, and that is probably a good thing for the UK, given that the Westminster Government seems no closer to deciding what Brexit actually means. All the while, European institutions are preparing a team that in every way outclasses Theresa May's three Brexit-year ministers. Scotland's position has certainly become no clearer. For those of us who are determined to follow the mandate of our electorate and ensure that our future is within the European Union, the fight is still very much on. Despite the chaos at Westminster, with ministers repeatedly making statements that the Government then has to walk back as nothing more than a personal opinion, there are some positive developments. Gavir Hofstadt, the European Parliament's newly appointed Brexit negotiator, is certainly a fan of ours having repeatedly made positive statements about the options for Scotland to preserve our European Union membership, our relationship with the union. Of course, the same, Gavir Hofstadt, is also very clear on a few things that Westminster cabinet ministers seem to be struggling with. Just last night, he confirmed that access to the single market means freedom of movement. The two are inseparable, as has been already covered in this debate. He is not the first senior European figure to issue such a clarification. Adam Tomkins, if he is right about that, how can he explain the position of Liechtenstein, which is a full member of the EEA but has a cap on inward European migration? I do not think that Liechtenstein's position is particularly comparable to Scotland, given the significant differences between those two states. He is not the only senior European figure to have made that point. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the President of the European Commission, John Claude Juncker, have all made the same point. The United Kingdom is throwing away goodwill with our European partners through being unable to define a negotiating position through taking a belligerant attitude and through appointing ministers who simply are not informed enough about the situation. The Westminster Government must, as a starting point, accept that single market access is essential and that being part of the single market means all four freedoms. It would be a monumental act of economic self-sabotage to do otherwise. Though otherwise seems to be the preferred option of David Davis and Liam Fox, their very opposition to the European Union, their leave vote, was motivated by an isolationist anti-free movement feeling. Freedom of movement is an economic necessity for the people that they represent. The net benefit of non-UK EU citizens in 2013-14 was £2.5 billion. It is particularly essential for Scotland. We are an ageing population and relatively high rates of immigration mean that we have welcomed with open arms those from the rest of the continent and beyond who have decided to live, work or study here. However, freedom of movement is not just an economic tool. It is a statement of our principles of what kind of Europe we want to be and what we want to see as the purpose of the European project, to break down barriers between nations, to assert that there is much more in common between Europeans, between all peoples, than that which divides us. Neil Findlay. Does he accept that, for many workers, they have come here not through choice, but they have been driven here by low pay and poor opportunities in their homeland? Mr Findlay has clearly seen sight of my speech in advance. That is the very next section of it. The single market and the European project, as a whole, have considerable flaws, not least among them, the dominance of huge economic forces, which are the major influence in where and why people move around this continent. Freedom of movement is a principle, but it has absolutely been exploited by the capitalist powers across this continent. However, a hard Brexit, defaulting to world trade organisation rules, is simply not tolerable. It is a line that I believe Scotland is not willing to cross. I would encourage the Scottish Government to maintain a negotiation position that values free movement of all people and to prevent the UK Government at every opportunity from negotiating a deal that puts the freedom of big business above the freedom of all of our citizens. Faced with a situation where any of those options come to pass, I believe that the case for a second referendum on our independence is a hard one to reject. Recent events have shown in the bluntest of terms the need for the people of Scotland to put our own future in our own hands, to have our own seat at the European table and to escape the disaster zone of Westminster politics. The Conservative amendment to this debate and the party line on Brexit shows heads firmly stuck in the sand on this point. It is not possible to say that the votes of 2014 and 2016 can both stand when they are now contradictory. The United Kingdom, with its guaranteed European Union membership that Scotland voted for in 2014, simply no longer exists. It may yet come to pass that satisfactory arrangements for Scotland inside the UK, while maintaining a strong relationship with Europe, are not possible. Our electorate will have voted for two unions, but will probably, in time, quite soon have to choose between them. For now, we remain a member of the European Union, and the on-going discussion should not stop us from continuing to build relationships with our European partners. Quite the opposite. This standstill, created by the UK Government, offers us an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to Europe. The Government, Civic Scotland, we all must emphasise our commonality and our shared future. Rather than pulling up the drawbridge, the time is now to explore and enhance our relationships with the rest of the European Union. That is what the people of Scotland voted for, it is what this Parliament voted for, and it is what I expect us to do. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Alex Neil. Let me start by welcoming Michael Russell to his position as Scotland's leading diplomat, although I hope that he will take this in a cheerful fashion. My understanding and recognition of Mr Russell's diplomacy over the years is that, as long as you agree with him, he is Scotland's leading diplomat. That may be precisely why he has been appointed to this job. I also suspect that he will be doing this for some considerable time to come, because this will not be a quick process. This is going to take many, many, many years. Indeed, Mr Russell may be looking for re-election and still be doing this job in five years' time. We have embarked on something we simply do not know where, which where it will end or when it will end. Possibly, Mr Russell could start in the course of many busy days, including London tomorrow, by speaking to Ken Clark. I thought I would reintroduce Ken Clark to European to be, because he is always so cheers up the Conservative benches when you mention him. Ken Clark said this week that none of the Brexit years at the moment have any clear idea of what they want to do next by way of actual change to our economy, trade, migration and other arrangements with the EU. A flood of legislation and regulations will probably have to be put before Parliament over the next few years, implementing changes. That is indeed so. If the Conservative benches or the Conservative party had listened to Ken Clark a little bit more over the years on Europe, we would be in a rather better situation. I have to also say to the many interventions from my good friend Professor Adam Tomkins, that this is not going to be about constitutional law. It is not going to be about the great issues of the constitution. It is going to be about politics. It is just simple as that. That is why I want to take up Neil Findlay's very fair challenge to all of us who are on the pro-European side. I would not necessarily go with Neil Findlay's analysis on everything, but he has every right to set out why those of us who do believe in the EU and the need to reform it, the very questions that he set out from CalMac re-tendering onwards, why we need to do exactly that. I just want to introduce one or two points that I think are relevant in that wider context. On Friday, the first European summit will take place, heads of government summit will take place without a British Prime Minister since the stages that Michael Russell was talking about in his opening remarks. That in itself is a pretty staggering state of affairs. Yesterday, Donald Tusk, the chair of the European Council said that the institutions by which he meant the European institutions, the commission, should support the priorities as agreed by among member states not support their own ones. That is at the heart of what is wrong at the moment with the European Union. There is and has been for many years too much flow from the centre. Fishing is but one example and not enough from the member states. Frankly, at the moment the European Union has lost the member states. There is no better illustration of that than the Visigard for Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic who want a looser EU. It was not that long ago and some of us might have been involved in a margins of policies at that time when the two-stage Europe was described. The difference between those at the centre, France and Germany, led by De Law and others, who wanted to push forward a full federalist EU compared to many on the outside of Europe, as they saw it, Finland and many other Scandinavian nations, including the UK, who did not see the advantage of that kind of approach. I suspect that we are back into that. Some of Mr Russell's considerations in the coming years, not certainly for today, but in the coming years, will be to consider how best we are in that reformed and changing European Union. For those who say, we must stay in the EU, come what may, I'm just not sure I can answer the question, what will the EU actually look like in five years' time? There are also 15 elections in member states over the next two years. Never mind what will happen both in Germany and in France next year. That is not in any way a set story. In that context, the biggest challenges for the European Union, not what we may think in Edinburgh or even more so in London, are about security after Nice, Paris and Brussels. They are about the refugee crisis and they are about that thing that never gets mentioned these days, the euro crisis and the financial weakness that they are in. Reform must happen, and so it must happen in domestic sense, as Stuart Stevenson rightly said, and in others I shared those remarks about fishing. I hope that the minister on the front bench will accept that from his own constituency point of view as well. We cannot have a repeat of the common fisheries policy. It must change. Whatever happens in the coming years, it must change very significantly indeed, and the SFF briefing set to members set that out very clearly yesterday. Can I finally say Deputy Presiding Officer, that while I always enjoy Jackson Carlaw's contributions to this chamber, it is not for the rest of us to take a contribution on Europe and a lecture on Europe from the Conservatives. The reason we had the May 23 referendum was not about the future of the United Kingdom and was about the future of David Cameron and the Conservatives. It really is time that they showed a little humble pie on those benches and let the rest of us, the rest of us, sort out our future, because sure or second, the Conservatives will not do that. Very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by publicly welcoming and congratulating Mike Russell to his new job as a former colleague in cabinet? I can say that he's been an outstanding minister in every job that he's done, and I'm absolutely sure that he'll continue with that success, provided, of course, that he follows my advice. Time we had on his realism in the Brexit debate, and if I may say so, my old school air academy's motto was respite, prospite. Respite, look backward, prospite, look forward. Unfortunately, there's too much respite in this debate and not enough prospite. Too much re-arguing the debate that led up to the referendum on 23 June. What the challenge is before us now is where do we go from here? How do we deal with the can that we have been given as a result of the Brexit decision by the UK people? We've got to be very clearheaded, and there's some muddled thinking in this chamber, not just today, but last week, for example, Kezia Dugdale demanded that the First Minister secure Scotland's place in the European Union, and that she meet Governments around the world to seek a means of retaining her EU membership. Presiding Officer, this is an absurd statement, especially coming from such an arch-unionist as Ms Dugdale. Does she not realise that a decision has been made by the UK state that she wanted to keep us in to stay in the European Union, and, as long as Scotland is a member of that state, we are obliged also to accept that democratic decision? I am grateful to Mr Neil for accepting an intervention. Does he recall the mandate given to the Scottish Government by this Parliament, which was precisely to seek means to protect Scotland's relationship with the European Union and to protect her place in the European single markers? There's a very big difference between protecting the relationship with the European Union and saying that we can retain our membership, and there's also the small point that we cannot retain membership for Scotland because we're not a member. You can only retain something if you've already got it. We are not the member state, the UK is the member state, so a little reality coming into this debate would be very useful. I think that those comments show the muddled thinking on some benches, particularly, if I may say so, among the unionist parties. The challenge now is to ensure that we make the best for Scotland of Brexit, not trying to kid people on that we can turn the clock back to the way things were prior to 23 June. We have to stop refighting the EU referendum arguments. That debate is over. Our entire focus must be on what we do to plan for life outside membership of the European Union. That's why I will vote for the Government motion tonight, although I have one little criticism that I have already mentioned to the minister privately. That's the inclusion of the words that say that Scotland's best interests are best served within the UK. That implies that we can still be within the UK, and I don't accept that we can. The decision has been taken, and we must now move on. Offer Mr Neil a deal. If he gets his party to stop refighting the independence referendum, I'll appeal to everybody else to stop refighting the EU referendum. How about it? I would count my fingers before I did a deal with Neil Finlay on anything. The position that I think across the whole chamber is that we all agree that there is a distinction between Europe and the European Union. The European Union is part of Europe, but it is not equate to Europe. We are a European nation, and we must build on being a European nation. We are not going to be in the EU, but we want to close good working trading economic, social and political relationships with the EU after Brexit. I believe that the Scottish Government should concentrate on three key demands that embrace the principles that are announced by the First Minister. The first one in which there is broad agreement—I have chosen my words carefully—is to ensure that we continue to enjoy uninterrupted access to the benefits of the European single market. The second one is to ensure that as many as possible of the powers to be repatriated from Brussels to the UK are transferred to this Parliament as they relate to Scotland. Those powers should not just relate to policy areas already devolved to Scotland. They should include, for example, powers over immigration and value added tax. We were promised by the UK leave campaign that, if the UK left the EU, Scotland would get control or some control over immigration. That promise now has to be delivered as part of the Brexit process. We need new immigration powers so that we can adopt an immigration policy suited to the needs of Scotland just as the city of London is already demanding similar powers for similar reasons, namely to help to grow a skilled workforce and thereby improve our levels of economic growth. Similarly, the Treasury excuse that the EU rules would not allow us to devolve that power to Scotland will no longer be valid. We should get those powers. I have given up my six minutes, unfortunately I had much more to say, but I will save that for another day. I have Colin Smyth to be followed by Ash Denham. Up to five minutes, please, Mr Smyth. As we have heard throughout today's debate, all members agree that the result of the EU referendum will have a significant impact on all our communities. My own South Scotland constituency is no different. Our internationally trading businesses are left uncertain over whether they will be able to continue to access a meaningful single market. Key industries across South Scotland, particularly agriculture and hospitality, wonder what will happen to many of their current and potentially future workers if we no longer have freedom of movement. Those workers themselves or neighbours or friends are left in limbo wondering what the future holds for them and their families. Our university is a left question in where future grants may come from if they no longer receive EU research funding. Many of our third sector organisations, heavily reliant on EU funding streams, fear that even temporary gaps between funding cycles could force many to cease operations entirely. It is on the issue of European funding that I want to focus most of my comments in this debate. As members will know, Scotland has benefited from a range of European funds for more than four decades. In South Scotland, the largest proportion of that funding comes through the common agricultural policy. Last year, nearly £150 million came into Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders alone through pillar 1 and pillar 2 payments, funding that is vital to the viability of the agricultural sector in South Scotland. As Mary Evans highlighted earlier, there are also payments made through both the European regional development fund, a crucial funding stream for supporting businesses, and a European social fund, which helps to support local councils' employability programmes in many of our constituencies. European funding supports important rural community and business projects through leader, which currently has funding in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders close to £10 million over the duration of the programme. The European maritime and fisheries fund also provides important funding to businesses and community groups in coastal areas. Of course, there are many national programmes that cover South Scotland, supported by European funding, delivered by Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, Visit Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council, all of which will be affected by Brexit. Despite those crucial funding streams, until now, South Scotland has not necessarily received its fair share of funding, without wishing it to bore members too much with the technical detail—I do not think that that will be easy—but the existing statistical boundaries that the so-called nuts areas used by the EU for regional policy purposes currently combines the Scottish borders with urban areas in the east and Dumfries and Galloway with urban areas in the west. Those combinations mask the significant economic challenges that the more rural south of Scotland faces. As a result of the current nuts area combination, the region receives a lower level of European funding than those challenges merit. That is why, for some time, stakeholders in South Scotland, in particular the South of Scotland Alliance, have been developing a proposal to create a fifth South of Scotland nuts to area. That area would include mainland north, south and east Ayrshire, south Lanarkshire, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish borders. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government backed the proposal and its recommendation was passed by the United Kingdom Government's Office of National Statistics to the European Commission. That was accepted by the European Statistical System Committee in May 2016. The proposed new south of Scotland nuts area showed that GDP in the region is around £17,000, just 70 per cent of the EU average. That economic indicator would have meant that when it comes to the next round of European funding, a new south of Scotland nuts 2 area could have secured tens of millions of pounds of extra funding. Although there is a great deal of uncertainty currently in relation to Brexit, it is probably safe to say that, whatever the outcome of negotiations, there is unlikely to be a continuation of the EU structural and investment funding as far as the UK is concerned. That means that any current funding levels will likely cease, and the potential benefits that change to nuts 2 boundaries would have brought to the south of Scotland will now not materialise. However, in preparation for the eventual Brexit, the UK and Scottish Governments will need to put in place policy measures that will, to an extent, replicate the support provided under current EU policy. Given that the Scottish Minister is back to proposal for a south of Scotland nuts 2 area, I would ask him to continue that back in the years ahead. That means that when negotiating with the UK Government and developing future support to replace EU funding, the Scottish Government does not simply aim to protect the current level of funding that is received from the EU, but to follow through on the support for a south of Scotland nuts 2 area and ensure additional regional development funding for that region. There is a reason why southern Scotland has a low GDP, and if the Scottish Government is serious about delivering on their commitment to regional cohesion in their economic strategy, tackling that low-level of GDP is vital. Before I start, I would like to put on the record that the First Minister has appointed me as political liaison officer to the culture and external affairs portfolio. I represent an Edinburgh constituency, home to a varied mix of people, including many EU nationals who work in our capital. Some of them have been moved to write to me over the last couple of months regarding our exit from the EU, and I thought that it might be instructive to hear from them in this debate. One wrote, My partner is a German citizen, but grew up in Greece and our baby son is a dual national, so thankfully he will always be a European citizen. The leave vote threatens my partner's right to work, my right to travel and our son's future. Another wrote, My family is working hard. We are not taking any benefits. We are independent and professional people. Surely we are all one Europe where people's rights are respected. Another wrote to me, I have lived in Scotland for over 10 years. I am an employer with a small business. Overnight, I found my whole life had been thrown up in the air. The Brexit vote and the fallout from it have frankly been quite shocking. I found it hard to believe that the leave campaign won, but I found it even harder to believe that not a single politician, with the exception of Nicola Sturgeon, had a contingency plan. Constituents of all ages in many different jobs from business owners, academics, scientists and chefs have contacted me, shocked and afraid. This is the human face behind Theresa May's statement that there will be no guarantees for EU nationals. These are law-abiding citizens, taxpayers and committed members of their communities, people with businesses, people with employees that depend upon them, people with mortgages, children in school, homes. It is unacceptable that the UK Government could leave this issue dragging on unresolved for the next two years. EU nationals living here deserve some certainty. These are people with lives and not political bargaining chips. Brexit negotiations will be lengthy and complex, and those who say otherwise are doing the public a great disservice. Jürgen Hart, a lawmaker who speaks on foreign policy matters for Merkel's Christian Democrats, thinks that Britain should not expect special treatment on a halt to immigration. He said that there is no possibility to, for example, abridge the free movement of employees but to keep all the other freedoms that EU members share within the single market. Merkel and others in her Government have repeatedly warned that Germany will not let the UK pick and choose EU benefits once the exit clause is triggered. German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmayer joined Hart in saying that the EU benefits come at a cost. He said that the UK cannot rid itself of duties of an EU member and, at the same time, keep the rights of an EU member. He said that we need to talk about that with more clarity on both sides of the English Channel. There will be two strands to the negotiations, the ones to leave the EU, which may well be concluded within the two years after article 50 is triggered, but the other strand, that of trade deals that are going to replace it, those negotiations, in my opinion, will not, and many experts are now suggesting that those negotiations could take up to a decade to conclude. What are other people saying about this? Theresa Villiers MP has said that we can be certain that the dire predictions of the remain campaign have not come to pass and I don't believe that they will in the future. John Redwood MP said that I see no circumstances where the Brexit vote can cause a recession in the UK, but let us be clear that Brexit has not happened yet. The full impact for our economy, for EU citizens and their rights and even more things than that are yet to come and we don't know what they are. Whilst the senior Tories are making what will no doubt turn out to be premature pronouncements, the economic implications for Scotland, and let us remember that Scotland did not vote for, could be bleak. In a recent report, the Fraser Allander Institute forecast that the rate of growth in the Scottish economy will experience a sharp slowdown over the next three years as a result of the decision to leave the EU. It states that the degree of impact will depend upon the nature of the revised trading agreement. Remaining in the single market is clearly a top priority, as it will minimise the degree of dislocation. Even then, Brexit will have a detrimental effect on growth. However, if limiting free movement is a key plank of the UK's negotiating stance, which we believe it will be, the Institute and others have noted that securing a deal on access to the single market without freedom of movement is highly improbable. As it stands, there is no formal inter-governmental structure in place to govern the involvement of the Scottish Government during this process. Scotland should be at the table through all the stages of negotiation, from the consultation stage that we are in at the moment, through the details of the deal and then on to the implementation. Scotland must be allowed to be fully involved in order— Please close, Ms Denham. —to protect Scotland's interests. Theresa May must be held to her commitment to have Scottish engagement, and that engagement must not be limited only to a brief consultation at the beginning and no meaningful input thereafter. Alexander Stewart followed by Stuart McMillan, up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On 23 June, the people of the United Kingdom made a choice to leave the political structures of the European Union and forge new dynamic and bold relationships with both Europe and the rest of the world. I, for one, was one Scot who chose to go down that route, along with 17.5 million people in Britain, and I look forward to the new relationships that we can forge in that opportunity. The opportunities for Scotland and the United Kingdom that now present themselves as we look beyond the European horizons are, Presiding Officer, immense. We can begin to form a new trading relationship with growing markets while continuing to emerge and do all the business that we can with our friends on the continent. Since we joined the European common market, the world has changed. In 1980, the member state of the European economic community accounted for 30 per cent of the world's GDP, and now, despite additions of new members, the European Union makes up only 16.5 per cent of the world's output. Of United Kingdom's 10 biggest non-EU trading partners, the European Union currently only has three trade agreements with two of them. We are moving forward in the world with multilateral trade, and we want to ensure that we can do as much as we can within our country to do all that we can to ensure that we do the best for the communities that we represent. Indeed, focusing on the trade blocs that we have, we now have opportunities to be much more international on the approach and the businesses that we have. The SNP, however, has unsurprisingly sought to use the referendum result to fuel its ambition for a separate Scotland, and I, Presiding Officer, unequivocally accept the fact that the majority of Scots voted to remain within the European Union, but that was a decision taken by the United Kingdom as a member state, and the decision gave each and every member one single equal vote in the process. Our new Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that she and others will take the views of Scotland into account going forward, and that we would expect to take place. I welcome the appointment at Mike Russell as the Minister for the UK Negotiations. I have no doubt that he will take that role on, as he has done in the past, and it will be a very positive process in moving forward. We in the Scottish Conservatives Unionist Party shall play our part in this process, and Ruth Davidson on Monday made an announcement that she will pick together an advisory group that will consult on the impact of Brexit on Scotland, and both myself and Adam Tomkinson will play a part in that, along with other experts from other fields across Scotland. The nationalists have never ceased to speak of their desire for more powers to be devolved to this place and for more decisions to be taken in Scotland, but in this particular case they seem to do all that they want to do is to prevent any more powers coming to Holyrood. As a result of the new powers and the model in which we will operate and the powers that we have, it is very clear, Presiding Officer, that within the format of the EU that we have, we will have major opportunities. We in this chamber should rise to the challenge and look at the new innovation that will take place as we move forward, rather than being stuck with the Brexit dictate. There is no doubt that there is a time of change, and within change that leaves uncertainty. There is no doubt otherwise that our First Minister has ensured that she has altered the process and that she has been a little bit posturing when she says what is happening as we move forward, and that has been unhelpful. As we move forward, it has been chosen to do that so that we can take away and a smoke screen can appear to mask the failures of what is happening here in Scotland. Scotland's trading relationship with the United Kingdom is four times the size of our trading relationship with the EU. Coupled with the latest Government expenditure and review Scotland figures to suggest that an independent Scotland would face a £15 billion black hole, this separation has to be looked at. In concluding, Presiding Officer, I greatly anticipate the optimistic approach that we are taking here in Scotland and look forward to the European Union becoming much more for all of us in the opportunities that we have, the contributions that we make and the values that we see here. We need to all step up to the mark and seize the opportunities on the new powers that our trading relationship will present us, and I look forward to being part of that process as we move forward. We now move to the last of the open speeches, and that is Stuart McMillan. Definitely no longer than five minutes, please, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I welcome Mike Russell to his role, his new ministerial role, and I wish him ever success. Before I start with the speeches, I want to touch on one point that Alexander Stewart just spoke about there, and that was about powers to come to Scotland. Can he tell the chamber what new powers are going to come to Scotland with Brexit? No? Alexander Stewart. Agriculture and fisheries are areas that we should be looking at and can make great capital from. Stuart McMillan. Can Mr Stewart guarantee that they will come to this Parliament, or is it just a bit of assertion from the Conservative Party because of the mess that they have taken the UK into? I certainly was hoping that by this time we would have a better appreciation of what Brexit means, and I have just heard from Mr Stewart that clearly there is no idea whatsoever. Unfortunately, we are no further forward, and the lack of clarity on the issue aligned to the ever-growing sense of confusion at UK level will only increase economic uncertainty across the islands. At Prime Minister's questions only last week, the Prime Minister refused twice to answer the very simple but crucial question on UK membership of the European single market. The EU is the biggest trading bloc in the world, but that is why it is so important to businesses and the economy, not just in Scotland but across the UK. The situation last week followed the farce of our own Brexit Secretary, David Davis, suggesting that the UK stinging in the single market was very improbable, only the next day for Downing Street to tell us that he was actually expressing a personal opinion. I recognise that Brexit, that the Brexit position that we now face, is challenging to manoeuvre through, but as the First Minister said today in the European and External Relations Committee, that during the Scottish independence referendum, she was continually being asked for a plan A, a plan B, a plan C, right to a plan Z. But certainly we know that this Tory UK Government do not even have a plan A, never mind anything else. Now I accept that the Conservatives were divided on the issue of Brexit, some for remain and some for leave, but they now appear to be gathering around the one position on making Brexit work. Now that is a position that I think most people can accept to be a reasonable position. However, Presiding Officer, without a clear pathway to actually what Brexit means, what will it deliver for Scotland and what will it deliver for my constituency of Greenock and Umberclyde? The negotiations are absolutely crucial to what is going on over the course of the next months and years ahead. Undoubtedly, some Tory politicians are staying silent because it is clear that Brexit is making the UK smaller. Japan, Australia and the USA are now in record of saying that the UK will go to the back of the queue for trade deals and that their economic focus will lie elsewhere. Before the EU referendum, we were promised that leaving would free the UK from Brussels red tape to quote one example among many. If it now looks as if the new trade deals will actually result in significantly more red tape for British companies exporting to the EU, as British exporters may have to obtain proof. I only have five minutes, I'm sorry. We have to obtain proof of origin certificates from the national customs authorities, certificates that could increase trade costs with the EU by between 4 per cent and 15 per cent. We cannot strike agreements with 50 countries currently covered by EU arrangements until we strike a trade deal with the EU because everyone else will want to know where we stand. It could take years before the UK can strike a new trade deal with the EU. How many jobs will be lost to foreign investors driven away in the process as a subject? The Prime Minister really needs to start talking about and thinking about. Furthermore, no one knows how long the Brexit scenario is going to last for. We have already heard about 10 years and we have also heard up to 20 years because of the level of secondary legislation that is going to be required to be dealt with. Brexit will certainly create an opportunity and we have heard about opportunities from Jamie Greene. It will certainly create an opportunity for those in illegal profession, those who work in European law. That is going to be a booming sector in the years to come. In my closing comments, I want to touch upon education and Erasmus schemes. When I was doing my honours degree, I studied throughout the secretaries of the Erasmus scheme, and I did my masters a qualify for some European social fund money. Jamie Greene spoke about opportunities and about the opportunity on Brexit that it provides. I studied in France, Germany and Sweden as a proud European. The opportunity that the free movement of people provides me is something that I do not want to see ended. I do not want to bring up the ladder behind me and to prevent others from having that opportunity to go and study abroad. I am quite sure that we are trying to encourage more people to go to university, particularly those from communities that are concerned to be deprived. I am not going to be one of those people who actually wants to prevent those individuals from having that opportunity to go and study abroad. I do not want to be a conservator, but I am not one of those people. The additional financial costs and burdens that might be placed upon people from deprived communities might well be that they will stop that opportunity and not stop thinking about going to study. However, in closing, although the EU is not perfect, it is an opportunity provider. Thank you very much. You were cutting that a bit fine there, Mr McMillan. We now move to the closing speeches. Can I call on Daniel Johnson? Up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Brexit means Brexit, much as biscuit means biscuit. Now, Mary Berry may be stunned at her relevance to such matters of state, but in the week that we have learned of its split from the BBC, the bake-off has surely taught us something. A biscuit may undoubtedly be a biscuit, but that tells you nothing about its type, its flavour, its size, whether it will delight or disappoint, or whether it snaps or is simply soggy. At the same is true for our future constitutional settlement, because Brexit means Brexit, sure. But what type and what quality are we getting? I am glad that I have brought some humour and mirth to the chamber. The First Minister described Brexit as meaningless tautology, but I would go further. Brexit means Brexit is dangerous spin. Since the result of the 24th of June, we have had a summer of obfuscation, leaving the direction that the UK Government tends to take extremely unclear. This is serious because the implications of the nature of our future relationship with Europe are measured in jobs, from manufacturing jobs that rely on selling our goods to the EU, to academics whose research funding is now uncertain, to the jobs in finance, insurance and law that rely on passporting rights to the rest of Europe. We need to know what sort of relationship the UK seeks with the EU and what kind of Brexit it means. However, the SNP has similar questions to answer. What do they see as the future of Scotland? Forgive me if I am not clear on their position, because at the beginning of the summer, a second referendum on independence was highly likely, but then it became an option. More recently, there seems to be an offer of support to Tory ministers who want a soft Brexit. On the single market, the SNP has not been consistent on whether they are more concerned on membership or access, although Mr Neil seems to be clarifying that position for them. Neither Government can hide behind the veil of negotiating position, because I can understand why the detail of what the Government seeks cannot be revealed in advance, but it is vital that we understand the broad outcomes and the overall shape and nature of the future deal that we aim for. Let me put it this way. If you are buying a car, you certainly do not tell the salesman how much money you have in your budget and what you might accept in terms of free servicing, but it tends to be a good idea to tell him what car you are wanting to buy in the first place. So we need to know what access to the single market means. Oh well. How could I refuse that intervention for Mr Carlaw? Jackson Carlaw. Having spent 30 years in the retail motor industry, can I assure Mr Johnson what the customer can afford is absolutely crucial when they are buying a car? Daniel Johnson. Well the customer is always right and I am sure no one ever walked off your car lot disappointed Mr Carlaw. But let me summarise the debate and we've had a number of I think very good interventions and contributions and I think in some ways to my mind it is perhaps best summed up by John McAlpine who point out the contradictions we've had from Conservative ministers in London such as confusion from David Mundial to David Davis having to be reined in. We did indeed have a promise in July of a joined up UK position and we need far greater clarity on the fundamentals such as the single market and free movement of people. But I am also disappointed and I think by the way that this debate has been introduced by both Mr Russell and Mr Carlaw because we started with history lessons and then we moved very quickly on to wheeling out the constitutional artillery. So let me say this to both Governments about both Edinburgh Government and London Government. We need clarity from the UK on the objectives and what it is the Government seeks but we need clarity from the Scottish Government on what its minimum outcomes are because we can have no more rattling of the possibility of future independence referendums with vague outlines of rationales and triggers of what might bring that about because the reality is is that there is a cost of that uncertainty and it is, as I said earlier, measured in jobs and we have already seen the decline of foreign direct investment to Scotland and the decline in investment and property in this country and we can afford that no longer but I might also would like to just highlight the points that my friend Mr Findlay raised about we cannot have an uncritical dialogue about the future of the EU there are 38% of our fellow Scots who feel left behind and we have to address those issues and indeed I think it highlights the nature of this as well we may be focused on the European debate now we have to focus on the realities of the real important issues of housing, jobs and the future for all Scots I would also just like to mention Clare Holly, Mary Evans and Colin Smyth who I think were right to point out issues such as the years it will take to develop future trade deals with other countries and the uncertainty and the real cost that's already bringing an area such as university research funding I would also finally like to comment on Mr Neil's contributions and I have to say I was interested in what he analysed membership to mean because that was not quite what I remember membership of the European Union being discussed two years ago and I think he was also right to set the challenge to his own government of looking at what repatriation might mean and to ask that we get on with that preparation this country faces Brexit at least in part because of a lack of clarity those of us who believe in Europe fail to be clear about why it was important for jobs and prosperity those who argue to leave fail to establish a killer alternative let's put an end to that clarity let's seek the assurances let's have those assurances both the UK and Scottish governments so we know what Brexit really means thank you Adam Tomkins no more than eight minutes please no more than nine minutes Presiding Officer no more than eight minutes please Mr Tomkins in fact I think I said no more than seven politics I haven't been in politics very long Deputy Presiding Officer but it's already beginning to surprise me and I never thought I would open a speech in this chamber with these words but I agreed with a great deal of what Alex Neil had to say although I suspect that we voted on opposite sides in both of the last two referendums in particular I agreed with what he said about how there is a great deal in this chamber of muddy thinking about the EU and Scotland's relationship with it including I'm afraid muddy thinking by my friend the minister who doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between Europe and the European Union and Scotland's relationship with Europe Scotland's identity as a European nation neither began with the European Communities Act 1972 nor will it end with Brexit in 2016 so let me try and bring some clarity to the debate Scotland voted on the 23rd of June that the United Kingdom should remain a member state Scotland did not vote that it should remain Scotland is not and never has been a member state of the European Union the whole of the United Kingdom is going to be leaving the European Union because the United Kingdom as a whole voted for it and Alec Neill was refreshingly candid and honest about this what's got yes Stuart Stevenson I wonder if the member could tell us if Greenland has ever been a state member of the European Union and perhaps in answering he might remember that it was able separately to deal with its membership status notwithstanding its lack of being a member state Adam Tomkins as the member known as the member knows Greenland is not and never has been a member state of the European Union and I'll come to reverse Greenlands in a few moments if I may what Scots now want Deputy Presiding Officer is for their two governments to work together to secure the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland and for the United Kingdom and what the evidence tells us about this the evidence tells us that Scotland will be able to secure a preferential deal such as perhaps a reverse Greenland model as was just alluded to Scotland will be able to secure a preferential deal only if it cooperates and is seen internationally to cooperate with the United Kingdom government why because it is the United Kingdom that is the member state not Scotland and if this is too much of a constitutional law lecture for Tavish Scott then I'm not going to apologise for this because this is a political debate about constitutional law constitutional law and politics are at the moment deeply entwined I'm afraid Scottish ministers have talked of preserving Scotland's status in the European Union but Scotland formally has no legal status in the European Union in the withdrawal negotiations if I can quote from a paper by Graham Avery for the European Policy Centre in the withdrawal negotiations which are intergovernmental in character the British government will represent the United Kingdom Scotland will not have a separate voice that's why EU governments say that only London is competent to conduct the negotiations not my words but those of Graham Avery now the European and External Relations Committee made this point very forcefully in paragraph 10 of its report published earlier this week which we've quoted from in our amendment to this afternoon's motion if Scotland wants a distinctive relationship with the European Union it must first agree that approach with the United Kingdom government so the most pressing consideration therefore is that the Scottish government co-operates in good faith with the United Kingdom government in pursuing the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom and as Jackson Carlaw has said not belligerence but diplomacy will secure that not saber rattling about independence but collaboration not renewed threats of another indie ref but good faith and sincere co-operation with the United Kingdom government I know that my friend Mr Russell is capable of it but we will expect him to deliver it yes Tavish Scott to me or me not I'm very grateful to Adam Thomas for giving me that to me or me or not be true when is UK going to sort his position out Adam Thomas the next section of my speech Mr Scott will be pleased to know is called what Brexit means so how long have I got now let me start by explaining what I think Brexit does not mean Lloyd has always defined what things are by reference to what they're not you know that there is a fallacy it seems to be a false antithesis which is gaining ground in Scottish public debate which needs to be arrested that is to say there is some kind of binary divide between hard Brexit and soft now I know the nationalists like to divide everybody into yes camps and no camps and they like binary divides but it's not a binary divide between hard Brexit and soft Brexit not withstanding the contributions earlier from Ross Greer and Joan McAlpine and others the softest form of Brexit would be EEA membership EEA membership would require first full participation in the single market including full free movement of workers so in other words not taking back control of our borders it would require secondly substantial financial contributions to the European institutions so not taking back control of our national finances and it would require continued subjection to the super national case law of the European court of justice including its doctrine of supremacy over national legislation so not taking back control of our legislation either so the european let me just finish the point about the EEA and then I'll give a way to Mr McDonald so the EEA is a way was designed I think about 20 years ago as a way into the European Union not as a way out of the European Union I'll give a way to Mr McDonald Lewis MacDonald I may have misheard Adam Tompons a few minutes ago but I'm sure he said that Lichtenstein offered an example of a member of the EEA which had qualified free movement of people which position is it that he's putting forward to the Parliament tonight is he supporting membership of the EEA because it does or because it does not have that free movement or is he rejecting it Adam Tompons the position of the position of the EEA membership requires acceptance of all three of these points it requires acceptance of the single of free movement of workers it requires acceptance of a substantial financial contribution to the EU and it requires acceptance of the continued supremacy of EU law over national legislation and for a combination of all of those three reasons I don't think that EEA my personal view is that I do not think that EEA membership is consistent with taking back control equally however being completely outside the single market would in my view be contrary to the British national interest so the critical question is this the critical question is not are we members of the single market or not the critical question is what kind of access to the single market or what kind of participation in the single market do we now want and on what terms last week last week the first minister castigated the prime minister for I'm sorry Mr Thomas last week the first minister castigated the prime minister for refusing to answer the question whether she wanted the UK to be a member of the single market or not but this reveals not any ambivalence on the prime minister's part but the first minister's lack of understanding about what is now at stake because as I say many times Mr Tom Presiding Officer there is no such thing as membership of the single market the EEA and the single market are not the same thing the question is what kind of access to what kind of participation in the single market do we now consider it to be in the national interest thank you thank you I now call Fiona Hyslop I'd appreciate a wee bit brevity if you could cabinet secretary definitely no longer than nine and a half minutes Presiding Officer the enormity of the challenge of addressing the EU referendum vote cannot and must not be underestimated this government moves swiftly and decisively to ensure Scotland's interests would be addressed as did the Parliament and I too welcome the European and external relations committees initial report having given evidence that committee barely a week after the EU vote itself I said then that influencing the UK government's negotiations before triggering article 50 would be key and our new minister Michael Russell set out his role and focus in his opening speech and we'll be meeting David Davis tomorrow in London the Scottish Government also needs to ensure that EU institutions and member states understand Scotland's position and importantly that we understand theirs the First Minister met and talked for the president of European Parliament the president of the European Commission the leaders of the main political groups in Brussels Scottish MEPs the UK's permanent representative to the EU and the German minister of state Michael wrote the minister for Europe and I have met with ambassadors and ministers from 12 EU countries over the summer in the last two weeks I have met and spoken with the T-shirt Kenda Kenny and the Irish Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan and met with the ambassadors of Finland, Denmark and Austria in the next few days I will be in Italy In each of these meetings the Scottish Government has set out Scotland's position that Scotland voted to remain that we will work to positively influence article 50 negotiations by the UK government and that we are looking at all options to protect Scotland's interests The UK government has said that the Scottish Government will be fully involved in preparations for negotiations and that article 50 will not be triggered until we have a UK approach and objective for negotiations We will hold the Prime Minister and her government to that commitment and the Scottish Government established the Standing Council in Europe so we can look at all options in detail, in depth and with expertise Members have raised today a broad range of important issues that must be taken into account in the negotiations with the UK government and this debate has been important in setting out the expectations of members of this Parliament So let me respond and highlight some of those now with reference to the five key tests that the First Minister set out and which Michael Russell referenced at the opening of this debate The democratic interest the economic interest social protection, solidarity and influence and Lewis MacDonald in what I thought was a very considered speech talked about the importance of remaining fully in the single market and any relationship with the European Union that falls short of that risks reducing exports to the EU the introduction of tariffs and other non-tariff trade barriers Now, Adam Tomkins in the intervention in his last speech talked about the kind of access to the single market that we want but there is a serious point here the idea that the UK is going to be able to pick and choose aspects of that is something really we have to get a grip and have a reality check on Joan McAlpine was very correct when she said that we can't square access to the single market with prevention of freedom of movement and a point that Gifa Hosta the EU Parliament's negotiator has also underlined but the importance of the single market is not just about access for goods it is about all four freedoms including the free movement of people Ross Greer on behalf of the Greens set out the importance of the wider aspects of freedom of movement and the importance to this particular country of migration and the impact it has Ash Denham talked about the human face of what that meant in terms of the position on the EU for EU nationals and it's also about the people who work here in our key industries Rachel Hamilton talked about the importance of the food and drink industry and tourism I met with a number of EU nationals at the Deanston distillery 17 per cent of our tourism industry is dependent on workers and obviously food and drink that also has a big impact about 16 per cent on the number of the workers and she talked about the importance of being able to get new markets as part of the position post Brexit but there is a very important aspect as when and how those markets would develop and it's quite clear from even the G20 discussions last week that the issue will be after negotiations are being completed with the EU for many countries and indeed the UK may be at the end of that list so other areas that have been raised Colin Smyth talked about the importance of agriculture students Stevenson on fishing I want to move on to social protection and our membership of the EU has not only brought us economic growth but has ensured that alongside that growth social protection has been championed and it really is important that we make sure we are in a position that that is protected the idea of an unshackled race to the bottom of exploitation of workers is something that both Claire Hockey and Neil Findlay highlighted and we won't tolerate any attempt to downgrade those social protections on that point Mike Rumbles I have heard a lot quite rightly about protecting EU nationals living in Scotland as far as their residents and employment rights are concerned but I haven't heard from the Scottish Government anything yet about Scots living abroad in the EU and how we want to protect this I haven't heard it yet Fiona Hyslop The First Minister was in committee this morning and I would refer all members to look at that evidence as well for developing the Scottish Government's position Mary Evans in a very thoughtful and well informed speech talked about the importance of community-led projects and the different perspective of transnational funds and also warned about the existing reticence perhaps to develop new projects and that's something we should be very mindful of as we go forward and we also as a government want to see that the arguments of solidarity are supported the issues around climate change and importantly on justice Brexit does put at risk a range of co-operations in relation to civil and criminal law and it's imperative that our interests in Scotland are protected in any future arrangements and indeed before Brexit the first test will be the UK's government's immediate view on the European regulations that are coming soon and we must have influence in the decision that affects us and that will come down to I think future debates of what type of relationship we can secure in those negotiations with the UK government and the reflection on the democratic interests the Scottish Government is taking forward the views of Scotland as presented at the EU referendum but we will also make sure that in terms of representing the Scotland's interests as promoted at that vote Michael Russell will set out the position of the Scottish Government in his discussions with the UK and that first meeting is tomorrow and I think everybody in the chamber wishes him well in that first discussion with David Davis and that is the spirit in which we'll be entering in those discussions but gently and very politely to the Conservatives having a patronising constitutional law lecture by Adam Tomkins or our obfuscating Diversary Bluster from Jackson Carlaw from a party whose reckless politics has led to the position we're in that condescension is not conducive to consensus or collaboration and if we're going to go forward in the debates that we are going to have in this chamber about EU matters in the future let's try and do it in a spirit of respect and understanding and I also would want to look forward to the next steps I would refer all members to look at the official report of the First Minister's appearance at the European and External Relations Committee from today today we have also seen John Claude Juncker's state of the union's address but the clock is ticking and there are further future events in the EU that will have bearing on developments the Brattislava summit was taking place on the 16th of this month and it is the first first summit without the UK it's the EU 27 and that is of significance negotiations about the EU budget post 2020 are likely to start in 2018 and that will clearly focus the minds of the EU 27 we have French and German elections in 27 and the European Parliament elections are due in 2019 now Tavish Scott made a thought which was a made a very good speech and he reflected on the perspective and the importance of looking at this process as one that will not be quick but we are in uncharted territory Brexit as Ashton pointed out it has not happened yet we are at the start of the process to start the process of Brexit and we must work creatively and positively and constructively to shape a future which reflects and respects Scotland's interests I think in this Parliament we have that political will to try and shape that future there's definitely a will in wider civic Scotland and this Government will work to explore all options and Presiding Officer we will continue to update Parliament in doing so and in that spirit I urge all members of this Parliament to support the motion Thank you that concludes the debate on the implications of the EU referendum result and UK negotiating position and before we move on to the next item of business members may wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Honourable Antonio Hose Amelia MP Deputy Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Mozambique The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1429 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 1429 formally moved thank you no member has asked to speak against the motion I will put the question to the chamber the question is that motion 1429 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed are we all agreed yes we are all agreed the next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions and I'd asked Joe Fitzpatrick to move on block motion 1430 on the variation of standing orders motion 1431 on parliamentary recess dates and motion 1432 on suspension of standing orders moved on block thank you Mr Patrick these questions will be put at decision time to which we now come now there are four questions to be put at decision time I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Jackson Carlaw is agreed the amendment in the name of Lewis MacDonald falls the first question is that amendment 1412.2 in the name of Jackson Carlaw which seeks to amend motion number 1412 be agreed are we all agreed yes we are not agreed members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 1412.2 in the name of Jackson Carlaw is yes 29 no 93 there were no obsensions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is that amendment 1412.3 in the name of Lewis MacDonald which seeks to amend motion number 1412 be agreed are we all agreed yes sorry are we all agreed yes we are all agreed oh i'm sorry apologies we are not agreed we will move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment number 1412.3 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is yes 112 no five there were no obsensions the amendment is therefore agreed the next question is that motion 1412 in the name of Michael Russell as amended is agreed are we all agreed no we are thank you we are not agreed members will move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on motion 1412 in the name of Michael Russell as amended is yes 87 no 34 there were no obsensions the motion as amended is therefore agreed finally I propose to ask a single question on parliamentary bureau motions 1430 1431 and 1432 if any member objects a single question being put please say so now no member has objected therefore the question is that motions 1430 to 1432 be agreed are we agreed we are agreed that concludes decision time we will now move to members' business and I'll take a few minutes to change seats