 The next item of business is a debate on motion 16554, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on revoking article 50. Can I ask those members who wish to take part in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move the motion. Ten minutes, Mr Harvie. Before 2016 and since the Greens have made our case for Scotland's place in the European Union, it is an imperfect institution to be sure, but it has been one of the most successful peace projects in human history. It is one of the planet's strongest voices for action on climate change. It is clearly more democratic than the Byzantine system at Westminster, and it has given us perhaps the most extraordinary political achievement of the last 100 years, freedom of movement, which is not only a benefit to our economy but a liberating principle for the people of Europe. More fundamentally, Europe is our neighbourhood, our community, our family. We do not want to leave. Of course, we were dismayed at the result of the referendum in 2016, but what has happened since then has been worse than anyone could have imagined. The UK Government has treated Scotland abysmally, but its treatment of the whole UK has been shabby too. It timed the 2016 referendum weeks after the Scottish Parliament election. It announced a snap UK election right in the middle of our local elections. It refused to reach out either across the commons or to the nations to seek consensus. It went to court to try and prevent MPs from having any say at all in invoking article 50. It opposed the safety lock mechanism of the meaningful vote, losing on that issue by just four votes. Every offer of political compromise has been utterly rejected. Then we had the continuity bill, a bill that, other than one small aspect that could easily have been corrected, was competent when passed. The UK Government did not like what we were doing with devolved legislation, so it first initiated a court case, then passed UK legislation, retrospectively limiting the powers of this Parliament without our consent and preventing the bill from becoming law. The consequence is that whatever legislation we now pass in devolved areas, we know that the UK Government is both able and willing to retrospectively cut our powers to stop devolved laws coming at the force when they do not like what we are doing. The Conservative amendment, Adam Tomkins amendment today, tells us that the 2016 result should be respected. Should we respect the leave campaign's criminality? Should we respect the racism of so many prominent leave campaigners? Should we respect their refusal even to engage with the threat to peace in Ireland? Should we respect the numbers on the big red bus? I respect many individual people who voted leave, and I respect their anger at the way that the political status quo has failed them, but that failure lies at the door of successive UK Governments, not the European Union. It is the UK Government that has not respected the result of that referendum. To respect that result would be to respect the different votes of the constituent parts of the UK—that famous partnership of equals. They did not do that. They did not respect the result. They were given an inch, and they took it so much further than a mile. Adam Tomkins amendment tells us that the result of the referendum is that of the absurd simplicity of just saying, get on with it or just leave. We are way past that general argument. We are not interested in chasing unicons any longer. Only a specific, coherent and achievable path forward can be taken seriously. Adam Tomkins amendment also tells us that the best option is to do with the result of the withdrawal agreement, even though that agreement has been defeated resoundingly twice. In the media today, the Conservatives are calling this whole debate self-indulgent. Apparently, creating this mess purely to address their own party's internal ideological divide, that is not self-indulgent at all. Prolonging this mess by refusing to reach out and say consensus for staying inside the single market, that is not self-indulgent. Throwing a billion-pound bung to the misogynist, homophobic climate-denying sectarian marches of the DUP to keep their own hopeless Prime Minister in office, that is not self-indulgent at all. Anyone trying to stop this chaos and end the crisis that the Tory party has forced on the country is apparently being self-indulgent. We are asked today to accept that Adam Tomkins and so many other Tory politicians who voted remain argued in favour of EU membership, agreed with Ruth Davidson in the wake of the 2016 result that we should say inside the single market and keep freedom of movement. We are asked now to accept that all of those people are now convinced that leaving the European Union will be wonderful, is the best course that we could possibly take. Presiding Officer, there is apparently nothing self-indulgent about them throwing their lot in with the self-appointed bad boys of Brexit and going along with this hard right coup. When I look at the words that the Conservative Party is using today, respected, delivered, agreement, self-indulgent, I recognise all the words, but I do not think that they mean what Adam Tomkins thinks they mean. Presiding Officer, turning to the Labour position, I want to recognise and welcome the movement that has been shown. Hopefully, it is becoming clear that Labour in the Scottish Parliament are increasingly willing to accept that Brexit itself is a hard right project, which we must not simply roll over and accept regardless of what Barry Gardner has to say. I hope that Neil Findlay will be able to clarify some points when he speaks later to move his amendment. He prefers the term public vote to people's vote. I take it that he is still referring to a referendum with a remain option. Is the wording of his amendment intended to agree with us that if a withdrawal agreement, any withdrawal agreement, is to be adopted by the UK Parliament, it must be given back to the people to decide if it is what they want or if they prefer the current deal, the best deal of remaining inside the European Union with all of our rights, our protections, our democratic representation and the ability to shape regulations in the public interest. If that is the meaning of Mr Findlay's amendment, we will support it to achieve the widest possible backing for the essence of the proposal that we have put forward. If that is not clear, there is still a majority in this Parliament for the principle that the only ways forward are a referendum or revoking article 50. On Saturday, I marched through London with more than a million others, people from a range of political parties and people from no political party. Most of us never got anywhere near Parliament Square, so massive was the crowd that we were walking with. Nearly 5.8 million people who will ask out have signed the petition to revoke article 50, a position that, thanks to Andy Wightman, Ross Greer, Joanna Cherry, Catherine Stuyler, Alan Smith and David Martin, who took that case to the Supreme Court, we now know that this is an option that the UK can take unilaterally at any point before it leaves. As yet, we do not know what the result will be tonight from the indicative vote process at Westminster. We can be fairly sure that it will not result in a simple, sudden clarity, a sort of first-pass-the-post winner-takes-all outcome. There will still be choices to make, there will still be uncertainty, there will still be the threat, the huge threat of social, economic and political damage from any form of Brexit, and there will still be those trying to push the country over the cliff edge to deliberately make this crisis even worse. I ask this Parliament to make it clear this evening, two hours before MPs cast their votes, that one of two things must happen. Whether a withdrawal agreement is adopted or not, we must see an extension long enough to put it back to the people, and if that does not happen, then we must cancel the crisis, revoke and move on. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Harvie. I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to a move amendment 1655.4. Cabinet Secretary, six minutes please. I welcome this debate. It gives this Parliament the opportunity to come together to exercise the kind of clear, constructive leadership that is so manifestly lacking in Westminster. Two days, two days to go before the UK was meant to leave the EU and there is still no plan that commands support. The Scottish Government has been clear and consistent since the EU referendum that continued membership of the EU is the best outcome for the whole of the UK. It is the outcome that Scotland voted for. The UK Government ignored that overwhelming vote in Scotland to remain and the Prime Minister has ignored Scotland's national interests ever since. Compromised proposals have been dismissed and the Scottish and Welsh Governments have been shut out of negotiations and the unedifying spectacle of the Conservative party tearing itself and the country apart in the process of trying to wrench the UK out of the EU has been deeply damaging to the reputation of the UK Government and indeed the UK Government itself at home and abroad. This is clear to everyone whatever their standpoint as the latest social attitude survey made clear yesterday, neither leaver nor remainder think that Brexit is being handled well. No wonder this entire sorry process has from the very start been all about the internal faction fighting in the Conservative party regardless on the impact on Scotland or indeed the rest of the UK and Westminster has been in a state of permanent chaos. This afternoon, MPs will begin again to seek a way forward through a process of indicative votes. We will see if it can come to an accord. I fear, however, that there will continue to be disagreement. That disagreement is why we must now refer the matter back to the people. Seeking a longer extension, indeed? Adam Tomkin I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving away. Imagine that the cabinet secretary that Scotland had voted yes to independence in 2014. Imagine further that weeks away from independence day, there remained grave doubt about Scotland's future trading relations with the rest of the UK and that unionists, like me, argued that, because of this, independence should be revoked. How would the cabinet secretary have reacted in circumstances such as that? What would she have called unionists who wanted to revoke a decision that Scotland should be independent? The only imagination is the lack of imagination by the UK Conservatives to come forward with anything that takes the country forward in any shape or form. The lack of imagination is not one single member of the Conservative Party in Scotland that can surely express their own views of differences than that of the imperative that they have to obey, Theresa May, come, what, me. The circumstances have changed. The country is in chaos and Westminster has not delivered what Scotland needs. That is why it is perfectly possible in a representative democracy for the UK Government, as has been determined by the ECG, to unilaterally revoke article 50 under those terms. We do not know whether the UK Westminster Parliament will come to an accord, but it is seeking a longer extension to article 50. The UK Westminster Parliament would stop the block and Brexit, enable a new referendum on EU membership to be held, and we in the Scottish Government will support any such referendum, provided it has the option to remain in the EU on the ballot paper. No one should be in any doubt. It is indeed just an opportunity, not a guarantee for the wishes of the people of Scotland to be respected. It is only by becoming an independent country that we can guarantee the votes of people in Scotland will not be ignored. An EU referendum on EU membership will also allow people to vote again. Now they have the facts at their disposal, rather than the false and incomplete prospectus that was offered in 2016. The 2016 EU referendum campaign was conducted with very limited information on which the public could decide and, crucially, no clarity from Brexit politicians whatsoever as to what a vote to leave might mean in practice or in a plan to deliver it. Every month new evidence emerges of troubling aspects of the EU referendum in the campaign that preceded it. Those range from financial improbiety to illegal and inappropriate external influences. Given the enormity of the issue at stake and the relative narrow majority across the UK as a whole, those are far from trivial and answers Adam Tomkins' point. Since 2016, Brexit politicians have contorted themselves in contradiction to their original argument. It is therefore impossible to tell which, if any, form of Brexit has most support and how that compares to remaining in the EU. A new EU referendum would pitch a specific option for Brexit against Remain to test the public's view when faced with a genuine choice. If the Prime Minister can ask the House of Commons to vote multiple times on the same deal, it is outrageous to deny the people of Scotland and the UK a chance to vote again now that the facts have become clear. The scale, the sights and the sounds of the march in London on Saturday and the growing momentum of the petition on the revocation of article 50, now the biggest ever and still growing, gives us cause for hope amid the Westminster despair. Brexit should be halted for a new referendum to take place or Brexit should be brought to an end through voting article 50 to avert the catastrophe of a crash out with Nodio. I believe that today's motion can be strengthened to reflect the outrage that the UK continues to ignore the views of this Parliament and the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland who wish to remain. The chamber has been consistent in expressing the view that the motion sets out. It is high time that our view, alongside millions of others, is listened to. I urge Parliament to support this amendment and to support the final motion. Before I call Adam Tomkins, I have a little time in hand to give time back to members who take interventions until I have no time left. I call Mr Tomkins to speak to move amendment 16554.1, please, Mr Tomkins. On these benches, we believe that referendum results must be respected and delivered, not ignored and overlooked. When a Parliament legislates to hand a question to the people directly, that Parliament is not looking for an opinion but asking for a decision. Whether we like it or not, the British people voted in June 2016 that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union. That was a decision in a few moments. That was a decision not of half a million people on a march in London, not even of five million people signing a decision, but of 17.4 million people right across the whole of the United Kingdom, including a million people in Scotland. I was not among their number. I voted to remain, but I am absolutely not among the number of politicians who think that the result of a referendum can be ignored just because it delivered a verdict that we would have preferred not to see. As politicians and as Democrats, we are the servants, not the masters of the people. When the people give their elected representatives a direct instruction, as they did in June 2016, it is our duty to listen and to act on it. I give way to Mr Harvey. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. If so many of the Brexiteers do not think that Theresa May's withdrawal agreement is what they voted for, if even half the backbench of the Tory party does not think that Theresa May's withdrawal agreement is what they voted for, how on earth can Adam Tomkins tell us that 17 million people voted specifically for what is on offer now? If they did not, surely they need to be asked again. Is that what you wanted or something else? Adam Tomkins. 17.4 million people voted for Brexite and the withdrawal agreement will deliver precisely that. The withdrawal agreement will deliver Brexite. That is the first principle that has informed what we, the Scottish Conservatives, have had to say about Brexite since that referendum. That is to say that referendum results must be respected and delivered. The second principle is that Brexite must be delivered compatibly with the devolution settlement. That means respecting that which is properly devolved to this Parliament. It also means respecting that which is properly reserved to Westminster. That is the core of the problem with today's Green Party motion, calling as it does for article 50 to be revoked or for a second EU referendum to be held, for there is no minister accountable to this Parliament with the legal power to do either of those things. The United Kingdom's international relations, including its relations with the European Union, are reserved to Westminster just as they would be, incidentally, under any federal constitution. That does not mean that this Parliament can have no meaningful impact in ensuring that Brexite is delivered compatibly with devolution. Just this week, the Finance and Constitution Committee published a unanimous report that adds significant value to the on-going debate about the need for common frameworks in the post-Brexit United Kingdom. Much could be gained from exposing that report, its conclusions and recommendations, to further scrutiny and debate in this chamber. That is not what the Green Party has chosen to do this afternoon. Opposition days in this Parliament are best used as opportunities to hold to account the Scottish Government, whose ministers are, after all, accountable to us. It is unfortunate that the Greens have chosen to pass this opportunity up this afternoon. Three options face us now. We could leave the European Union in an orderly manner, avoiding cliff edges and economic shocks, transitioning smoothly from membership to exit in accordance with the withdrawal agreement that has been agreed by the EU 27 and the UK Government. Or, we could crash out much more suddenly, with no transition period and the real risk of significant economic shock. Or, we could delay, perhaps indefinitely, flying in the face of the clear instruction to leave that the British people gave us in June 2016. Voters do not want the agony prolonged. They want us to get on with it. The business community does not want an even, lengthier period of uncertainty. They want the deal closed. The course of action urged upon us by the Greens today would do grave damage to our politics, all but destroying that delicate trust between voters and representatives that democracy relies on. To leave without a deal in my judgment risks doing similar damage not to our politics but to our economy. For this reason, I have never supported a no-deal Brexit, and I remain now as opposed to that course of action, as I always have been. This leaves only one option, which is the option that I have been advocating for since the withdrawal agreement was published in November. I want us to leave the European Union. I want us to leave under the deal negotiated and agreed by the UK Government and the EU 27. I want us to get on with it, and I want us to move on so that, in future, Opposition debates can be about the things that matter most to voters here—skills, schools, hospitals, jobs, the economy—not endless manoeuvrings about constitutional process. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, and I will call in the old Finlay to speak to a move amendment 16554.35. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I see that we are in Groundhog year, and the lead role is played by Mr Tomkins this time. The UK pitch is sitting on the edge of the abyss. We have lorry parks being set up, medicine stock piled, food hoarded and Parliament and turmoil. Vote for the deal, he says. He's on side, won't vote for the deal. We see a Prime Minister in name only alone credibility in tatters, the worst holder of that political office since the last holder of that political office. Losing vote after vote, minister after minister, every shred of credibility she ever had, making the UK a laughing stock across the world. It is indeed tragedy. We've heard her parroting strong and stable. Brexit means Brexit, and now we have a Prime Minister so lacking in self-awareness and comprehension of reality that all she can say is that her rejected deal is the only way to prevent a no deal. This is the deal that has been defeated by her record number in the House of Commons. It was defeated for a second time by almost 150 in the chamber, and it's a deal that I hope if it's brought back will be rejected again. Of course, today we're seeing the House of Commons MPs will vote through a series of indicative votes. I have to say, you know it's getting serious, Presiding Officer, when they're taking the revolutionary step of using pens and paper to vote. I'm glad I'm not there. I don't think that my heart could take all the excitement of seeing Rhys Mog with his swan quill pen ink pot and parchment paper. Today we're discussing the prospect of revoking article 50. In a direct response to the issues raised by Patrick Harvie, a referendum with the remain option is, of course, the option we would like to see as a public vote, and the reference to a public vote reflects the wording that my party agreed unanimously at our conference. However, Mr Harvie, of course, will understand that for many other reasons, not least the impact of universal credit, not least the hostile environment and immigration, or the policies that see poverty and homelessness increase, and many others, we also want to see a general election to bring an end to this disastrous Government. I hope that Mr Harvie is with us on that, too. Patrick Harvie. Just to be clear, Mr Finlay is making that argument in addition to a referendum on any withdrawal option, not as an alternative. That's what I said to Mr Harvie when I spoke to him earlier today. As for his second point, it won't be news to him that Labour has proposed a plan for a customs union and single market alignment, a plan that has been identified as credible by the European Union and by European Government leaders. Had that succeeded, we wouldn't be facing the abyss today. However, tonight, Labour will support the Kyle Wilson amendment in Parliament that will ensure that any deal has to be endorsed by a referendum. I hope that that helps, Mr Harvie, and that he can continue to work together with his party, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, speaking in this Parliament with a common voice, a common voice, as we have done all the way through exposing the Tory party for what it has done. We have worked co-operatively with other parties in this Parliament, and I have to say that we will do so again. We have met regularly with the Cabinet Secretary and the spokespeople from all the other parties. We have co-operated on the continuity bill. We have worked on joint work with the Welsh Assembly. We have even attempted all of us to work with the Conservative party. Doing that has not been a traitor nor is it selling out. It is the sensible and reasonable thing to do in the interests of our constituents and the interests of Scotland, the UK and indeed Europe. Today's debate focuses on article 50. We have to end the deadlock. If no referendum and then we come to a choice between no deal and revoke, all of us who are sensible, excluding that side, would take the revoke line. We in the Scottish Labour Party interests of the country would take that line. As opposed to the imminent disaster of a no deal. Would caution against any decision being one of Parliament alone? The referendum was about giving people a say, so they must have a say in our future. I was distressed when we voted to leave the European Union. I was concerned about the economic impacts. I was concerned about the potential threat to travel, the threat to the Erasmus scheme and the threat to lots of European students coming to this country. I was distressed about all those things. What I was most distressed about was what message it sent to the rest of the world about what country we were. I like to think that we were an outward looking, optimistic, generous nation that was prepared to work with our neighbours. I am afraid that Brexit sent the message that Britain wanted to be on its own, doing things differently from our neighbours. I thought that that was a regrettable step. I was saying that everybody was off that opinion, but I think that that was the very powerful message that was sent to the rest of the world, yes, certainly. Jamie Greene I thank the member for giving way, but does he accept also the Scots who voted to leave the EU didn't do so because they felt isolationist or wanted to send that message, but for very other reasons and quite appropriate ones at that. Willie Rennie I do recognise the multitude of reasons as to why people voted for Brexit, and we just go back to the way that we were after the referendum and after this process. We have got to recognise that some people felt as if they were being left out in society. Many communities, certainly in the north of England, felt like that. That is why we need to address those fundamental issues to make sure that people do not use Brexit or a process like that in future in order to express their views, that there is another mechanism in order to do that. If you contrast the Brexit process with the process of devolution, built up through a constitutional convention, the various marches, manifesto commitments from all the parties, a white paper fully involving all the different parties and right across society and then endorsed by a referendum, contrast that with Brexit, which is astonishingly different. What government put forward a referendum for something that does not want to happen? No white paper was produced, no detail, no combined plan, no consultation across society about what Brexit would actually mean in the end, nothing of that happened. When you look back to the constitutional convention process leading through the Scottish Parliament, it is quite striking how beneficial that process was to the Brexit process. I think that that adds more weight to the case for having a people's vote, having that confirmatory referendum, because we did not have the detail before the referendum. No matter what people say, we did not have the detail. We had slogans on the side of a bus, we had a multitude of different grievances that were put forward by a multitude of different campaigns and, therefore, how on earth can we hold them to account? If the Brexiteers cannot agree amongst themselves now what Brexit means, how on earth are we supposed to know in 2016 what Brexit meant? There was no way that we could possibly have known back then if they cannot agree now. Another reason why we should have a confirmatory referendum, and this is just the beginning. I am not just saying when I am in my last minute. If we agree the withdrawal agreement, however slim chances that that is, the debate has only just begun. We have got the free trade agreement to agree. That is going to take months, years possibly, to negotiate. That is why we are debating the backstopping island, because we are not optimistic that we will get it done within the transition phase. We think that the division and the discomfort is going to end if we have this withdrawal agreement. That is just not the case. The economic consequences are quite significant. We are already feeling them with the lack of immigration in this country. We have a perfect storm of an ageing population, growing demand on social care and nursery education, but also real demands on the NHS, as well as a growing sector such as food and drink, but also the hospitality sector. At the same time, as we are cutting off a large section of the European Union to come here and work and help us to grow our economy and grow our public services, that is madness. That is another reason why we need a people's vote. There is a way to make the torture stop. We can break out of this stalemate by letting the people decide. If Parliament cannot build a consensus, the people should decide. That is why we support that public vote. If the EU and the UK cannot make the time for that to happen, we should revoke article 50 to give us that time. It is impressive that so many have signed the petition. Their voice cannot be ignored. Thank you very much. I now move to the open debate. Type 4 minute speeches are called, Bruce Crawford, followed by Alexander Stewart. Mr Crawford, please. I sincerely thank Patrick Harvie and the Green Party, first of all, for bringing forward this important albeit short debate on the Brexit process. I would like to begin my contribution by looking at the petition to revoke article 50. I have attracted over 5.8 million signatures. Over 12,000 of those signatures have been generated in the sterling constituency. That is about 13 per cent of my constituents. Of course, in the sterling constituency 68 per cent voted to remain in the EU during the 2016 referendum. Before I say any more, I fully respect the wishes of those people who voted to leave in the sterling constituency. I have, however, got to say that I have been surprised by the fact that Stephen Kerr, the Tory MP for sterling, refuses to review his position given that 68 per cent of the voters in his constituency voted to remain. I also fully respect the fact that he himself was a leave voter. Surely he should reflect on the views of the vast majority of voters in his constituency and consider falling their wishes. Instead, I have got to say that, unfortunately rather arrogantly, he refuses to do so, as he just outlined in the sterling observer today. It is obviously no secret that I remain a committed, remain supporter, and frankly we take any route to derail Brexit. I say this for two very important reasons. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Imagine that Scotland had voted yes to independence in 2014 and that negotiations to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK had proved difficult as we warned that they would. Would the member support calls to revoke independence? There was one fundamental difference between 2014 and 2016. There was over 600 pages of well-argued reason why Scotland should be an independent country, unlike the letters on the side of a bus, as we currently had in 2016. I say that I am committed to derail Brexit for two very important reasons. Firstly, because of the social and economic damage that any form of Brexit would inflict on Scotland, but I am particularly concerned about the impact that leaving will have on EU citizens in Scotland. They have been innocent bystanders and the way that they have been treated has been shocking all the way through this utter calamity of a process that will not go down well and has been a very sad and disturbing chapter of UK history. Just as importantly, it is the right to freely travel, to live, to work anywhere in the other 27 countries of the EU, as a European citizen has been stolen away from present and future generations of Scots if we proceed with Brexit. That makes me angry and despairing, but the second reason that I want to see Brexit derailed is that at the end of the day, all of this argument, fundamentally for me, boils down to one very simple question. Do you believe in democracy and do you believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland? I know that the rest of the UK Parliament has traditionally been seen and historically been seen as being sovereign, even though that notion has taken a significant blow this week by the actions of the Tory Government, signalling that they are prepared to ignore the will of Parliament. However, the position in Scotland, given strength by the claim of right, is that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Therefore, for us here in the Scottish Parliament, I believe that the choice is a very clear one. Either you believe in the right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future, or you do not. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the simplest of propositions. I know where I stand on that proposition. I stand with the people of Stirling and Scotland. They voted to remain, and therefore I will do everything to try to fulfil their views. In closing, the SNP believes in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. The decision time this evening will just see how many parties and how many MSPs are prepared to put the wishes of the people of Scotland first and foremost and give us a way out of the Brexit madness through a people's vote. I am rather disappointed, but not surprised, that the Scottish Greens have chosen Parliamentary time here again on something that was outwith this Parliament. That is something that we see far too often in this Parliament, rather than focusing on legislating to improve our schools, our hospitals, our jobs and so on. Revoking article 50 would be undemocratic in the extreme. Scotland voted to stay part of the United Kingdom, and the Government of the United Kingdom gave the British people the choice whether to leave or remain as members of the European Union. In the instituing referendum, people voted to leave the EU and have voted to leave the European Union, and the Government of the United Kingdom gave the British people the choice to leave or remain as members of the European Union. The result must be respected and upheld. It is inspiring to see that those who are on the other side of the referendum promoting that they should once again have a second one. We have seen the same when it comes to independence. It would seem that the Greens and the SNP want to keep us voting in the great European tradition until we deliver the correct result. That is not how democracy is going to be. People who voted for political parties and people who voted to carry out their instructions should be listened to. The SNP said that there are a number of demands during withdrawal agreement. They called for the deal to prevent a no-deal scenario. We have that. They called for a transition period. We have one. They called for EU citizens' rights to be protected. They have been. They called for a transition period. We have one. They called for EU citizens' rights to be protected. They have been. They called for a hard border and are there not to happen. There will not be one. I could go on, Deputy Presiding Officer. The vast majority of people have tested the SNP and the surrounding deal. They have been met and they have been left with. All that we have seen is opposing and it can only be because we are agitating for independence. That is not the way we should be going. There is support across the business community in Scotland for the deal. The NFF has said that it will allow trade in agricultural goods and UK goods and foods and drink to continue through the transition period. Diard, you have also supported the deal and I have said that it will give the travel and it will give the direction and it will ensure that there is fairness during the interim period. Ian Wood has said that the deal is both workable and better than the current system because we will be part of the common market membership but we will not be maintained and we will have many of the advantage. Scottish businesses are therefore clear that they want members of Parliament to back the deal. The Scottish National Party would do well to remember that there is only one deal on the table and that is that they have been opposing to ensure that the no-deal scenario becomes even more of an opportunity going forward. For far too long, the outcome of the whole country is to deliver a result of a referendum and to leave the European Union in an orderly and managed way. We want to see that orderly and managed way. The withdrawal agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister, whilst far from perfect, does just that. It very much gives the opportunity for us to ensure that we would have that transition period and that we would have that opportunity to have a negotiated way out of the situation. I very much hope that Parliament will approve the deal in the coming days and I support the amendment in the name of Adam Tomkins. Thank you. Johann Lamont, followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am happy to be involved in this debate and an issue of monumental significance for families and communities right across the United Kingdom. I say not just letting down people in Scotland, but letting down people right across the United Kingdom. We have been let down by the Tory Government, but I also observe and welcome the fact that people across party at UK level, including Tories, are doing their best to try and sort this problem out. We should at least recognise that. I am conscious that time is limited and there is insufficient time to rehearse all the arguments about how and why we ended up here with the UK Government in chaos last time I looked, and uncertainty scaled up to a whole new level. To be clear, I support the right of people to have a final say on the Brexit project to endorse either a deal to leave or to remain. If and when that vote happens, I shall be campaigning emphatically to remain. Liam Kerr. Thank you for taking the intervention. I agree with her colleague Barry Gardner that Labour is not a remain party and that it would have difficulty supporting a referendum on any Brexit deal. Johann Lamont. No, I do not agree with him. I do not pretend nor would I argue should anyone else assert it that this decision is an easy one. There are concerns that some have been articulated across the other side of the chamber about the consequences of having a vote, but I am clear given the evidence that it remains the right decision. To phrase, I have been on a journey. I was a reluctant remainder valuing the role of European cooperation post-war, yes, the benefits in particular to young people have been able to travel, yes, the role of the EU in securing social and employment rights, yes. At the same time, uneasy about the EU role in bearing down on the economic decisions being made in Greece and Portugal, for example, unhappy with decisions that felt distant and not rooted in local needs and experience and concerned about the distance between some decisions and those affected, the same feeling that led me to support devolution way back in the day. I am absolutely clear that whatever people saw in the referendum debate, whatever they imagined leaving would bring, they could not possibly have imagined this. Frightening evidence of job losses perhaps with most impact on those who can afford at least. Routine discussions about stockpiling basics of foods and medicines have become the norm and millions spent by government and businesses to manage a degree of uncertainty which was simply beyond imagining. This is not any longer a theoretical argument or an academic argument. This is not a political idea or policy that we can argue back and forth in this chamber. This is having a direct impact in the real world right now and I understand Adam Tonkin's argument about not wanting to debate about the constitution. We cannot avoid debating this constitutional decision if we are concerned about jobs, about skills, about the future of our young people. They are absolutely entwined with each other. They are not separate things to debate. We have to confront one in order to deal with the other. What we see here and now is surely not what people voted for. Even the most pessimistic remainder argument at the time of the referendum did not stoop so low as to describe what we see now. It has certainly never, what is now happening, was never painted on the side of a bus. We need to think now about how the debate is taken forward. This bit is the easy bit, arguing our corner, confirming our certainties to our colleagues across the chamber. It is not a proxy debate about other constitutional arguments and I would urge my colleagues who take a different view on the question of Scottish independence to be clear that this is a separate argument and that it must be as inclusive and possible in taking this forward. We need to win the argument amongst those who are not already persuaded, not just those who voted remain, but those 1 million people in Scotland who voted leave without any one of the main parties asking them to do so and who voted with the best of intentions and with hope for the future. I would urge people to understand the choice now. It is not shrugging our shoulders, just get on with it. There are massive consequences right across the United Kingdom and on that basis I support a people's vote and the opportunity for people to make a decision about the best future for this country. The last of the open debate, speeches is from Ruth Maguire. Presiding Officer, the UK Parliament has to take control from Theresa May and support giving the people a say in this Brexit deal, ensuring an option to remain in Europe is on the ballot paper. The green motion that we debate today commends the more than 5 million signatories to the UK petition to revoke article 50. Of course, we know here in Scotland that the UK Government has formed for ignoring around 5 million folk. This whole sorry process has shone a light on a number of things, but most of all it's utterly demolished Tory claims that the UK is a partnership of equals. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe. Repeated votes in the Scottish Parliament and the compromise option of single market and customs union membership put forward by the Scottish Government have all been ignored by the Tories. That does not feel like a partnership of equals, not at the moment. Presiding Officer, like many colleagues who were concerned about EU nationals in my constituency I took the opportunity to reach out to those living in Ayrshire. There were strong themes of anger, unfairness and a sense of losing belonging in their responses to me if I can share some of them with the chamber. One person said, we think as a family is disgraceful how the UK Government is treating us. We've lived in Scotland for over 12 years paying taxes, not taking any benefits and now the UK Government wants us registered as though we are cows. We were thinking we were settled here and the UK Government has made us think differently. Another person said, you can imagine I feel deeply insulted by the whole affair as I've been living in the UK for 50 years. There was no need to apply for British citizenship as we're all Europeans and I felt I belonged here, but no more. Another said, I'm 72 years old and I've lived in Scotland for 68 years. I consider it a disgrace that I should be told. I now have to apply for the right to reside. Presiding Officer, I consider that a disgrace too. Along with the upset caused by the treatment of our EU citizens one of the most striking things to me has been the contrast between the way Ireland has been treated by the EU and the utter contempt with which Scotland has been treated by the Westminster Government. Solidarity and support for Ireland from its EU partners whilst Scotland has our national interests ignored and the powers of the Scottish Parliament eroded. We're left at the mercy of an increasingly dysfunctional and chaotic Westminster system. Surely no one in this chamber sent here on the votes of our Scottish constituents could seriously look them in the eye and tell them it's right and proper that a handful of DUP MPs hold more sway over Scotland's future than our national Parliament. Surely no one in this chamber would support Scotland being disadvantaged in UK funding arrangements due to outrageous attempts by the UK Government to win DUP votes. Presiding Officer, we need to avoid both the catastrophe of a no deal and the damage which would be caused by the Prime Minister's bad deal. The UK Parliament has to take control. Give the people their say and remaining in Europe must be an option on the ballot. We move to the closing speeches and I call James Kelly for four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. After all the debates that we have had on Brexit, it seems almost astonishing that on 27 March two days from the defined exit day, there still is an absolute lack of clarity on the way forward because we face a Brexit car crash of massive proportions and it is that which drove nearly a million people to come out on to the streets of London on Saturday and also the petition of 5.8 million people who have expressed their view and their frustration in large, large numbers. I think that is something that has built over time since the referendum in 2016 and the reason for that is that Johann Lamont pointed out is because of the impact on families and communities throughout Scotland but throughout the UK. There are three fundamental problems with Brexit and with no deal. It is the economic damage that caused the undermining of opportunity for people and the infringement on people's rights. In terms of the economy it is quite clear that trade will be affected and will be reduced and as the Bank of England has pointed out will result in an increase in inflation and an increase in interest rates and some assessments have said that that could mean the loss of 100,000 jobs in Scotland. The impact of that means that people struggle to pay their bills they struggle to pay their mortgages and ultimately their standard of living their ability to support their family gets completely undermined and that is why you see people taken to the streets and taken to the petition website in such large numbers. Willie Rennie referenced Erasmus and that is a scheme that many have spoken about in this chamber over a period of time of great benefit to Scottish students in terms of exchange visits that covers 53 per cent of those visits and the potential end in that scheme not only loses the opportunity but loses the ability of Scottish students to make the most of their education and then to go on to make a crucial contribution in the economy. Bruce Crawford mentioned people's rights in terms of EU citizens and the fact that the uncertainty that EU citizens stay and contribute in Scotland face is something that is a real concern. I think what has been the fundamental issue here as Patrick Harvie pointed out has been the inability of the Tory party to compromise even at this late stage in time when you look back to the weekend in order to try and find the solution who did Theresa May call to checkers she called the grand wizards and down they came from the shires in their jaggers in their sports cars into a meeting that had more men called David than women in the room a really select and narrow gather and that's why as Neil Findlay pointed out the withdrawal agreement will continue to be doomed and from that point of view it's right that people then look at a lengthy extension of article 50 with a view to seeking a public vote and like Johann Lamont on that referendum with remain a ballot paper I would certainly support remain however if that option crashes out and we're left in a position where there's no deal then we should seek the option of revoking article 50 these are serious times deputy presiding officer and we all have to live up to responsibilities on that Jamie Greene 4 minutes please much of the political conversation not just this afternoon but in recent days, weeks and months and more so in Scotland the sentence around the premise that Parliament and the people are at odds at one with another claims that never before has there been such a disconnect between the will of the people and the will of politicians and some claim as the motion and its amendments today suggest that this Parliament's voice is not being listened to but that 38 per cent of the people outside of this Parliament voted to leave the EU but less than 5 per cent of the members within this Parliament at least publicly admit to agreeing with them can we honestly say that this place is truly representative of the people it claims to serve I was elected let me make some progress I've got a lot to say on this subject just under three years ago and one month before the EU referendum delivered the result of the British people and it was an interesting time to be elected to a Parliament but at no point that I think we would be having a debate in this place where every political party in this chamber except for on these benches behind me is willing to put their name to a motion which seeks to overturn the result of a referendum in which 1 million Scots agreed with the final outcome in my short time as an MSP I sit here on a daily basis and listen to debate after debate from these benches which deliberately and willingly try not just to brush aside but disrespect the results of two referenda that this country has faced two historic referenda two referenda with high turnouts with significant public engagement brushed aside because MSPs think that they know better I'm very grateful to the member for giving why and I hear the passion with which he says that the 38 per cent in Scotland who voted for leave should not be ignored why on earth should the 62 per cent who voted remain be ignored or indeed the 48 per cent across the whole of the UK who have been so comprehensively ignored by the UK Government taking this process to the extreme Jamie Greene Perhaps Mr Harvie can answer this question why does he choose to ignore the 55 per cent of Scotland who want to remain in the UK please tell me that, that's a real question that I haven't heard an answer to on a note of consent Mr Harvie's motion begins with these words it commends the more than 5 million signatories to the UK Parliament petition to revoke article 50 and perhaps surprisingly to some I commend them too I commend those who marched in London many of them I consider my friends no, I don't agree with them but it gives me pride that we live in a society which allows for that demonstration but do not forget for every one person who signed that petition there are three who didn't but voted to leave the EU online petitions and street marches do not make for constitutional change if you go to the public and ask for a decision you must respect that decision I've got very little time the Scottish Greens put out a tweet today saying that the Tories are very upset about today's motion and do you know what they are because I'm upset that this Parliament wants to pass a motion that has no respect for the 43 per cent of voters in North Ayrshire who voted to leave or the 55 per cent in Angus or the 49.9 per cent in Murray so I challenge constituency members when you go back to your constituencies on Friday you tell them those people who voted and who voted to leave the EU why you sought to revoke that message and I don't think the SNP has given full thought to the consequences it's a fundamental error of judgment on their part they're setting a very dangerous precedent too if one referendum goes the way that you don't want it to you simply call it again if you think people have changed their minds you call it again if the divorce is too painful or difficult you call it again I know for a fact if the tables were turned the result of an independence referendum the SNP would be in uproar over our demands to deny the will of the people the hypocrisy knows no ends from these benches we will reject this motion quite simply because there is only one party in this Parliament which respects the outcome of both the referendum this country has voted on that party sits on these benches Fiona Hyslop five minutes please cabinet secretary in any debate on Brexit we should always always remember this the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland voted to remain Scotland should not be taken out of the EU against our will Scotland's votes to remain have been ignored by the Tory Government and we have been ignored since votes in this Parliament have been disregarded the Scottish government's compromise proposals have been dismissed and the Prime Minister has instead made extreme Eurosceptics in her own party regardless of the cost to Scotland and that has to change and our voice must be heard and we support holding another referendum with the remain on the ballot paper or revoking article 50 to avoid a catastrophe Adam Tomkins argues that the only option to avoid no deal is the Prime Minister's deal but we now know that there is another way to avoid the catastrophe of no deal revoke article 50 and that's the subject of Joanna Cherry's amendment which has been accepted for voting and debate in Parliament this evening and can I also quote to the Conservatives a Conservative minister foreign office minister Mark Field in the 24th of March my personal view is that I would be happy to revoke article 50 I appreciate that is probably a minority view but if we get to this utter paralysis and I sincerely hope in the next 48 hours 72 hours we do not then if that becomes an option it's an option I personally would take if a UK Government minister can take that position why on earth can the Conservative opposition in this Parliament not understand that argument the previous referendum of the EU was over two years ago much has emerged about the flaws in that referendum in that time we now have better understanding of the EU and the damage that would result and Willie Rennie reflected that in his thoughtful speech we understand that the hard Brexit here however have now taken control people are allowed to change their minds in light of the new information and new circumstances since the referendum that is the very nature of democracy indeed polling suggests that some people have done so and I would say to Jamie Greene most sincerely the EU referendum being the final outcome that's the problem it wasn't the final outcome because why on earth the Westminster is still trying to determine what the final outcome of Brexit is in a series of votes two and a half years since the original referendum and of course it's thanks to the group of Scottish parliamentarians cross-party that we know the UK has the right to revoke article 50 the UK has not left the EU the European Court of Justice judgment on 10 December creates a clear route for the UK to revoke notification under article 50 and remain in the EU if anything development since the referendum have demonstrated that the leaders of the leave campaign demonstrated contempt for the electorate both levers and remainers they did not advance a single plan or position for cynical tactical political reasons and that is why it's not a final outcome because the content of what would be the plan was never known instead they issued the false claims about extra money for the NHS and Johann Lamont is right and Alexander Stewart is wrong this crisis does affect things to do with this Parliament it affects jobs it affects housing it affects the future of our young people and absolutely it must be debated in this Parliament a further referendum with a clear informed choice conducted properly would respect the electorate by offering a proper choice instead of the flawed vote in 2016 and I think it's very important that this Parliament does come together and I welcome Neil Findlay's comments that has opened remarks about the efforts within this Parliament to come together on so many different issues in relation to this area and also by what he means by a public vote there are times when this Parliament must come together and that is the debate is one of those times in terms of how we reflect the views of people and we find a way forward and we are not just here to provide comment we're not just here to be passive as the Conservatives seem to be in the face of crisis this Parliament is about leading the people of Scotland and providing leadership and providing a way forward and that is why we need to have a referendum to provide real choice clear information and to make sure that we can chart a new route forward and I think, Presiding Officer, there have been many good speeches in this very short debate it's a very important debate I do thank the Greens for bringing it here today we will support the main motion but we think that it should be strengthened with our amendment I call Ross Greer to wind up the debate for eight minutes please Mr Greer Thank you Presiding Officer in this Parliament for working constructively with us on the motion and the amendments brought forward today I think that Johann Lamont summed it up very well in saying that we cannot help but debate this it brings us no pleasure to be debating this crisis today but when we are talking about tens of thousands if not 100,000 jobs in Scotland that are at risk from what the Conservatives propose far more in the event of a no deal when we are talking about our rights as workers when we are talking about environmental protections all put at risk because of this it would be a dereliction of duty for this Parliament to pretend it's not happening to talk about something else and Johann Lamont is right to say that this is a moment for those of us on both sides of Scotland's own constitutional question to come together it is a moment for us to come together to say that we have a way out we propose a way out of this crisis because we collectively know what is in the best interests of the people of this country and we deeply engage with the hypothetical question that Adam Tomkins set out because I think it's an interesting one and I would reference what Willie Rennie said about the referendum in 1997 if we had won, if the yes side had won in 2014 it would have been on the basis of a white paper now I didn't agree with everything that was in that white paper on NATO for example but there was like in 97 a plan for what would have happened in 2014 not only was there a plan for what would have happened on that scale we weren't going to activate a two year stop-cock before anyone was ready before anyone had come up with a plan but most critically in 2014 the Scottish Government proposed a one Scotland team Scotland approach every party in this Parliament was invited to take part in the negotiations that would have commenced if Scotland had voted for independence what a contrast with a UK Government that can't even compromise what a contrast and we should consider how we've reached this stage how has one of the world's wealthiest countries not at war not suffering from a natural disaster put itself in the position of stockpiling food and medicine Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in 2016 almost two to one and the UK result was narrowly for leave no attempt was made by the Conservative Government at Westminster to recognise the strong votes in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and Gibralta nor did they recognise that a narrow result overall was a mandate for compromise they've deliberately sought to ignore and circumvent this Parliament at every stage but we've worked together to protect the interests of Scotland even within the Brexit process as we did with the continuity bill the Conservative Westminster Government has been underhand obstructive and arrogant in its efforts to stop us any rational government would have realised on the basis of a narrow result in favour of a vague idea rather than a specific plan would mean unavoidable compromise Theresa May's Government, far from rational decided that their path to Brexit lay through the radicalised extremists on their own hard right and of course the misjudged opportunism of calling an election to crush the Labour Party only to lose her own majority only had the outcome of making me dependent on a second group of hard right extremists in the DUP proposals to remain in the EU customs union and maintain either full membership or greater alignment with the single market have been proposed by the Scottish Government the Welsh Government, the Labour Opposition and now find their most effective advocate in Tory MP Nick Boles if these proposals had been the basis of Theresa May's plan I doubt those of us in the Greens and others who were inclined towards stopping Brexit completely would have had much of a chance but if they weren't acceptable to the hard right of our own party then they weren't acceptable to Theresa May in Downing Street we've a Prime Minister who willingly handed her Government and the country over as a hostage to Jacob Rees-Mogg a Prime Minister who started article 52 year countdown without a plan and a Prime Minister who's electoral opportunism backfired so badly that she's dependent on the votes of a party which opposed the Good Friday agreement to deliver a Brexit which profoundly endangers the peace process that that agreement has delivered The Conservative strategy has been to use the biggest constitutional upheaval in modern UK history to deliver not the best or maybe the least worse outcome for this country but to continue their own 40-year civil war over Europe and instead of ending it as David Cameron intended they've taken it to new heights and they've dragged the rest of us to the brink with them it wasn't until almost two thirds of the way through the article 50 period Excuse me Mr Greer Thank you Mr Greer Thank you, Presiding Officer It wasn't until almost two thirds of the way through the article 50 period that the UK Government finally decided on their preferred outcome and with the resignations that followed that checkers deal it was immediately clear that the plan didn't have the support of the Prime Minister's own party yet instead of seeking to reach out and forge compromise with the opposition Theresa May is still playing chicken to get her own terrible deal past that strategy has failed though it's seen the Prime Minister's deal rejected by the House of Commons twice and it's demonstrated that whether there have been cruel or conservative Governments in modern history there has been no Government as incompetent as this one Scotland voted for none of this today's green motion gives us the opportunity to assert what we believe is the best way out of this crisis and for that we can thank my green colleague Andy Wightman who created a cross-party group of politicians comprising myself, Alan Smith MEP and Joanna Cherry MP from the SNP and MEPs from the Labour Party David Martin and Catherine Stuyler the historic ruling in that article 50 case established that the UK has the right to unilaterally revoke article 50 it's worth noting that the Conservative Government fought us every stage of the way in that process they're the only Government I'm aware of that has gone to such lengths to limit their own options but they lost and we won so now we have a way out the Brexiteers had their chance to negotiate an orderly exit from the EU their uncompromising impossibleist approach has squandered that chance all but collapsed their Government and put the whole country at risk fortunately MPs are beginning to take back control from that Government but the process is clearly far from over 17.4 million people in the UK 1 million people in Scotland did vote leave I doubt many of them voted for this humiliating mess and I can only ask the Brexiteers and the Conservative Party when their own Government is estimating that Scotland will lose between 80 and 100,000 jobs from their Brexit proposal is that really what they think they voted for and why are they backing it now there is a way to check what people voted for though this decision can be handed over to the people let the public decide between this bad deal and the opportunity to remain part of the European family of nations but if MPs refuse to give the public that final say if they cannot come to an agreement as the clock winds down to no deal then we must say today on behalf of the people of Scotland on behalf of all those who will be hurt who will be put at risk who will suffer from a no deal Brexit we must say that article 50 should be withdrawn colleagues today European Council President Donald Tusk told MPs that they must stand up for the increasing majority of people in the UK who want to stay in the European Union he said that they may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by the UK Parliament I know the feeling but they must feel represented by the European Parliament because they are Europeans today we have the opportunity to show the people of Scotland that we represent them that we defend Scotland's overwhelming remain vote we are a European nation we are a European people we believe in a people's Europe and we know it is time to let the people cancel Brexit that concludes the debate on revoking article 50 and it's now time to move on to the next item of business if you could point of order Tom Arthur I rise to make a point of order under rules 8.5.3 and 8.5.6 those concern the admissibility of amendments in the amendment in the name of Adam Tomkins it concludes by stating with reference to a withdrawal agreement to leave the UK with a withdrawal agreement I wonder if you can advise whether it would have been permissible for that amendment to make reference to the Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement that's a matter for the member who has put forward that amendment and a matter for the Presiding Officer who decides to accept that amendment if Mr Arthur wishes I'm more than happy that this be considered further and a response given to him