 The next item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Russell on an update from the Scottish Government on the proposed UK-EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so anybody who wishes to ask a question, I would urge them to press their request to speak button as soon as possible. I call on the cabinet secretary. I am grateful for the opportunity at this important moment in the Brexit process to update the chamber, though, given the speed of current developments, I am not confident that I will be able to cover everything or that things will not have changed again before I sit down. However, at the outset, let me say that I make this statement with a heavy heart. Scotland voted to stay in the EU in June 2016 by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. To be dragged out of the EU against our will is democratically wrong and will be deeply resented by many in this country. Those of us who regard ourselves as Europeans and Scots and whose life experience has been embedded in that identity will feel particularly sad and sore. I no doubt there are others who will rejoice at what is taking place, and I respect their view. However, it is fair to note that the experience of Brexit and the demonstration of Tory incompetence over the last two years has not only resulted in a growing number of those who wish to remain in the EU but also in a diminution in those who are in any way persuaded by the empty bluster of the Conservative Party in Scotland on those matters. Today's polls tell that story. I believe that a future election would confirm it. However, that is a sad day nonetheless, a day in which the spin, rhetoric, the misuse of funds and the manipulation of electoral legislation have led to the worst and most damaging decision made by a UK Government in any of our lifetimes. A day in which the UK Government has attempted voluntarily and for its own selfish political purposes to actually lower the standard of living for all the citizens of Scotland and to distance itself from the global benefits of the world's largest free trade bloc. The Prime Minister last night described this proposed agreement as the best that could be obtained in the circumstances, but what a difference a day makes, particularly to circumstances. Her deal was the inevitable result of a series of self-imposed draconian red lines. I wish to turn her back on sensible co-operation across our continent and the loose talk and empty rhetoric of her cabinet who have shown contempt for evidence-based policymaking. The death of her deal over the past 24 hours, for it is now essentially dead, arises from the same insularity, the same wrong-headedness and the same arrogance. She has only herself to blame for the appalling circumstances that she has found herself in. Her circumstance is not just for her but for all of us on these islands. Presiding Officer, there has been much analysis of the deal already, despite the fact that the details are still not as clear as they should be, particularly with regard to the political declaration. Briefly, the deal, first of all, maintains a form of customs union for a period of time for all of these islands. That is, in itself, welcome, but because it is partial, it does not include any of the advantages of the single market and may be temporary, it is nowhere near good enough. Secondly, it makes a differentiation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in similar terms to those that we suggested for Scotland two years ago. Thirdly, it prepares the ground for a continuing betrayal of our fishing interests. Fourthly, it fails to guarantee key rights, human rights, environmental rights, employment rights that we need and which we should never give up. Finally, by its language and outcomes, it continues to ignore the current devolution of settlement and the democratic institutions in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, as the Prime Minister herself confirmed this morning, Scotland does not exist in her thinking about this deal, a fact that is very tellingly illustrated by the distinguished blogger and legal writer David Allen Greene, when he pointed out this morning on Twitter that the document that outlines the deal does refer to the British Antarctic territory but makes no mention at all of Scotland. Presiding Officer, in summary, this proposed deal does not meet the frequently stated Scottish Government requirement of single market and customs union membership for the whole of the UK, which is failing for Scotland. It does not make even a gesture towards recognising the vote of Scotland to remain. It does not tackle the considerable and grave problems that will be caused by Scotland coming out of the single market and customs union. It takes away the four freedoms, and in particular freedom of movement, which is essential for Scotland, and fails to address in any way the additional pressures on Scotland if its neighbour in Northern Ireland retains the advantages of single market and customs union involvement. It cannot therefore be supported by this Government or by the SNP. Presiding Officer, much of Scotland looks at the current state of the UK Government and Brexit with astonishment and resentment. Scotland is an outward-focused European nation. We voted to remain within the European Union. It is clear that we would do so again tomorrow if a similar referendum was held. The Scottish Government has been clear and remains clear that the best outcome for Scotland is to be within the EU. It is a big but that has cost the Scottish Government a great deal of effort. We have repeatedly tried to find a compromise position that would allow the UK Government and the Scottish Government to move forward, but to no avail. What is to be done? First of all, we should take some heart from a major development just this week when the leaders of all the opposition parties at Westminster, including Jeremy Corbyn and Vince Cable, took action to ensure that there will be the opportunity for other proposals to be put when the so-called meaningful vote is heard. There are many alternatives that might be considered, including the Scottish Government policy of remaining in the single market and customs union, as well as the EEA model, remaining in the EU, as the Prime Minister herself let slip—it is an option yesterday—so no one can argue that the choice is whatever the Prime Minister says it is. The choice will be what the people and their elected representatives say it should be. We will therefore, as a party in the House of Commons, continue to work in a constructive and common-sense way with other opposition parties to try and save us from the chaos of this Tory Brexit. I commit the Scottish Government to the same constructive working that we have tried to carry forward in this chamber with other parties during the Brexit period. Presiding Officer, not only is this a bad deal, it is being pursued in a bad way. The presentation of a totally false choice to try and bludgeon MPs and others to support the Prime Minister is one sign of that. Another is the actions of the UK Government, which have sought to restrict the powers of this Parliament and which have already imposed upon us legislation against our will. This is not just a bad deal because it will damage our future relationship with Europe, but because it also creates the pretext for a continued unconstitutional assault on the rights and privileges of the people of Scotland as exercised through this Parliament. It is an attempt to unsettle the will of the Scottish people, while eroding the rights of and imperiling the future prosperity of everyone who lives in this country. Presiding Officer, what is being offered is unacceptable, and so is what is not being offered. This deal provides for a degree of differentiation in Northern Ireland, which we fully support as essential to the future functioning of the Irish border and the protection of the Good Friday agreement. We want that to happen, and we will do everything that we can to help it to happen. Of course, although the deal provides for the whole of the UK to be within a customs union within the EU, thus rendering Liam Fox's job redundant at the stroke of the negotiator's pen, there will also be specific provisions, including single market alignment provision, which will only apply to Northern Ireland. That will see a better level of access to the European market for Northern Ireland compared to other parts of the UK. We rejoice for Northern Ireland that that has been achieved, but we cannot accept that it will be achieved only for Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government has been arguing since December 2016 that, if the UK leaves the single market, Scotland should remain. In January 2017, within weeks of the publication of Scotland's Place in Europe, I was told to my face by David Davis in his own office in the House of Commons that differentiation could not work in these islands and would not be proposed by the UK Government. But now Northern Ireland rightly is to receive that special status, yet we alone of the four nations will get nothing we voted for. England and Wales voted leave and they will leave, even though polls now show that the majority in Wales is against and much of England is moving that way. Northern Ireland will get a special deal. Northern Ireland, which was resoluted in its need for continued special treatment, which we understood and supported, has been given that special treatment. But Scotland, with the highest remain vote of any of the UK nations, is to be dragged out of the EU against our will, exposed to severe economic disadvantage and damage, have the powers of our Parliament diminished and yet receive nothing at all. Enough, Presiding Officer, is enough. At the long torturous process of engagement with the UK Government, we have been repeatedly assured of the importance of our views, but those assurances have turned out to be worthless and hollow. What, Presiding Officer, do we hear in this Parliament do next? First, we should go on working with others in Scotland, in the UK and across parties to ensure that there is a better deal than the false choice offered by the UK Government of this disastrous deal or no deal. The election and the people's vote remain within that mix. We will also ensure that this Scottish Parliament has the right to give its own view on this deal, and I confirm today that the Scottish Government will bring the deal, if agreed at the Brussels Summit on November 25, to this chamber for a vote before the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Of course, our motion will be amendable. That is how a proper Parliament should work. As I said at the beginning of this statement, Presiding Officer, this is a sad day for those of us who believe and still believe in the importance of European co-operation. Those of us who reject the demonising of migration, the misrepresentation of co-operation and the assertion of false claims regarding taking back control and the independence of the UK, those of us who still believe in a better future for our country, in other words. Of course, in one sense, we have been here before. The promises made from 2014, lead not leave, for example, have turned out to be worthless. We are not an equal partner and the events of this week have proved it beyond peradventure. I know that from each and every meeting of the JMC that I have attended on behalf of this Government. Far from leading the UK, the people of Scotland have been ignored and dismissed. Westminster has treated and goes on treating Scotland with contempt, but it does not have to be that way. It should not be that way. I would contend that it is the duty of every elected representative in this place to make sure that it is not allowed to be that way. We should understand that politicians are, if they are anything, people with a vision of a better future, motivated by a burning desire to help our fellow citizens to achieve it. Brexit is not a better future. It is a backward step into a false and imagined past. That is now crystal clear and every word of this deal proves it to be true. Things in Brexit, Presiding Officer for Scotland, can only get worse. So we must acknowledge that this deal is unacceptable to Scotland and her citizens, and we must then find a way to work together to ensure that our country is not failed by a disastrous Tory Brexit but unable to flourish by choosing a different way forward. Thank you. We will now move on to questions. Adam Tomkins will be followed by Neil Findlay. This is not a Government statement from a Serious Minister. It is a cocktail of contrived grievance from someone who, even two years on, has never accommodated himself to the democratic will of the British people that we leave the European Union. I voted remain, too, but the difference between Mike Russell and me is that I respect the result of referendums and he does not. Unlike some, I was not surprised by yesterday's events. I always thought that the Prime Minister would get a deal with Brussels. I have never advocated a no deal Brexit and I have never thought that that would be our fate. None of us knows whether yesterday's draft withdrawal agreement will survive intact. Getting a deal through a fractious House of Commons was always going to be more difficult than getting a deal with Brussels. That task has not been made any easier by the sad and unnecessary cabinet resignations that we have witnessed this morning. The deal is not perfect. It may or may not survive. With regard to key elements of it, I myself would, frankly, reserve my judgment. What I do support—and this is what the cabinet decided yesterday—is that it should now be subject to intense parliamentary and external scrutiny. I do not rush to judgment, neither to celebrate every clause of its 585 pages, nor to condemn it out of hand, as the minister just sought to do. I want to ask the minister about differentiated deals. He wants a deal so differentiated that Scotland would remain in the European Single Market and Customs Union even while the rest of Great Britain withdraws from both. Is it not the case that he wants that for the very reason that I am resolutely against it, namely that it would destroy the integrity of the United Kingdom, which Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014? Does the minister not accept that the draft withdrawal agreement that was published yesterday contemplates nothing of this sort? It is detailed, lengthy and complex provisions on Northern Ireland are miles away from the SNP's disastrous proposals for an altogether different sort of Brexit. To address the substance of the question, no, I do not agree. It is quite obvious that the reading of any of the documents indicates that there are huge similarities in terms of what is being proposed for Northern Ireland. A negotiation that led to an implementation of some of the recommendations of Scotland's Place in Europe, which was published in December 2016, would allow for a sensible compromise. I think that it is more likely that the precious union—I notice that the union has to have the word precious in front of it now for any Tory to talk about it—is more likely to be damaged in the long-term and in extremist by the type of dogmatic approach that the Prime Minister has taken and the completely out-of-touch approach that we have heard from Mr Tomkins. I believe that on those Tory benches, I know that there are people who know how ridiculous and appalling the situation is now. There are sensible people who would support a sensible way forward, who could not in any way support what they see happening at Westminster, where the Tory party is literally falling to pieces before our eyes. I do hope that perhaps some of those people might eventually step forward and say enough is enough, because that is essentially what I think they should do as representatives of the Scottish people, rather than as Conservatives. That will be their choice. I do not believe that the tone of Adam Tomkins' question does anything other than pray the fact that he may well be one of those people who knows how wrong this is. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Ross Greer. Presiding Officer, in the last 24 hours, we have entered the end game in the 40-year-long civil war in the Tory party over Europe. Two and a half years after Brexit, the Brexit vote was presented with a withdrawal agreement that fails to meet the tests that Labour set, and we will not support this bad deal. We have always put Scotland first in this, and this is not a deal that meets the Scotland's needs or the needs of other nations and regions of the UK. It fails to respect devolution. It does not meet our demand for a permanent customs union arrangement. It fails to set out the collaborative and cooperative future with the EU that we want to see. It fails to provide equal access to the single market or guarantee that it will not fall behind in workers' rights, consumer protection and protection of our environment. That cannot be a choice between a bad deal and a disastrous no deal. The cabinet secretary said that he will bring forward a motion to this Parliament. Will he work with me and others to ensure that that motion gathers the widest possible parliamentary support? He spoke off a differentiated border and customs arrangement for Scotland, and the First Minister has spoken about that, too. Can I ask what work has been done in this, how will it work, what the impact would be and will he publish the Government's plans today? In relation to Northern Ireland, it is a land border with the EU. We don't. It is a history of conflict. It is the Good Friday agreement and the will of the people holding the peace. The circumstances there are completely different to Scotland, and nothing must undermine that peace. Does the cabinet secretary believe that creating a hard border between Scotland and our biggest market, the rest of the UK, would be in Scotland's interest? Finally, will he do now what the First Minister failed to do at question time? That is called for an immediate general election so that we can rid the country of the shambolic and arrogant Tory Government. The First Minister was very clear about that. Quite clearly, there are a range of options on the table, and the general election is one of those options. If a general election takes place, I will be quite happy to campaign alongside my SNP colleagues who will undoubtedly be taking seats from both of those parties. However, let's see if we can address some of those. First of all, on the question of publishing material, we published Scotland's Place in Europe in December 2016. It contains all that information and, indeed, we have gone on publishing other volumes called Scotland's Place in Europe, almost like a serial publication from the 19th century. I am happy to go on doing so. That information is there, and it is in the public domain. To move then in terms to Northern Ireland, of course I entirely agree that peace is the absolute most important thing. I indicated my statement, of course I did, but there are similarities in what could be done in terms of differentiation, which would benefit both sides. That is what we are talking about and that is what we want to put in place. It does not include a hard border. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Northern Ireland situation is not to have a hard border. Now, let's go to what we could actually bring us together on. I am happy to come on myself to work with Mr Finlay on the details of emotion to bring to this chamber and to ensure that it has the widest possible support. I say that to everybody in this chamber. Mr Finlay, I am sure that the Greens want to do so, I am sure that the Liberals want to do so, and there is no joy in heaven greater than that of a sinner that repented if the Tories wanted to take part in that to produce an effective motion that showed that this Parliament would speak for Scotland against Brexit than I would welcome to. However, as Mr Finlay has indicated, I will not get my hopes up for that happening. As far as I am concerned, we will take this forward as the parties in the House of Commons are. I pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn and Vince Cable have signed with Ian Blackford, with Plyde and with the Greens a letter about what they hope to take place in the meaningful vote. I continue to work very closely with my colleague Mark Drakeford on those issues, and both of us were at the JMC on Tuesday, where, as usual, we received no illumination of any description. Ross Greer has been followed by Tavish Scott. Welcome to the minister's statement today, and the Greens will, of course, be more than happy to work with the Labour Party and the Scottish Government to try to present as close as possible to a united voice from this Parliament on behalf of Scotland. I understand that the Scottish Government's previous reticence is to give momentum to a no-deal scenario by publishing material on its preparations for it, but we are well past that point now. No deal is a very real threat now that the deal on the table, as the minister has said, is almost certainly set to fall in the House of Commons. We still believe that there are other options. We look forward to a ruling from the ECG later this month, early next month and whether article 50 can be revoked. However, the Westminster health secretary apparently told the cabinet last night that he could not guarantee that people would not die as a result of a no deal, giving the near inevitability of medicine and other shortages. Given the serious amount of concerns and the clear impact on areas of devolved responsibility, will the Scottish Government now publish in full its no-deal preparatory work? Thank you for that question. I actually think that the events of the last 24 hours have actually made no deal much less likely than it was. I think that it has concentrated minds. I think that some of the work of people like the health secretary in England has been designed to egg this up, and in so doing have actually made it clear to almost everybody that it shouldn't happen. However, we are not going to let up on our own preparations—a very substantial amount of my time over the last period has been spent on no-deal issues. I expect to be in a position to come to this chamber with more information on that before Christmas, and I make an undertaking to do so. I hope that that will include publication of some information. Ross Greer makes an important point. We have to have a very careful judgment between whether we are egging that on and encouraging that and making people think that it will happen or whether we are providing reassurance. I will always consider that to be the most important judgment, but I give an undertaking that we will say more about this. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. The deputy political editor of the BBC has just tweeted that, Tory Minister tells me that if Brexiteers vote down the deal, he and others will openly campaign for a second referendum and to stay in the EU. Given the changing position of public opinion that Mr Russell mentioned in his remarks both in Wales and in parts of England, London has voted to remain. Will he get behind that cross-party growing momentum for a people's vote and endorse it here today? I have to say that I am behind it, remain behind it and will be behind it, because that is the position that the SNP has taken. Clearly, Tavish Scott and his colleague cannot take yes for an answer, because they just do not want to take yes for an answer. We support the people's vote campaign. That is clear. That is on the record. I hope in those circumstances that, if that is one of the options that comes through this process and comes through the meaningful vote option, they will find that the SNP will support it. You may not wish us to do so, because clearly you are much happier. The Liberal Democrats are much happier constantly asking the question, but I will go on giving the same answer. Yes, we are behind it, we will go on being behind it. It may well happen. The considerable interest in the subject, as members can imagine, at least 10 members wish to get in. I urge everyone to be succinct. However, having said that, I am prepared to let the statement run on a little bit, which will have an impact on the afternoon's debate. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A very short quote. There is undoubtedly a need for the devolved Administrations to work with the UK Government to ensure that we get a deal that reflects the needs of us all. Chiefly, among us is our continued access to the single market. Protecting our trade with the EU will boost our economy, sustain jobs and help to fund vital public services. Not the words of the First Minister, not the words of the Cabinet Secretary, not even my words, but the words of the Tory leader Ruth Davidson. Cabinet Secretary, I am the first to recognise that the circumstances of Northern Ireland are different to those in Scotland. However, is it still not an entirely legitimate question to ask? If the single market access is good enough for Northern Ireland, why is it not good enough for Scotland? And do you agree with Ruth Davidson's comments? And what common cause can you have with these pragmatic and sensible Tories that exist in this chamber, as well as other parties, to fight for Scotland's interests? Cabinet Secretary. My friend Mr Crawford makes a very good and sound point. Of course, we could extend it backwards in time to the role of Margaret Thatcher as essentially the key midwife for the single market coming into being and her enthusiastic view of the single market. The single market has developed and changed and it has brought in more acceptable issues in terms of how employment and other conditions. But it is something that was and should be valued across this chamber. What we have actually seen is that it is a very strange set of circumstances where people who supported it and who knew that leaving the single market would be immensely damaging have been persuaded by the wind blowing from their party in Westminster to do a complete vote fast and to pretend that, in many ways, it does not matter. That is simply not true. It matters enormously. Particularly, as I indicated in my statement, in freedom of movement. It is vital for the health of the Scottish economy and for rural Scotland most of all, and I shall be speaking tomorrow at the Scottish rural parliaments in Roir and making that point. I keep hoping that sense will prevail in the Scottish Tory party, forlorn hope perhaps, and that they will recognise that the stance that they are taking may help for a very brief period of time in Theresa May, but it will damage the people that they are meant to represent. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Alex Neil. Thank you. Whereas the Scottish Conservatives publicly sought assurances from the Prime Minister yesterday that the draft deal protects Scotland's fishing interests, isn't it the case that the Scottish Government's position is to take Scotland straight back into the common fisheries policy and, accordingly, any betrayal of our fishing interests lies at the door of the SNP? I like and respect Donald Cameron, and that question is not worthy of him, because the reality of the situation is this. The Conservative party has been enthusiastic supporters and implementers of the common fisheries policy since it started. The Scottish National Party has argued and will continue to argue for, and I think that I used the words of the manifesto, to scrap or radically reform the common fisheries policy. There has been a cruel hoax perpetrated on the fishing community in Scotland by the Scottish Conservatives. Yesterday's part of that was a piece of theatre to which they knew the answer, even though that answer was false, because there is no doubt, reading the documents, that the long, years-long betrayal of the Scottish fishing industry will continue. I hope that Mr Cameron, on reflection, will realise that what he has said adds, again, to that betrayal. Alex Neil is being followed by Clare Baker. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Can I, as someone who voted for Brexit, agree with the Cabinet Secretary that the draft withdrawal agreement is totally unacceptable? It is neither fish nor foul, it is not in the EU and it is not out of the EU. There is much wrong with the draft agreement, but none more so, despite what Donald Cameron says, than another Tory sell-out in relation to the future of our fishing industry and our fishing communities, putting at risk again one of the most important industries in rural Scotland. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary when you actually read the document that was published last night, which obviously Donald Cameron has not? It is very clear, not only is there no deal on fishing— Question, Mr Neil, please. There is no guarantee that the fishing industry will not be in the common fisheries policy. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that if the Scottish Tories fail to deliver, every one of their MPs should have a moral responsibility to resign their seats if they do it in the Scottish fishing industry for the first time being Ted Teith, the second time being Theresa May? I want to make two quick points about fishing. The first one is that I agree that, of course, the 13 Scottish Conservatives should resign, but they are taking their lead, no doubt, from David Mundell, who clearly does not want to resign no matter what he promises. I cannot do anything other than say that that would be the honourable thing for them to do, but let me just make a key point about fishing. I represent a number of fishing communities in Argyll and Bute. They are very different from the interests of fishing that are claimed elsewhere. The worry in Argyll and Bute, among many fishermen, is access to markets. There is access to markets for shellfish, for example. The proposals that Theresa May has on the table do not provide frictionless trade. They create circumstances in which market access will become ever more difficult. Those are people whose livelihoods are directly threatened by what the Prime Minister is proposing. Those are fishermen and fisherwomen in Scotland who will look at the deal and realise that they are getting nothing, zilch, nada from the Scottish Conservatives or the Conservatives south of the border. Claire Baker, to be followed by June McAlpine. Thank you. The Government's focus today is on arguing for a special deal, but the reality is following the developments that we have seen throughout today, the deal that we are deliberating over is on the verge of collapse. The deal before us does set out a differentiation for Northern Ireland. Is the cabinet secretary confident that all of the proposals in Scotland's place in Europe, on an open border with England, who, unlike Ireland, would be outside of the EU, are still workable, given the detail of the draft proposal for Northern Ireland? I am absolutely convinced that you can find, and it would be easy to find, a workable solution to those matters. Those are matters that can be resolved, and differentiation is vitally important in terms of access, particularly to Labour. The member will know, for the region that she represents, that there are many industries and many sectors that are already experiencing shortage of labour, and that can only get worse. In addition, there are substantial difficulties in terms of wage inflation because workers cannot be found. In those circumstances, getting the right deal for Scotland would be not to leave the EU, but if a deal can be found in those circumstances, it can be found to work for Northern Ireland and for Scotland. Joan McAlpine, to be followed by Mark MacDonald. Thank you very much. In this deal, Northern Ireland, which voted remain, is guaranteed a special deal to stay close to the EU. Where does the cabinet secretary see this leaving Scotland, which, despite having had the highest remain vote of any UK nation, is being left high and dry with our democratic voice ignored? I would simply go back to the account of the conversation that I gave with David Davis. There was a root and branch refusal to accept differentiation at the beginning of this process. When that became essential for Northern Ireland, there was a view from the Prime Minister, I suspect, because she controls everything or tries to control everything, there was a view from the Prime Minister that no ground should be given to Scotland. We know, in terms of the briefings that we now understood took place to say to the EU that nothing must be drafted that would assist Scotland, that there was essentially a negative, dogged in the major attitude from the Prime Minister that has affected this. We continue to argue that another way is possible and we will go on arguing that. Mark McDonald is to be followed by Liam Kerr. The draft agreement appears to offer no guarantees on the future ability of the UK to be involved in European reference networks, which allow knowledge and expertise about rare diseases and work on treatment and cures to be shared across Europe. I appreciate the many issues that the cabinet secretary is wrestling with, but will he offer his support for the genetic alliance campaign to protect involvement in ERNs and undertake to raise the matter with the UK Government, given that, for many people, that could literally be a matter of life or death? The member makes a very good point. It is one of the issues that causes enormous concern and, of course, there are many of them. If the member would like to write to me or come and see me and give me that information perhaps with the organisation, I have seen the outline information that I will undertake to take it forward. On a general point, there are whole areas in that, although issues might be referred to in passing, nothing is tied down. The process of tying down the material and information will take years. The real problem that we now face, if anything like the Prime Minister's deal were to go forward, is that we would then be faced with an implementation period that would have to be renewed. At any time during that, we could see a collapse in talks, but we will also be in that limbo for a long period of time. None of that is necessary if we took a single-market and customs union approach. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. In December 2016, Michael Russell stated that membership of the single market is, and I quote, clearly not going to happen. What's changed? The member would have to remind me of the exact context of that. Unlike Mr Kerr, I don't go and scrape through my previous speeches trying to quote me out of context. Membership of the single market and customs union is essential. It is absolutely essential. We have said so from the beginning and we have had the backing of the Scottish Conservatives. We have had the backing of Ruth Davidson. We have had the backing, even, of Adam Tomkins in that matter. In all those circumstances, I say today, as I have said last year and will continue to say, we need to be in the single market. That is it. Ruth Maguire, to be followed by Pauline McNeill. What has been announced is an agreement on the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The long-term relationship is yet to be agreed. Indeed, the political declaration detailing this is only seven pages long and provides no firm commitments to the nature of the future economic relationship. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the risk of a blind Brexit is now a very real one? It is true that the blindfold aspect of this, which has been much discussed in recent months, has not diminished. There is an expectation that we might see more of the political declaration next week. Of course, the political declaration is not legally binding. The exit agreement would be legally binding. The political declaration is aspirational and then you have the immensely detailed negotiations that have to build upon that to get the final relationship. That will take a great deal of time. I think that we will know more when we see the full political declaration. However, there will be aspects of this if it were to go ahead in the way that Theresa May wants it to go ahead. That is highly unlikely, given where the House of Commons has shown itself to be today. However, if it were to go ahead, there would be whole areas in which we knew absolutely nothing. We would have no purchase and no heft in negotiations. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Annabelle Ewing. Given the many references in the statement to special visas for Northern Ireland, does the cabinet secretary agree that the focus should be the permanent membership of the customs union, because that protects the interests of all four nations and protects the peace agreement in Northern Ireland? Importantly, it allows Scotland and the interests of all the other nations, including Northern Ireland's, economies and interests to be equally protected. I agree with the member that an agreement from the UK to stay permanently in the customs union would be a big step forward. It would not, in my view, give us enough in terms of the single market issues, but a single market can build upon a customs union. If there was an intention to do so, that would also be a step forward. Of course, we do not have anything like that at the present moment. I am preparing myself for all sorts of eventualities, but one of them has to be to say that, if that were to happen and that Northern Ireland were in that position, Scotland would have to be in the same position as Northern Ireland in order—for two reasons. One is that we would find it necessary, but the second reason is that it would be very difficult for us to compete with Northern Ireland. For example, in terms of European investment, in terms of European workers, we would simply not have a level playing field. However, I agree with her that the best solution of all is for the whole of these islands to stay in the EU. That would be a much, much more sensible decision. Bending that, the decision that you move from that, you need to move as little as possible from that, and staying permanently in the customs union is not as bad as some of the things that Theresa May is proposing. No mention of Scotland in the 585-page Brexit document. No briefing for the Scottish Government. What happened to the 2014 treaty leaders don't leave us? Cabinet Secretary, is it not just the case that the so-called respect agenda simply does not exist? The member is correct. I made that point in my statement. I think that it is a sham, a complete sham now. I noticed when she was asking a question that there were mutterings from the Scottish Conservative front bench. They don't want to confront the reality of that. The arguments that they put forward in 2014 turn out to be completely and utterly untrue. They were, in other words, a lie. I urge caution about using such language in this chamber. That concludes our statement on the UK-EU withdrawal. We are going to move on to our next item of business, which is a debate on motion 14749, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on physical activity, diet and healthy weight. I allow that statement to move on, so I will have to suggest to the members speaking in the open debate that they trim their speeches from six minutes to five minutes. All those speaking in the open debate, including Bruce Crawford, Stuart Stevenson, Emma Harper, John Mason, Liz Smith, Tom Mason and Ian Gray—five minutes rather than six minutes. Apologies that we have to do so, but I think that there was a healthy political interest in the previous subject.