 O hopping on to next item of business, can I advise the chamber the presiding officer has selected two urgent questions for answer today? The first will be taken as the next item of business. The second will be taken following the public petitions committee debate. As a consequence, decision time will be at 5.30 pm. A revised business programme has been issued to all members. Mori Gugion ddim oedd raise y cwestiwn? Mori Gugion ddim oedd gweithio oherwydd... Mae ein ddim o flynyddoedd o'ch weithio o'ch gyfnodau oedd ddechrau iechyd gan Ysgrifennu UK i gael gydag ym Methwngol i'r llai strnoddau regulau ym unigaf, fe oedd yn myg i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'r rôl iawn. Mae ein ddim o fysg sydd wedi'u tapiwn i'ch gweithio i'r pwg ysgrifennu UK i ddim o'r pwg The Scottish Government put forward proposals in December 2016 in its publication, Scotland's Place in Europe, which set out our view that if Brexit was unavoidable, the UK as a whole should remain within the European single market and the customs union, and if the remainder of the UK chose not to do this, we set out a mechanism through which Scotland could continue to benefit from membership of the single market and the customs union. However, subsequently in her Lancaster house speech, the Prime Minister, without any consultation of forewarning, ruled out single market and customs union membership. Much of the damage and chaos that has been caused of the past year is a direct result of the red lines that the Prime Minister set out then. After our proposals for Scottish membership were tabled at the JMC EN in January 2016, there were limited further discussions between officials in the UK and Scottish Governments. Two months later, the UK dismissed the proposals as unworkable without any convincing reasons. We fully support the Good Friday agreement in all aspects, and we welcome the proposals of yesterday, which sought to ensure that there would be no return to a hard border in Northern Ireland, and demonstrated that the principle of a differentiated approach, which we set out in December last year, was viable within the scope of the UK's future relationship with the EU. Whilst the detail remains unclear, the Irish Government has been clear that it would facilitate free movement of people, goods and services across the border to Northern Ireland. On that basis, we understand that the deal provides for a dynamic regulatory compliance between Northern Ireland and the EU, Racky, now and in the future, but it also provides for an agreed form of dispute resolution that could include the European Court of Justice. We will be pressing for further clarity on those and other issues as a matter of urgency. Of course, Presiding Officer, Scotland did not vote to leave the EU. The best solution would be to stay. However, in the case of a continued move towards Brexit, there is overwhelming support in this Parliament and across the country to retain Scotland in the UK's place in the Single Market and Customs Union. Therefore, it is time for all of us, both here in Scotland and across the UK, at this crucial time to speak up for what is in everybody's interest and reject a hard Brexit. It is time for Scotland to speak with one voice, and I would encourage all those who realise that the Single Market and Customs Union membership is vital to say so and to work to achieve it. I thank the minister for that answer. Given discussion and debate over the past few days, I do not think that it is fair that it can be one rule for one constituent part of the UK and another rule for everyone else. Last year, the UK Government committed to full engagement with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland, the executive on the UK's exit from the European Union. The four Governments agreed to work together towards an agreed UK approach to the Brexit negotiations through the joint ministerial committee. Does the minister think that there has been full engagement with the Scottish Government on the latest developments or that we have a UK-agreed approach? We should stress at the outset that the situation in Northern Ireland stands on its own and has its own history and its own need for a solution that respects, for example, the Good Friday agreement and the great benefits that have been brought by that. That also stands alongside the single membership of the single market. It is a membership of the single market that has allowed the border to be completely porous in the way that it is with 275 crossing points, I think. That having been said, quite clearly we are endeavouring to work on solutions that have been made more difficult by the EU withdrawal bill and we have been making progress on those. I think that it is now a moot point what yesterday's chaos actually means and that will have to be factored into the discussions that we are having. There is due to be a meeting of the joint ministerial committee next Tuesday and, obviously, we would hope that at that meeting we could explore these issues, get some clarity about what the situation is and find a way to move forward. It is very difficult to negotiate with people who seem to change their position all the time and who do not inform others of that position. What, of course, we saw yesterday was a chronic failure to keep everybody informed about what the situation was. We ourselves have suffered over a period of time from not having the information that we are required to have. Maybe that will be an object lesson to the UK Government, maybe it will change. Mary Gougeon. Thank you minister for that answer. I would also like to ask the minister what he believes the consequences will be for jobs and living standards in Scotland if the UK is to leave the single market and the customs union and, in particular, what that will mean for rural constituencies such as mine of Angus North and Merns. Minister. I also represent a rural constituency. Indeed, some might call it an extreme rural constituency of Argyll and Bute. I am very worried, as all MSPs should be, about the effects of their constituencies, rural and urban, if we were to leave the single market and the customs union. We published material last year in Scotland's place in Europe, we published analysis and other information over the last 12 months. Just recently we published evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee, which puts a very stark picture of the difficulties that we will have if there are restrictions on migration. In all those circumstances, the best solution would of course be to stay within the EU, but the compromise solution, which we put forward 12 months ago and it seems ever more relevant, is to remain within the single market and the customs union. It is something that has been widely supported across this chamber and I am very grateful for that. I think that that is extremely important. Indeed, I do not anticipate the questions from the Conservatives, but I am mindful of the fact that just days after the vote, Ruth Davidson said that retaining our place in the single market should be the overriding priority, and I do not think that that has changed. If the chamber were to speak with one voice on membership of the single market and the customs union, I think that it would be very effective indeed. Thank you. I have seven members wishing to ask questions. I am going to stop this at 2.25. I will have to move on to the topical question. I call for succinct questions, please, to allow everything. Jackson Carlaw, followed by Lewis MacDonald. I somewhat unexpectedly agree with Marie Gougeon's opening remarks. Scottish Conservatives believe that regulatory alignment in a number of specific areas is the requirement for a frictionless border, then the Prime Minister should conclude that this must be on a UK-wide basis. Yesterday, the First Minister hastily took to Twitter to once again demand a separate Brexit deal for Scotland. We know how that would benefit the SNP's political objectives, but can the minister explain how separate arrangements for Scotland and England would be beneficial to the rest of us, given that trade with Britain is worth four times more to Scotland than the whole of the European Union? I am going to be very constructive in my answers to Jackson Carlaw, no matter how much he tempts me not to be. The reality of the situation is that the position that the First Minister has laid out yesterday and today is exactly the same as the position that we have had for the last year in this document, which I am sure he has read, marked and inwardly digested Scotland's place in Europe. The position is this. Our preference is to stay in EU. If that is not what is to happen, and I think that the evidence for doing so is stronger and stronger, then a whole UK approach to staying within the single market and the customs union is what is required. That would be regulatory convergence or lack of regulatory divergence, or continued observation of the ackee, call it what you will. That would be the best solution. In the circumstances in which we are in today, that is also the best solution to resolve the difficulty that has arisen in Ireland and Northern Ireland, because it squares the circle, the impossibility of making one offer to Ireland and another offer to Northern Ireland. The only way out of that is to make sure that the whole of these islands are in the single market and the customs union. If the Scottish Conservatives will support that, I think that that would be a very considerable step forward. They have supported it in the past, because then that resolves the issue. We also know that there can be no cherry picking of the single market. The idea that appears to be being floated at the moment in Downing Street, and there are so many ideas being floated in Downing Street, I am surprised that they are not underwater, but the reality of the situation is that if they are trying to cherry pick, to take agriculture, for example, and to take elements of trade and elements of energy regulation, they will not be able to do so. There is a difference between what is in and what the member says in the secondary position, but I take the intervention. They are in the Good Friday agreement. Yes, they are in the Good Friday agreement, but the Good Friday agreement, of course, goes alongside the membership of the single market. Not everything is in the Good Friday agreement, and that is a difficulty. The solution to that is a single market membership for the whole of the UK. The position of the First Minister is then articulated in Scotland's place in Europe. If that is not available, it is axiomatic that those places that can have a different arrangement should be allowed to do so. That is the position that we find ourselves in. However, a single market membership for the whole of the UK would be the way out of this incredible mess that is being created by Theresa May, and I urge it on every member of this chamber. Lewis MacDonald followed by Patrick Harvie. What matters here, of course, is to draw the right conclusions from current events. I hope that the minister will agree that it would be a mistake to use the chaos of Theresa May's failed deal on Northern Ireland yesterday simply to push for a differential deal here, too. Is the right conclusion not to say that if it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it is good enough for the whole of the UK? If the proposals that were floated by Mrs May yesterday were indeed designed to protect jobs and business in Northern Ireland, surely we should seek to do the same in Scotland, in England and in Wales, and should achieving that not be the focus of all the efforts of the Scottish Government going forward? I am in the curious position of hearing my own words echoed back in that question. That is precisely what I have just said, that a differentiated deal is at the end of the road. We are forcing the pace by trying to say, let's have a deal for the whole of the UK, and we should do it. It is also wise—I know that the member has urged me in the past—to be prepared for any circumstance. I be prepared as the motto of the Boy Scouts. I was never a Boy Scout, but I recognise the motto. We are preparing ourselves. We have to be realistic that if there is not that solution, then there has to be another solution. That is why the document, and I commend, for example, Paragra's 169171 in that regard, we wish to have a UK-wide solution. That is what we have said. It is the best thing for Northern Ireland for the rest of us in terms of membership of the single market and the customs union. If, however, that is ruled out, then it would be wrong to have entirely differentiated solutions in one place and not in another, not least because it would be very damaging to Scotland. The effect of a differentiated solution in one part and not in another could be deleterious to Scotland. I am sure that the member would not urge on this chamber actions that would be damaging to Scotland, but I agree that the whole of these islands should be in the single market and the customs union. We urge that on all, but particularly on the Labour Party. I have to say that I think that the Labour Party were to adopt that, to be a standard that it would carry in this particular campaign. That would move that on very considerably indeed. The First Minister made that point in a tweet to Jeremy Corbyn this morning, and I repeat it to Richard Leonard. It seems to me that those who are angrily asserting the difference between differentiated models, between parts of the UK and full UK single market membership, are missing the central point that those are now the only two options credible. Last week, the cabinet secretary spoke at the Finance and Constitution Committee in positive terms about the re-energised process in the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations. Did that meeting of the GMC address specifically the question of to what extent differentiated options are technically achievable, and if it did not, will he ensure that at next week's meeting of the GMC, that meeting does not end without a clear answer of the question? To what extent are differentiated options on the table or is UK single market membership still on the table? There has not been a meeting of the GMC since I gave evidence to the committee, but there has been a meeting between John Swinney and myself, and Damian Greene and David Mundell. Quite clearly, we were looking at the way in which we could take forward the withdrawal bill and the discussions on the withdrawal bill and the frameworks. An hour is a long time in Brexit. That was well before we had this situation with Ireland, which we at the time, and I said in evidence to the committee last week, I thought that it was a pending difficulty that was coming towards us very fast, and so it has happened. I cannot imagine going to the GMC next week and not making it crystal clear, as I am sure my colleague Mark Drakeford in Wales will make it clear too, that what has happened in the last 24 hours has changed things yet again and will require to be addressed very seriously indeed. In fact, there must be a resolution of that, but I agree with Patrick Harvie that there are only two possible solutions. One of them is to have the differentiated solution, the better one is to have the solution for the whole of the UK. Anything else will not resolve that issue. Again, I am grateful for the support that Patrick Harvie has given to this. I urge others to give their support, because together I think that we can make a substantial difference on this matter. Willie Rennie, followed by Daniel Johnson. We do not really know what the Conservatives and their DUP allies are doing, but neither does it seem do they. We have a mounting set of broken promises on Europe. First of all, the £350 million for the NHS is now the dismissal of any scaremongering, apparently, about the Irish border. In that context, does the minister not think that there is a third option? That third option should be that the British people should have the final say, whether that gull is appropriate to accept or should it be left to the Conservatives and their DUP allies? As the member knows, I have not certainly not rolled out supporting that option. I do think that there is a need for people to reflect very seriously upon the changed circumstances in which we are in. An opinion poll yesterday, as a member will know, showed that, in Scotland now, a substantially greater majority against Brexit than there was even on 23 June last year. I think that there is some indication that that is also happening elsewhere. I quoted on radio this morning the case of Grimsby, a town that voted 70 per cent for leaving, but the fishing industry is now saying that it does not wish to have the disadvantages of leaving. People are genuinely seeing what the difficulties are. I am very struck by the number of people who have commented to me on the difficulties that will be caused by the way in which the competition for the European capital of culture has come to an end. People are seeing the effect of what is taking place, and they will wish to reflect on that. There may be a number of ways in which they can do so, but the member is also right that the chaos of that is a major factor in people's confidence in politics. That is something that Theresa May needs to reflect on very seriously indeed. There is a weekly, sometimes daily crisis of confidence in the UK Government. That cannot be good for the generality of politics. It would be an example—I say it again, Presiding Officer—if this chamber could come together on the issue of the single market and the customs union and be able to say that we know that that is what we want to get delivered and that we will try and get it delivered. I am still meeting with representatives of the other political parties and I am glad to do so. When we meet again this week, I hope that we will reflect on that, because that stance, which was taken right across the chamber before and after the referendum, is something that could unite us in a clear view of what should happen now. People are looking for that clear view of what should happen now, because all they are getting is chaos and confusion from elsewhere. The minister has a number of occasions through this session that stated his position that differentiated settlement is one option further down the line. But what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the economic impact of Scotland having a ceasing to have regulatory alignment with the rest of the UK? It is quite obvious that we have assessed what the difficulties are of ceasing to have regulatory environment with the EU. We are in a position where our own paper and future papers have reflected on all the issues, but I would ask the member to think about this. I have made it absolutely clear that the best solution is to have regulatory alignment across these islands. That is the work that we have been trying to achieve. That is the position that we laid out. We are grateful to the support of the Labour Party frequently on the issues of the single market in the chamber. If we were to focus on what might unite us to achieve that, we would probably achieve more than focusing on what divides us. Here is an opportunity for the chamber to achieve something, and I hope that we can do it together. Does the minister accept that there is a credible alternative to the Tory Brexit shambles that one respects the result of the referendum? Secondly, it resolves the issue between the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland border issue. It challenges the economic deficit that will come from Brexit and stops further austerity. That is supporting permanent membership of the single market and the customs union for the entire UK. Not only that, there is a natural majority across the UK for permanent membership of the single market and the customs union. We could find ways to disagree, but I am not going to disagree with you. That is absolutely what should take place. I have described the single market solution as not transition but destination. I think that that would be another way of putting what the member has just put to me, and that is available to us. It is quite clear that, if the UK was, to say, contrary to completely erroneous information given by David Jones this morning on a television programme, I was under him, it is perfectly possible for the UK to say that we now see that we wish that the best result would be for us to stay in the single market and the customs union. There is a mechanism so to do through EFTA and EEA membership. I am absolutely sure that a way could be found to do that. That would solve it. It would also create the circumstances in which negotiations become much clearer and much easier. The negotiations then are about a single market solution, a single market minus solution perhaps, but a single market solution, and that lays a completely clear path out. I am not going to disagree with Anna Sarwar almost uniquely. I am not going to disagree with Daniel Johnson. I am not going to disagree with Mr MacDonald. We are as one on that and I am very glad that we could unite on that issue of single market membership. That concludes the urgent question. We move on to the next item of business, which is topical questions.