 I know Colin John Lamont, Ms Lamont, 18 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and perhaps in our reflecting on how we do business, we might want to reflect what is a good idea to give me 18 minutes on a regular basis, but that is for another day. First, I will say to the First Minister that we will have the opportunity at some later stage to speak about his contribution to Scotland as First Minister. We recognise today is a very significant day for him, too, but we will have the opportunity properly to talk about the massive contribution that Alex Salmond has made to the life of Scotland. I look forward to that opportunity, but I also recognise that it is a very significant time in his career, and we should reflect on that. There can be no doubt that last Thursday was a big moment in Scotland's story. All of us in here have been passionate in the positions that we have taken, whether it has been for yes or for no. We have argued it long and hard, but the reality is now that the people of Scotland have decided. They have decided that they wish to remain inside the United Kingdom, and that means that it cannot be that politics will never go back to what they were before. We know that the debate over Scotland's future provoked lots of energy and passion, and people were genuinely weighing up the arguments, testing the facts and coming to the conclusions that they felt were best for their families. The huge turnout, the arguments and debates that we overheard all around us, and the activism from young people proved that politics is still relevant to people's lives at times when many feel disconnected from the democratic process. I am immensely proud of the young people in my party who carried themselves with dignity, argued their case with passion and commitment, and made their arguments for staying inside the United Kingdom. I know that, on the other side, people feel the same way about the young people who were engaged in that argument. I was immensely proud and emotional on the day of the election to travel with my family, with my son in particular at 17, taking the opportunity to vote in shaping Scotland's future. It was a momentous occasion for him, and I certainly would agree with the First Minister that the question of votes at 16 is something that should be embraced. We are committed on this side to votes at 16. Vote at 16 has been our policy for years, and we want it to happen. I do not believe that there is any good reason why it should not happen right now. The First Minister also referred to the question of the sole motions and the entrenchment of this Parliament. Again, I am happy to agree with him, because he guarantees lock-in change that is better, faster, fairer and safer change that the Scottish people demand. I welcome his statement on a statutory basis for the sole convention on legislative consent motions. It was, of course, first mentioned by Labour in our devolution commission proposals. Our devolution commission report stated that we recommend that the sole convention should be given a statutory basis to reflect the reality of the Scottish Parliament's permanence and irreversibility, whereof the opinion that responsibility for administration of Scottish Parliament elections be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We agree on those questions. We also know that this debate has not been without its consequences. The energy and passion was sometimes misplaced and became aggressive. I have to say to the First Minister that I do not think that we can simply describe this as the behaviour of a few miscreants. On both sides, we should reflect on behaviour that was intimidating, aimed at silencing people, and I, for my part, will do all I can to make sure that anybody on my side of the debate is left in no doubt that that behaviour was entirely unacceptable. I simply ask the First Minister to do the same. It cannot be that we believe that laying siege to the BBC for over four hours insulting staff as they were going about their business was the behaviour of a few miscreants. I do not think that anybody in here really thought that that was appropriate behaviour, and I do think that it is a matter that you should distance yourself from. Of course, the debate by its nature was divisive, and with so many people putting so much effort and energy into respective campaigns, there were always going to be a lot of disappointed Scots. We all have a responsibility to heal that divide rather than ferment any lingering grievance or bitterness. Much has been made by the yes side of the 1.6 million Scots who supported their case. It is an amazing achievement to get that many people in a country of this size to vote for any proposition, but we should recognise the achievement of the no side, which gained 2 million votes of support from our fellow Scots, who believed that we are stronger as part of the United Kingdom. We did not presume a single vote, and to receive this clear endorsement for the United Kingdom has changed Scottish politics forever. The constitutional question has hung over this country all of my life, and I give absolute credit to the First Minister for giving the people of Scotland the opportunity to answer it. While he might not have got the result that he was looking for, we can all agree that the United Kingdom is now the settled will of the Scottish people. No longer will our United Kingdom be the consequence of a deal struck by the privileged few. It is now the choice of the many that is expressed in a fair and democratic way in which we can all have confidence. It should mark a new phase in Scottish politics, now that the issue has been firmly settled. I do not speak for the 45 per cent. I do not speak for the 55 per cent. I speak for the 100 per cent of the people in this country who want politics to be about their lives, their concerns, their families and their future. I have been advised on many occasions that it is not a good look to give the electorate a row when they disagree with you, and I think that we should reflect on that now, because it cannot be. We have to reflect. We cannot allow the idea that somehow people were robbed, that people were tricked, that if only we could have persuaded the over 55s we would have won. That language is a language that continues the division that we saw too often in a period before. Those figures on over 55s in themselves are simply not true, but the main point is that before the Parliament rose, we had a number of impassioned debates from the yes side, saying only by voting for what yes can we do certain things. We cannot spend the next two years having moved from if you vote yes, this will happen, to if you had voted yes, that would have happened. We cannot leave the politics of the place in that shape. We need to move on. While the referendum was divisive, a consensus emerged among all of the key figures on a number of areas. We do not need anybody to hold our feet to the fire in making this Parliament work. We do not need anybody to hold our feet to the fire in getting the powers for this Parliament that will make it stronger still inside the United Kingdom. I give my commitment that we will bring powers over taxation, over welfare, and we will align them with the powers that are already here to create jobs, to create enterprise, to give people skills, to use our procurement policies, to give people a living wage, to bring both of those lots of powers together to make sure that we have an apartment that delivers the people of Scotland. Yes, one side of the argument over the last period has been about strengthening the Scottish Parliament with greater commitment on powers, and the people of this country will hold us to that commitment. However, the other side of the argument prosecuted both by yes and no that the issues that were coming to us in the doorsteps were people's concerns about their children's future, concerns about care, concerns about job security, concerns about rights in the workplace. Those are the other side of the bargain, and we all, together, need to deliver on those in the next two years. We all know that childcare is a problem for many families, and we have a responsibility to help them. We will work with the Government where we can build a consensus on delivering those policies. We all agree that our NHS should be free at the point of need and protected from private profit. We will work with the Government if they want to do those things, but we need honesty from the Scottish Government. We are currently plapanning for the NHS and in other areas, too, so that we can help to work in that process. If I might be forgiven to say one area where I am sure people can agree is on something, for example, like land reform, because it has been part of a radical agenda for Labour. If we have to see social change in our communities, then land reform can deliver that. There is a will in this Parliament to change the concentrated pattern of land ownership across Scotland. We have received a recommendation from the land reform review group, and between now and 2016, we can and must look at how we enact them. We must show boldness to introduce radical changes. We must address the fact that 423 people own 50 per cent of privately owned land in Scotland. Devolution has taken us far down the road of land reform, but it is a journey that is not yet complete. It is about political will, and I will work with people right across the chamber who are willing to do that. I ascension land reform to highlight areas where we can come together over the next period to make a radical difference to people's lives. There is less than two years left of this Parliament before we go to Scottish people again in May 2016. As the First Minister highlighted, I previously described Scotland as being on pause as we debated the referendum. Everyone must agree that the enormity of the referendum debate has resulted in less focus on other areas such as education and health. Indeed, the long list of things that the First Minister highlights as being successes of the Scottish Government are for me proof that devolution inside the United Kingdom has worked for the people of Scotland. I want to work more with them on those big questions. How do we give people a living wage? How do we protect our health service? How do we address the needs of young people who do not make it to university and need the skills through college places or whatever to give them the opportunity to take up the jobs if they are being created by the Scottish Government? Perhaps now, with the constitutional question settled, we can go back to debating those issues and Thursday's legacy can be this. Our Parliament starts to discuss what it can do rather than what it can't. I so agree with the presiding officer that we need to open up our Parliament. I agree with Graham Smith that we must again see our parliamentary process, the walls of the Parliament, breached by Civic Scotland, the trade unions and the campaigning groups that our committees listen to them, but that each and every one of us go out and listen to what people in our communities are saying. Let this place again be a lively, energised place where we do not presume that we know the answers but have the confidence to listen to the people who do. Despite being on opposing sides, I believe that the 2 million no-voters and the 1.6 million yes-voters have much in common. I was struck that many on both sides were asking the same questions but coming up with different ways to get to the answer that we all want. I have already begun the process of meeting with, speaking to, phoning and contacting people that I know voted yes. I have done that because I respect the fact that they may have come to a different conclusion from me, but they were driven by the very same things that brought me and many other people into politics. I do not fear engaging and working with anyone who is the interests of Scotland at heart, who genuinely wants to wrestle with the issue of equality. Who is as troubled as anyone in here is about the existence of food banks, the fact that too many of our young people, their life chances are determined by the time they are three. That is the time for all of us, on all sides of that debate, to look and search for the things that we share in common so that we can address that cry from the people of Scotland that they wanted real change. We know that they all shared a desire for change, whether yes or no, and a belief that we can do better than that. They all displayed a renewed confidence in this Parliament, so let us now use it to deliver the change that we need. No-one believes that Scottish politics can go back to business as usual, nor should we let it. I promise you that, while I enjoy shouting at people as much as anybody, it cannot be the only default position of any of us. If we want to respond to the awakening that the First Minister describes, it cannot be that any of us goes back to business as usual. We know that the people of Scotland have said that. We also know that the message that drove that debate was that what is happening in our communities is not good enough. Let us find a way together of responding to that challenge, because, of course, the eyes of the world have moved on. Scotland seemed like the centre of the universe as the world's media descended on us, and our debate was being discussed all over the globe. I do not think any of us realised the extent to which that debate would open up, that that interest would be prompted across the world. We know that we were interesting for a time, but we recognise that things move on. However, the eyes of Scotland are still trained on us now. They look to us to bring about the change that they need, a change in our politics and a change in their lives. Let us not lapse into the old debates of the past and be found wanting. Let us now, together, take on the challenge laid down to us by the Scottish people to see this strong Scottish Parliament standing strong inside the United Kingdom. I would like to thank the First Minister for advance sight of his statement. I would also like to add a few words of my own on his service in this chamber and in wider Scottish politics. I was eight years old when Alex Salmond was first elected an MP and a liven when he first led his party. He has been a dominant force in Scottish politics for the entirety of my political awareness. He has also changed Scotland through his time in both Parliament and in Government, and I think that everyone in this chamber recognises that. Scotland has just had the biggest, broadest conversation about the future of our country. It was a conversation that saw school children line up with grandparents and half the world want to join in. It saw David Bowie, Stephen Hawking and Kermit The Frog declare for one side, with Billy Bragg, Brian Cox and Groundkeeper Willie on the other. It made us find common cause with the unlikeliest of people. It was a conversation that, as a nation, we needed to have, a conversation that energised Scotland like no other and one that engaged us, too. I agree with the First Minister that the story of this referendum was participation. The number of people who turned out to vote, the number who turned out to help, who got involved, having never previously posted a leaflet or knocked a door, the number who thought that this discussion, this decision, was too important for them to sit this one out, and the number of young people having their first taste of front-line politics. I have met on both sides teenagers who were passionate, informed, articulate and who will, without doubt, be our next generation of MPs, MSPs and ministers. I have no doubt in my own mind that these 16 and 17-year-olds have added to the debate and have proven by their intelligence and their conduct that we now must look at the franchise across the whole of the UK. This was a conversation that has been in large part a credit to our nation and a conversation that that same nation needed to open up. It has energised Scotland, but it has, by its very nature, divided Scotland, too. Now, after every vote has been cast, every ballot has been counted, it is time for the country to come back together, to accept that the majority has spoken, that over 2 million people came together to back one proposition against the other. It is time for the country to move forward with common cause. For that to happen, it is going to require leadership. It is going to require an acknowledgement from those at the top that this was a free, fair, open and decisive ballot. It was the Scottish Government that set the question. It was the Scottish Government that set the date, the Scottish Government who set the franchise, and the elected leadership of the Scottish Government who put taxpayers' money and the machinery of this Government's civil service behind trying to secure a yes vote. I am glad that the First Minister mentioned the Edinburgh agreement in his statement, as both Alex Salmond's and Nicola Sturgeon's signatures sit at its base, under a text that lays out the following and I think it's worth quoting. The two Governments look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair, producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two Governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland. That's what they signed up to, and Scotland demands no less. I'm glad that the First Minister says that he will honour that commitment. I know that it's hard. Before we broke up for the final campaign period, we had a debate in this chamber and I laid out how I would feel if the upcoming ballot didn't go my way. I said that I would grieve for what I would feel that I had lost. I understand that that is how many are feeling who voted for independence—hurt and grief and loss. However, that pain is not healed by people crying foul and that grief is not ministered to by talk of a conspiracy. To truly come back together and to move on, we need acknowledgement that the process was not flawed and not just the mechanics of the process but the process itself. The act of asking all citizens who are of age to decide which constitutional future they choose, that that direct democracy, with all votes weighed the same, is the correct way to decide our nation's future form. Since Friday, we have had three senior nationalists, including the First Minister himself, saying that there are other ways to unilaterally declare independence. We need those at the top to respect and accept that result, because, without such acceptance, we cannot move on and move on, we must. The Parliament and the members in it need to get back to the job that we were elected to do. We need to have a broad discussion about educational reform. We need to know the impact of cutting 140,000 college places on the skills base of our future workforce. We need to have a full review of our health service. We need to know why the IFS says that health spending has been going up in England but falling here. We need to know about the £450 million worth of further cuts that this Government is planning to the health service, cuts that it wanted to keep from the public and that an NHS whistleblower felt so strongly about that they risked their job to let the public know. We need an update on our new single police service, a police service that routinely stops and searches children and sees officers armed and on the street without the consent of the public to change that change in the nature of our policing. We also need to know that, with independence taken off the table for a political lifetime, this Government is going to stop the politics of grievance and try to make devolution work. I have five pages of quotes here from members on these Government's benches where they say, only with independence. Only with independence can we boost business. Keith Brown, February 2014. Only with independence will we see the interests of Scotland's farmers put at the top of the agenda. Annabelle Ewing, March 2013. Only with independence can we help women back into work. Nicola Sturgeon, 2014. Only with independence will this Government deliver transformative childcare. Mike Russell, 2014. There's nothing to offer. This Government has spent seven years telling the country all of the things that it can't do, and now it has just 18 months to tell us the things that it can. One of those things that it can do is help deliver more powers for the Scottish Parliament, because this referendum was never about no change. Change is coming. It's about whether that change should happen within or outwith the United Kingdom. For months, SNP members have attacked the three Unionist parties' proposals for further devolution. Ways to make this Parliament more responsible makes to wake it work better and deliver more for the people of Scotland. Yet we are committed. The three pro-UK party leaders came together in June at the top of Calton Hill to make that commitment to further powers. We added to it in August under the watchful gaze of Donald Dure in Buchanan Street. We endorsed a timetable this month in front of the world's media at Dynamic Earth. I want this Parliament to have to look Scotland's taxpayers in the eye, and I am intent on making that happen. The chair of this process, Lord Kelvin, was announced by the Prime Minister on Friday. I and others met with him this morning. A command paper will be read by the end of next month and engagement with the people of Scotland will start thereafter. Draft legislation will be prepared by the start of the year. This process is real. It is happening and it will change the powers of this Parliament. The SNP needs to make a decision. Is it going to continue sniping from the sidelines, or is it going to get on board and work in good faith to develop our democracy here in Scotland? The referendum was held. Millions voted. The outcome was decisive, and it must be respected. We need to get back to the jobs that we were elected to do, making this devolved Parliament work for the people of Scotland. The First Minister and I spent only one year together in the Westminster Parliament, but even just in that one short year I could see that he had tremendous political skills. Even though I can recognise in this political world that in opponents they have tremendous political skills, even if we do not agree with their political beliefs, that is no more the case than with the First Minister. I am sure that we will get another opportunity at a later stage to wax a wee bit more lyrical about his achievements in the past. This has been the democratic experience of my lifetime. Never in my 30 years in politics have I seen anything quite like this. When was it the last time that voters marched up to you in the middle of the high street and demanded a 20-page document from you so that they could read it? My window cleaner was arguing about the technical aspects of the European Union membership and the Panama currency arrangements. It was even the hot topic amongst the German tourists in Fort William, but the most inspiring aspect that I found was that the 16-year-old voter who was voting for the first time ever did so with great pride, confidence and knowledge. I agree with the First Minister when he said that all 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote. They have carried themselves extremely well in this referendum. They have given opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds right across the UK. We should be endorsing that. The people of Scotland deserve the widest and the highest praise for rising to the occasion. They made Scotland shine last week, so we must treat that pride with care. We have a responsibility to respect the decision backed up by 2 million votes, the highest ever endorsement for a political decision ever made in Scotland. The First Minister is fond of expressing great confidence in the ability of the Scottish people. To my great disappointment over the weekend, that confidence evaporated. The First Minister should not question the judgment of the people just because he did not agree with him. Within hours of the result and agreeing to participate in the process for more powers on Friday, the First Minister was actively seeking to undermine it with a range of bogus distractions, claims and allegations. Today, he claims that he accepts the result, but his complaint-ridden statement betrays that claim. With the new leadership in the SNP, I have perhaps some hope that that will change. This morning, I was pleased to meet Robert Smith to take him through my party's proposals for a more powerful Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom. Members will know that he has been tasked to lead the effort to reach an agreement in short order. It is a tight timetable, but I am confident that that agreement can be reached. Members will know that Liberal Democrats published our proposals two years ago under the chairmanship of Sir Ming Campbell. It reflected the desire of people in Scotland—we believe—that they wanted change but change within the United Kingdom. We propose that the Scottish Parliament raises the majority of the money that it spends, those missing powers. It would give us control of the purse strings and therefore control of our destiny on the domestic agenda. If we wanted to do something different from Westminster, we could. If we want tax cuts for those on-load middle incomes, we can choose to do that. If we want to invest more in childcare, we could raise the extra funds to pay for it. That can be done within a federal structure where the big risks and rewards in an uncertain world can be shared across the whole United Kingdom. We say that the whole of income tax, including the rates and bans, should be decided here, adding inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and we give the powers that tackle inequality and address wealth to this Parliament. We propose to assign the revenues from corporation tax so that we can accrue the benefits of decisions to grow the economy here. We argue for prudential borrowing powers so that we can invest and save for the long-term future of the country. We think that more can be done to integrate services for people looking for work if the power over the work programme resided here as well. A federal settlement will give this institution permanency. What Liberal Democrat plans will do is equip every part of the United Kingdom, first and certainly in Scotland, with a nimble Government able to respond effectively to issues in Scotland with financial resources and clout to make that happen. It is a positive agenda, and I hope that the SNP engaged constructively and positively as well, not with some backdoor attempts to rerun the referendum, not with some backdoor attempt to put forward three tests that sound exactly like the three tests that the First Minister set for independence, but with positive proposals for change that reflect the biggest ever democratic endorsement that this country has ever seen. We also need to see not just powers transferred from Westminster to here, but powers transferred down into communities as well. It is quite striking the difference in the votes in different parts of the country. The most sceptical parts were often the most remote parts from this Parliament. We need to push power down to communities so that they can have a bigger say. In conclusion, the result on Friday was clear, legal and decisive. I am sure that no one in this chamber will dispute that. Two million people decided that we were better together. As the First Minister said last week, the question of independence has been concluded for a generation and possibly a lifetime. It has been laid to rest. Our task is now to build a better Scotland that meets the hopes and ambitions of people in Scotland, the 55 per cent as well as the 45 per cent. They have high hopes and we have got our work cut out to meet them. Patrick Harvie, six minutes, Mr Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have been back in the chamber something just under 55 minutes and it seems that we can all make statements about bridge building and finding common ground, but it seems as though perhaps we may discover we mean slightly different things by it. I would like to echo the thanks that have been expressed by several speakers already to the many campaigners and activists, the many people who have become politicised throughout this process. I have found it an energising experience and a privilege to take part in this historic debate and this historically high level of public participation. I know that there has been bad behaviour on both sides, as Johann Lamont rightly said, and as the First Minister recognised, I condemn bad behaviour on both sides, whether I have seen it online in public meetings on George Square or outside the BBC, but I have found it far easier throughout this entire debate to find examples of inspiring, compelling, creative and inclusive behaviour on Sunday, just a few days after the vote was in, when I was frankly still catching up on sleep, as many of us were. I had the chance to speak at a day for the UN international day of peace, what excellent timing that was. I talked about some of the examples that I had found. Of the yes campaigner knocking on doors who found an elderly gentleman who was basically giving up on voting because he had mobility problems, he didn't know if he could get to the polls, he was a no-voter and she called the local Better Together team to get him a lift to the polls so that he could exercise his right to vote. The many examples of cups of tea and sweeties and biscuits shared between yes and no campaigners outside polling stations, and the friends and families who did find that they had been debating, disagreeing, were voting in different ways, but that had not dented in any way the bonds of friendship and love between them. That, I believe, has been overwhelmingly the empathy and goodwill shown by the vast majority of people taking part in this debate, and it has been a privilege. My own party has all through this had a range of views. A large majority of us campaigning enthusiastically for a yes vote, but many of us find that we need to demonstrate that it is possible to disagree in a spirit of friendship, because that is what was happening inside our party. There were many reasons why we did not endorse a divo max, divo next, divo in between option. I do not see any variant of divo next that does not increase our need to represent ourselves on the world stage, but does not increase our need to take the further steps on. It may be a long-term debate now as to whether that is indeed the direction that Scotland goes in the long term, but some process in this direction is now going to happen. We need to find the opportunities and avoid the pitfalls. The Smith commission very clearly is not going to have the time to undertake the depth of public engagement that I believe Scotland deserves to have and that those newly politicised people around Scotland deserve to be able to take part in. We have to find a way to avoid it being just another party political stitch-up, though. Whether it is large parties or small parties, if this is a deal done inside the political bubble, it will fail to give effect to that groundswell appetite and enthusiasm for genuine democratic reform. There is a risk as well of rush, and we all know that fast legislation can sometimes be bad legislation. The timescale has been committed to, and we need to hold those promises to account, but we also need to make sure that the detail is right. There is a connection to the wider debate about UK reform. Clearly, the two timescales cannot be aligned, but those processes cannot be seen as entirely separate. Already, a committee in the House of Commons is taking forward an inquiry looking amongst other aspects of its remit at the next stage of the devolution in Scotland, the timetable, as well as the impact on devolution throughout the rest of the UK, or decentralisation. There is going to have to be some alignment of our parliamentary processes for scrutinising those changes. Fundamentally, my concern is about the idea of a transfer not of genuine economic power, the ability to run different economic policy for Scotland's different circumstances, but instead the transfer of a responsibility to implement somebody else's economic policy. At the moment, that means making Westminster's cuts on their behalf. That is a concern that we must avoid. Westminster has an innate resistance to change. We only need to look at the time that it has taken to debate the future of the House of Lords to see that. Against that innate resistance to change, we see an appetite in Scotland among voters for the change that is needed not only to a broken political system but to the broken economic system that it has been propping up. There are other areas where we could look at decentralisation from the Hollywood voting system, which we cannot control to equality law, transport, energy and decentralisation within Scotland. The First Minister said quite rightly that this now leaves us with the most politically engaged population in Western Europe. Power that we are going to have to accept should not ever be corralled by politicians. It can be taken from us and will be a healthier, stronger, democratic country when all of us have a healthy respect for the awareness of the ability of an electorate to exercise that power and to take power from us at any given moment. The generational change as well that the First Minister spoke of is exciting. I say that knowing that my own party's youth wing is bigger than my entire party was five days ago. That is an exciting and a terrifying prospect, but the votes at 16 are new engagement of people who have not been politically engaged before and potentially the prospect of new political and constitutional relationships within these islands. All of those things leave me in the absence of independence. I have to admit with some mixed feelings, which of course brings me to the First Minister. As others have said, we will have the opportunity to debate our feelings about Mr Salmond's contribution later, but I can only acknowledge that I can think of nobody else in the Scottish political landscape, whether I have been on the same side of this debate or other sides of different debates with him, no one else on the political landscape who has done more to advance the case for democratic radical reform of the constitution of these islands, and though I have not always voted with him on budgets or other votes, I pay tribute to him for that. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the First Minister and to the campaign leaders across the board for the referendum campaign itself. More importantly, I would like to pay tribute to the tens of thousands of folk who slogged away for months to try to achieve their vision of a fairer, more socially just Scotland. In Aberdeen, my SNP colleagues and I work side by side with members of the Green Party, Radical Independence campaign, Queens for Indie and Labour for Indie. We were joined under the Yes Aberdeen umbrella by swathes of people who had never taken part in a campaign before. People like Dell, who canvassed and leafletted morning, noon and night so that he could see his vision come to fruition. People like 10-year-old Eleanor, who supplied our Yes Hub with cookies and wrote her own Yes leaflet for school. People like 98-year-old Mrs Margaret Corrill, whose wise words went viral on Facebook and Twitter, even though she did not know what they were. The fact that so many folks who had never been involved in politics before joined us in our efforts was truly inspiring. Having new people working alongside veteran campaigners from various political groupings could very well have been fraught, but it wasn't, as everyone shared the same hope and vision. They conveyed that hope and vision to people and communities throughout Aberdeen, inspiring others to register to vote for the first time, to vote for the first time and to participate in campaigning for the first time. The truly amazing thing about the referendum campaign is the amount of participation that took place. I am proud that we witnessed record turn-outs across the country and even more gratified that the gaping chasm that normally exists between turn-outs in rich areas compared to poorer areas narrowed. That is something that would have made the late Brian Adam very happy, as he worked hard to improve turn-out and trust in politicians in the poorer areas of Aberdeen during his many years on the council and in this Parliament. Trust is now key in ensuring that people who have been disenfranchised remain enfranchised. We should trust our young people to make decisions and should give them the vote in every election. The vast bulk of young folk studied the debate and made their choices from a very informed position. The folk who voted no did so for many reasons. Some were scared into doing so, like a number in Aberdeen's Polish community who were told that they would be deported if there was a yes vote or senior citizens who were told that they wouldn't get a pension in an independent Scotland. Their trust, their faith was shattered by fear and it is a poor politician who has to rely on fear to win. Others voted no because of the vow of more powers and that vow must now be kept by those on the no side. When I joined the SNP half a lifetime ago, I signed a membership card that pledged me to campaign for an independent Scotland and the furtherance of all Scottish interests. I will continue to campaign for an independent Scotland but until the day that the people of Scotland decide that that is the right way forward, I will do everything in my power to further all Scottish interests. I will lobby and campaign to ensure that powers over tax and social security are decided in this place so that we can enact a fair wage policy and protect our most vulnerable, their carers and their families. I will continue to argue that we should have control over our economy and all of our resources, including our vast oil wealth, so that we can create jobs and opportunity. I will continue to fight against the abhorrence that is trident and will always believe that we should put nurses before nukes, teachers before trident and bairns before bombs. The promise of deval max was what enticed a number of folk to vote no. Deval max that no politician stopped from being on the referendum ballot paper in the first place, they did everything in their power to stop that going on that referendum ballot paper. Scotland is now watching to see if the promises the vow is kept by no politicians. Democracy and participation have grown in Scotland over these past few weeks and months. The people of this country now recognise that they themselves have power. That genie is now well and truly out of the bottle and will be tied any politician or political party that does not recognise that Scotland and our people have changed forever. Before taking the oath in this Parliament, I made this statement that I believe that the people of Scotland should be citizens not subjects and that I hold firmly that my allegiance should first and foremost be to them. I believe in that principle even more strongly now following the events of last Thursday. The sovereign will of the majority is to remain as part of the United Kingdom. I have spoken to friends, constituents and relatives and I know that it is painful for those who worked very hard for a yes vote to acknowledge, but the facts are that the majority of the electorate voted no. Not by a tiny margin, but 400,000 more Scots voted no than yes. A whole 10 per cent of the electorate. There are some who question why people on the left voted no. For me, I did not take a knee-jerk position, not a narrow party political decision, but a decision that was made for very clear and principled reasons. I voted no because I wanted to see a fairer, more equal society. End-in-zero-hours contracts address the abuse of agency working, blacklisting, fair pay, dignity at work, and building the caring public services and the NHS that we all want. Those are the issues that motivate me and have always motivated me and are central to my political belief and philosophy. I am grateful for the member taking the intervention. Does continued austerity, 60 per cent of the cuts still to come and the Labour Party signed up to 96 per cent party your fair agenda? Given the £6 billion black hole that we would have had in the budget of an independent Scotland, I believe that we would have had turbocharged austerity had we had an independent Scotland. Those are central to my political philosophy. It is why I have always been a member of a trade union. It is why I have used my time in this Parliament to campaign on those and other issues that affect everyday real lives of working people. I want to see change as much as anyone inside or outside of this Parliament, but I want change for workers in Liverpool and Leeds just as much as Livingston and Leith. I fundamentally believe that you do not challenge the power of capital by dividing along national lines, the greatest force we have in challenging that power, the UK Labour and trade union movement. It has been the Labour movement that has led and delivered the greatest advances for working people that we have ever seen. The right to vote, the NHS, the welfare state, the minimum wage and this very Parliament all delivered not because political elites have handed these things down to us but because working people have campaigned for and demanded them. It is that commitment to the collective advancement of working people that makes me a socialist and not a nationalist. I want powers to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, not to provide tax cuts for the biggest tax dodging corporations. The Scottish Government and its white paper said that they wanted a fairer, more equal Scotland, yet the only redistributive policy within the white paper was a 3 per cent tax cut for corporations. That is not the way to create a fairer society. I accept that the council tax freeze puts money in people's pockets, but it also rewards those with the most expensive houses, while services, the poorest, rely on, are cut as council budgets are reduced. Not a moment. It is not progressive. In our NHS we see crises brewing by the day in recruitment and A and E GPs, boarding out, bed blocking and a budget that is due to be slashed by half a billion as exposed during the campaign by a concerned whistleblower. The First Minister may laugh at that, but I am sure that those who are sitting in hospital are not laughing at it. Yet we are told that the Government is protecting the NHS. In our colleges we saw 130,000 places cut in a deliberate policy that stifled in the life chances of our young people, and yet despite all of that, the Government portrays those policy choices as progressive claims and claims that went unchallenged by anybody else in the yes camp. Bob Doris I have to say that it sounds as if Neil Findlay is trying to fight a 2016 devolved election campaign without any additional powers to this Parliament. I wonder if he could use the last two minutes for your speech to actually give an additional power to this Parliament. The could actually do the inequality and social justice on behalf of the family. Why doesn't Mr Doris and his party pursue a progressive policy agenda with the powers that it has just now, then it can show us the rest with new powers? Presiding Officer, on both the no and yes side, many of us want similar things. We want a fairer Scotland, a more just Scotland and a caring Scotland. We simply disagre on the best way to achieve that goal. The task now is to convince those in power that being all things to all people changes little. We need progressive action to address the inequality in our society. In conclusion, I believe that there are two distinct lessons from Thursday for us all. One, people want economic and societal change, and two, the majority don't believe that you have to break up the country to achieve such change. Finally, I can say gently to the First Minister, I know that he is hurting, but can you imagine what would have happened in what he would have said if there had been a yes vote and any of the no parties had said that if they received a majority at the following election, they would unilaterally reverse that democratic referendum decision? That would have been a constitutional outrage. I ask the First Minister to reflect on his comments of yesterday and to consign his plans for a constitutional coup d'etat to the waste paper bin, marked very bad and dangerous idea. People have spoken and they want a fairer Scotland. The test of this Government will now be whether it is willing to use the powers that it has to take progressive decisions to improve the lives of the poorest in society, where those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden and whether progressive politics with redistribution at its core Wednesday. I now call on Annabelle Ewing to be followed by Stuart Stevens. What a privilege it is to have been called to speak in this debate this afternoon in the First Minister's statement and what a time it is to be alive in Scottish political life. For although on the night, or should I say in the morning of Friday 19 September, it became clear that the people of Scotland had said no, what we witnessed during a referendum campaign was engagement in the democratic process at a level unprecedented in these modern times. With a turnout, as we have heard, of 85 per cent and a 97 per cent voter registration, I think it is fair to say that the citizens of Scotland have now come alive and they have raised expectations about the level of political debate and involvement in future democratic contests. I hope that all parties live up to those raised heightened expectations. Indeed, as I was going around part of polling day to polling places in Cowdenbeath, Keltyn, Lochgellian, Blingery, I have never seen such enthusiasm on the part of so many voters. People who may not have voted before felt that their vote simply would not make any difference, coming out to vote in great numbers. People who had never been involved in political campaigning before standing on the school or church or school gates urging their neighbours to vote yes. Young people dancing in the streets and car horns tooting and underlying this fantastic joyous display of engagement in democracy was, I would say, one key emotion that of hope. I hope that, by voting, people could bring about improvements to their lives and the lives of their families, their communities and their country. I hope that, by using their sovereign power between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. in polling day, they could usher in themselves through their own actions and more prosperous and fairer Scotland. Nowhere was this enthusiasm, this engagement, this hope, clearer to see than among the young people of Scotland. What a credit and inspiration these 16 and 17 euros are to their country for their involvement was truly wonderful to behold. Sadly, some of them may not realise that it is not within the gift of this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, to extend their voting rights to any other election for, like much else, to do with our daily lives here in Scotland. That part of the voting age still lies at Westminster. I hope therefore that there will be cross-party support in Scotland for the SNP's call to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 euros across the board. Indeed, what politician could look young people in the eye and tell them that, though they were deemed mature enough to vote for the future of their country, they are somehow not eligible to vote in the coming Westminster and subsequent elections? As to the future, what is clear is that we are all going there together—the 45 per cent as well as the 55 per cent—that we are all about the business of working together for a better Scotland and in the best interests of the Scottish people. That is why it is so vitally important that we here in our Scottish Parliament hold Westminster to account for the last-minute promises that the Unionist parties made to people who, in all good faith, relied on those promises when they came to vote, some 25 per cent of all no voters by all accounts. That is why it is so important to ensure that the powers that the Unionist party promised as being meaningful to daily life in our country in terms of job creation, in terms of tackling poverty, in terms of protection of the vulnerable and giving our carers a better life and in terms of ensuring an international platform for our distinctive Scottish voice. It is vital that we ensure that all those powers are now delivered and as per the timetable that they promised. It has to be said that the last 72 hours or so have not been propitious in that regard with growing fears and concerns among the energised electorate of Scotland who are watching very carefully that the so-called vow to Scotland will not be honoured. Indeed, I would have to say in that regard that, over the same short period of 72 hours, the SNP, for one, and I know it is the case also with the Greens and other parties, have seen a vast increase in membership in the case of the SNP, I believe, and the figures keep changing from minute to minute, but I believe that we have now doubled our membership since close of play on Thursday and we have seen our membership grow to some 51,000-plus people. What a credit to the engagement of the people of Scotland. People are energised and they are now taking ownership of their own future and quite rightly so. In conclusion, I would wish simply to say that our truly remarkable First Minister, Alex Salmond, has taken Scotland into a new era, an era of self-belief and of confidence, an era in which people have rightly understood that they are entitled to be ambitious for their country and they are entitled to have hope that their lives and their families' lives can indeed be better. From my part, Presiding Officer, and for the 71 per cent of the 16 and 17-year-olds who voted yes, the dreams of a better future for Scotland are very much still alive. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is the fifth referendum in which I have campaigned, starting with the 1975 EEC referendum. Unlike other referenda, it has been an opportunity to work across the grain of the established party political structures. In 1975, I campaigned on behalf of the SNP against the European Economic Community. I had my own private views, and when I went and voted, I voted against my party. I voted for the proposition. I am not sure that I have told many people that, but I think that this is a good time for us all to recognise that political parties have not control of their members or supporters or a monopoly of wisdom. I know that because I have been one of them who has crossed that line. In referenda, we build new teams to fight campaigns. I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the First Minister's own abilities regarding building teams. I first met the First Minister in the mid-1970s, when, as a student, he was the editor of the Free Student Press. I am not going to say anything that will pre-empt what he may write in his biography in due course. It is all in the public record. It is just reminding you. The Free Student Press was a great effort. It was a paper that went to every student in Scotland once a term, paid for by advertising and contributed to by many. I mysteriously found myself part of the team in a tiny way, providing some photographs, so he drew me into a team as he drew others. The 1979 referendum campaign was one where Alec essentially orchestrated a cross-party campaign in West Lothian, an SNP campaign in West Lothian, and because Tam Dey-El would need it, he ran the Labour campaign for yes in West Lothian. Now, how many men can run free campaigns and not break sweat? That is magnificent. Indeed, in Neil Asherston's book on the 1979 referendum, he picked out the West Lothian campaign as, by far, the most effective of any of them during that referendum. In 1987, he defeated the incumbent Tory in Banffam Buchan. At the time that he did so, we were looking at a constituency where employment was in the worst quintile in Scotland. Unemployment was a very significant problem. When Alec demitted office from representing the people of Banffam Buchan in 210, the constituency was in the best quintile for employment. Therefore, the First Minister was absolutely correct to focus on the needs for real powers that generate employment. Of course, how was it done in Banffam Buchan to move from the worst quintile to the best? Every time there was a threat to a job, the front of the queue fighting for jobs was the First Minister. That is what he has done throughout his political career, and I know that he will continue to do so. However, he is a man who takes on immense challenges. There was no greater challenge than the challenge of the Peterhead fishing boat, the Sapphire. The Sapphire sank within sight of the harbour mouth. The families who had lost their loved ones, because all on board were lost, sought to have that boat lifted on the recovery of their relations. It was an impossible task that no one else would have contemplated doing. Somehow, in a matter of days, we had millions of pounds worth of effort committed to the raising of the Sapphire. At quarter past eight, on 14 December 1997, the Sapphire was brought in by the TACcliff 7 barge into Peterhead harbour. That was an achievement of great moment. It was an achievement of building a team and drawing people in. Fundamentally, it was an achievement that focused on giving comfort to people, to individuals. Nothing to do with party politics, everything to do with doing the right thing by people. Our First Minister is very robust in how he deals with perceived weakness and failure, and rightly so. However, when people need support in the extremist, he is first in the queue to be delivering it. He built a team in 2007 that delivered the first-ever SNP Government, a team of individuals without including himself a single minute of ministerial time between the lot of them. He turned us all into a very effective team. In 2011, he earned the right to lead for the first time a majority government. In 2014, from a position a couple of months ago, around 30 per cent we ended up at 45 per cent, not alone but by building a team across political parties and people of no party. That is the effort that he put into it. We are looking today, of course, at a no vote that was victorious that might yet be seen to be a panic victory. Today's Australian newspaper in its leading article says that Scottish nationalists need not despair. They have lost a battle but not necessarily the war. One of the great Chinese philosophers said of the greatest leader that people will say that we did it ourselves. If there is a message from this referendum, the people will say that we did it ourselves. Alec merely helped. There will be much written and spoken about the referendum, some of it we will recognise and agree with, and other views will undoubtedly be hotly contested. However, as we interpret and reinterpret the result, I find myself agreeing with at least one thing that Jim Sill has said, and that was for 15 hours from 7 am to 10 pm when the people of Scotland were indeed sovereign. Their voices, their views and their votes were all that mattered. Whether it was the queues at the polling stations first thing in the morning or the steady stream of people throughout the day leading to a huge turnout, it was an incredible day. The people of Scotland said, quite decisively, no thanks to separation by a margin of 55 per cent to 45 per cent, and I thank all of them for voting. I am, however, astonished, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a mere 24 hours later, the sovereign will of the people of Scotland was simply brushed aside and Alex Salmond was declaring UDI. One cannot help but think that, despite his resignation, he is intent on causing maximum difficulty for his deputy, because he cannot, on the one hand, talk about respecting the result and then deny the democratic will of the people and set out plans to simply assert independence. As the heir apparent, Nicola Sturgeon needs to be very clear. Does she respect the will of the Scottish people? Does she respect the result? Will she get on with the business of government? Or does she deny that democratic will of the people and simply assert independence? I know that her voice has left her. When her voice returns, I look forward to her answer. Let me turn to the YouGov survey, because I want to debunk some of the myths around it. The first is that the age profile of those who voted somehow is instructive. It is instructive, because it is not true that there was a majority for no only amongst the 65+. In fact, there was a majority in every age group from 16 to over 65, with the exception of the 25 to 39 age range. In four out of five age groups, the majority voted no. There have been some, frankly, reprehensible things said about those over 65, which I hope the SNP will distance themselves from. The second myth is that women were increasingly voting yes. The gender gap showed that, by a margin of 16%, more women were voting no. The third myth is that the Labour vote was hemorrhaging to yes. The truth is that, although 27% of Labour voters did vote yes, 22% of SNP voters actually voted no. Let's have no more selective telling of the referendum story. The people of Scotland voted no. The settled will of the Scottish people is to remain in the United Kingdom. That was their democratic decision and we should respect it, not diminish it. That said, I think that it has been, without doubt, an exciting and energising time in Scottish politics. I am genuinely pleased at the engagement and levels of interest across our communities. Whether it has been during the organised debates that we have had with each other or doorstep conversations, I am struck by how much we agree on. Our vision for Scotland is a shared one. In terms of the outcomes that we seek to achieve, social justice, fairness and equality, there is much more that unites us than divides us. It is our job in this Parliament to work with Civic Scotland, indeed all sections of the country, to heal the divisions and what better way of doing so than by focusing on what we can achieve by working together. I know that there are many things that we agree on across this chamber. We have debated those issues often enough in the past few months. The fundamental difference is that I believe that this comes about through political determination and will not constitutional change. Some of our greatest achievements, such as votes for women, the creation of the NHS, legislating for the minimum wage, campaigning and political struggle, and economic and social policy advances are not arrived at by simply changing the border. The frame for my politics has always been social justice, tackling child poverty, providing the best possible start in life opportunities for families to prosper and succeed. Those are the very areas that I want us to work together on across the chamber. We will face a number of domestic policy challenges. Fuel poverty stands at 900,000 households, the highest level ever. As we approach winter, we need urgent and radical action if people are not to choose between heating and eating, and health, which is already the responsibility of this Parliament. We learnt from a leaked paper that the SNP's proposals were to slash £450 million from front-line services, including services at the Vale of Leven hospital in my area. In another leaked paper, 10 per cent savings to be made over the next two years from the newly formed health and social care partnerships in Greater Glasgow and Clyde alone. I was absolutely encouraged that Alex Neil, the cabinet secretary, said that none of this was true, and I look forward to supporting him in ensuring that those cuts do not happen. Let me close by reflecting that, on 18 September, the people of Scotland were in charge. They voted no. Scotland's settled will is to remain in the United Kingdom, and we need to respect that. However, it is clear that, of all the people that voted, whether yes or no, they share a desire for change. It is therefore our responsibility, in this place, to set our divisions aside and to unite together to deliver that change. Thank you very much. I now call on Mark McDonald to be followed by Animal Goldie, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When I arrived at my local polling station, Dice Church Hall, on Thursday morning, it was around about 7.45, and usually when I arrived there, it is usually empty, and usually there have only been a very small handful of people who voted on their way to work. I arrived to find a bustling polling station at 7.45 in the morning, and I was advised by the staff on the polling station that they had a queue out the gates, waiting to vote at the point at which the doors opened. As I arrived at the campaign rooms and spoke to my fellow campaigners, that was a story that was repeated at their polling stations as well, including polling stations in some of our most deprived communities, where normally the polling station staff have to find ways to keep themselves entertained during long fallow periods with nobody coming through the door. On this day, during this vote, they were very much stressing about the possibility of a serious rush around about tea time. One thing that we should do is pay tribute to the people who manned polling stations, who staffed polling stations and who assisted with the vote itself. Many people who arrived at those polling stations had never cast a democratic ballot before, required assistance, required support and required the patience and perseverance of those staff. We should pay tribute to them and to their work for ensuring that the vote was able to be carried out without any fuss, without any significant delays and without people finding that they were unable to get access to the polling stations at 10 o'clock. I think that they deserve to have tribute paid to their efforts. The point has been made about the narrowing of the gap between the poorest communities and the wealthy communities. My colleague, Kevin Stewart, mentioned the late Brian Adam. I think that one of the things that Brian would be most proud about is not only did Middlefield turn out to vote, but they are certainly looking at the ballot box sampling. They have also voted yes as well, which I am sure would have given him a wry smile at the same time. However, the other thing that struck me during the campaign was the people who campaigned. I have been involved in local politics in Aberdeen, not for as long as some of the people who are involved there as well, but for over a decade now. I know the familiar faces, the people who you can rely on to turn up an election campaign to knock on doors, to go out leafletting, to do the jobs that need to be done. There were a lot of faces in the campaign that I had never seen before. A lot of people who were not involved in politics, whether it was with the SNP or any other political party. I want to mention—again, Kevin Stewart mentioned—the Aberdeen branch of Women for Independence, or as they referred to themselves as people in the north-east wood, the Indie Quines. They were led by a lady called Gillian Martin, who is a constituent of the First Minister. She is from New Macar, who became inspired to get more actively involved following the passing of Margot MacDonald. She posted on her blog at the time, saying what would Margot do, and decided from that moment that she would get actively involved. Gillian Martin and her team were an absolute force of nature. They were holding information meetings across the north-east. They were manning a stall, or womanning a stall, in the city centre to pass out information to voters to talk and answer questions from voters as they came by. Above all else, they were getting people who had never been involved or engaged to become involved or engaged in the process. Another group that surprised me were people whom I knew myself. Some of the playground mums at Dice school, where my daughter is part of the nursery, were telling me about the work that they were doing within their friend groups, within the playground itself, within their families, to talk to people about independence, to talk about the opportunities that they thought they would bring, and who actually, towards the end of the campaign, came out and started door-knocking and getting involved in the campaign proper itself. If you had said to those people six months prior to the vote that they would be actively involved in a campaign, they would have probably not believed you. The same goes for the people who didn't get involved in campaigning but got involved in coming to debates, coming to public meetings. People whom I know from my school days, whom I saw in the audience at public meetings, whom, if he had said to us when we were at school not only that they would be in the audience but that I would actually be speaking at a public meeting, they would have probably not believed it. One other thing on that, because when the First Minister was out campaigning with us in Dice not long before the vote, he was handed a letter from a young girl in Dice, Molly, aged eight and three quarters. I'm sure that he remembers the letter. In that letter, she thanked him for fighting for her future. I would point out to the First Minister in the letter that she said that her ambition was to go to university and become an astronomer. Her mum advises me that her ambitions have now changed and she now wants to grow up to be Nicola Sturgeon. He can perhaps pass that on to the Deputy First Minister. One other group that I think deserves mention is Scotland's carers, and certainly a large number of Scotland's carers who took the opportunity of this campaign to get involved and to put down the marker for the kind of things that they wanted to see in the future for Scotland. A declaration was signed by well over 100 carers supporting a yes vote, but not just supporting a yes vote in and of itself, but looking for greater control of welfare in Scotland and greater control of the powers that influence and affect the lives of carers and those that they care for. Greater powers on welfare were hinted at during the speech that Johann Lamont gave. I think that what I would like to see and I think that what certainly carers would like to see, certainly the carers who have been getting in touch with me prior to today's debate, is more detail around what exactly are the welfare powers or the taxation powers that we are going to see in Scotland, because we have had the promise of more powers. We now have to see some flesh going on to the bone in relation to that. We now have to understand what those powers are and how we can then use those powers to transform lives for Scotland's carers, for Scotland's people in general, because the people of Scotland, Presiding Officer, are active, engaged and they are hungry for change, and we must ensure that that change is delivered for them. I now call them Animal Goldy to be followed by Christine Graham. All of us will have, as is already clear, different recollections of the referendum campaign and different reactions to the result. It is important that, in this Parliament of all places, we are responsible in what we say and careful in how we say it. On the campaign itself, it is true that the numbers of voters registered and the turnout of 85 per cent reflect a degree of electoral engagement, which is unprecedented. On an issue of this importance, that was reassuring and welcome. Of course, I accept that a single issue of voters will find it easier to respond. I hope that that level of interest is reflected in the more complex territory of multiple parties fighting elections on different manifestos. I am not going to dwell on the campaign like many. I have received numerous anecdotes of conduct that was inappropriate and unimpressive. I did hear directly from no voters who were scared to display window posters or wear lapel stickers. If they were justified in that apprehension, that is certainly not the political climate that I want to see in Scotland. Democracy is underpinned by freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. With respect for those who hold opinions with which you disagree, depart from that with self-indulgent displays of venom and contempt, democracy is deserved and our country diminished. I have to say that, from my own perspective, I very much enjoyed the campaign. It was a positive experience and my front-room windows and stickered car remained intact. What I do know at first hand is how the debate divided Scotland. As passions ran high, fishers ran deep in families, in communities, in the workplace and amongst friends. Let me turn to the result. Voters in Scotland decisively rejected independence and endorsed the partnership of the United Kingdom. That is a clear and democratic outcome of the referendum, the sovereign will of Scottish voters. This is not about triumph and victory, posited against ejection and defeat. This is about allowing Scotland to have her say on an issue of unparalleled importance, hearing what she said, accepting that verdict and moving on. The Edinburgh agreement was indeed framed in the knowledge that one side or the other would be deeply disappointed. That is why the agreement is indicated by the First Minister and signed by both him and the First Minister explicitly confirmed that both governments would respect the outcome. We now on both sides have to implement the spirit of that agreement. We need to do that because democratic will oblige us to do it because it is the right thing to do, but most importantly of all, because for the sake of Scotland, we must move forward into a new era. I do not want to diminish what I know is a deep sense of disappointment and dismay felt by those in the SNP and all the other parties and people involved in the yes campaign. There will be a sense of exhaustion, deflation and ejection. I am not unfamiliar with the electoral defeat. I have known the heat and anguish of searing electoral defeat, but we are all in politics for positive reasons, not negative ones. In our different parties, we espouse different approaches to the great public services of health, education, justice, to enterprise, to the economy, to the environment, to climate change. With the debate of the magnitude of the independence referendum, greater attention has been focused on constitutional issues than on any other issue. That was inevitable. There is only so much we can do at any one time. There is now a huge responsibility in the Scottish Government to pick up the devolution baton and start running with it. What is the state of the health service? Why is there such concern about A&E departments? I will be filling GP vacancies in rural areas, and if not, what are we doing about it? With an anticipated £1.5 billion cut to the health budget, what is the priority health plan? Are the marriage colleges producing what local economies and communities need? Are young people and those wanting to update skills to return to the workplace being failed by the disappearance of part-time college courses? What is the true state of the stability of the finances of our Scottish universities? How many eligible Scottish students are failing to be placed in a Scottish university? How do we translate the great legacy of the Commonwealth Games into quantifiable progress in addressing obesity and physical inactivity among young people? How do we measure that? The range of significant and unanswered questions in Devol Scotland is vast. Those are the questions to which the Scottish Government must now turn, under which the opposition parties must pursue and hurry to get answers. However much we may discuss the result of the referendum, however much we may ponder on the implications of that result, that result did do something else. It made crystal clear what the renewed obligation of this Parliament now is to Scotland. We should discharge that obligation and serve our country. I now call on Christine Grahame to be followed by Alex Rowley. I too want to pay tribute to the First Minister for his leadership for decades across the board and personally for his tolerance of my, how shall I put it, politically idiosyncratic moments in this chamber. I want to say to Jackie Baillie that constitutional change is not academic, because when you mentioned votes for women, that constitutional change was about power, and that is what this debate was all about, where will power over the major decisions lie? I also want to focus on something that Jackie Baillie touched on, the demographics of the yes and no vote, where we note, albeit with the caveat of the sample size, that those over 65 voted according to Lord Ashgraff's polls 73 per cent for no, as opposed to the 55 per cent overall figure and that 71 per cent of 16 and 70 year olds for yes. Please let me make some progress. Given that Scotland's population of the over 55s represents some 36 per cent and thankfully is growing, the demographic gap and political priorities will widen, not just in Scotland or indeed the UK but across Europe. I do not think that I am a typical pensioner, whatever that is, mainly because I am still working full blast, well past retirement age and have been committed to independence and social justice for decades, but I have a great deal in common with other grannies and grandads out there, and the last thing I want is the hostility between the generations because of the outcome of the vote. I would be the first to womb in the barricades and halt any move to granny or grandad wars, but I want to address why there is that differential. First, for me there was access to information. While others tweeted on Facebook, which I do not do, many pensioners were accessing the debate through the press and the terrestrial media. Now no one on the north side can possibly dispute the inequality of the debate there. With only one national paper, The Sunday Herald declaring for yes, others had headlines, screaming vote yes for higher prices and so on. Nicholas Wichill even had the audacity to tell us the Queen's private thoughts on the debate, BBC impartiality part, but the crux for me was the threat to the state pension either directly by scaring people into believing it would not be paid out or could not be paid from Scotland's own resource, and indeed even any private pension, a contractual matter, was not secure. Now if you are retired or it is imminent, that is a real whammy of a blow. Incidentally, I know of cases where pensioners were entering the polling station to no campaigners, still telling them that they would lose their pension, should they vote yes. So I fully understand why the scare story is stuck as they were intended to. Strangely, nearly a quarter of a million pensioners actually claim pension credit in Scotland because the UK state pension is so low. Worse than that, one third entitled to that benefit do not claim neatly sidestep by the north side. On top of that, some 50,000 Scottish pensioners are already worse off due to Westminster cuts of 90 million to the savings credit. So the battle for independence was so that Scotland could harness its resources for a fairer, more just society for all its people, not just the young and the middle age, but the old for the pensioners. For the time being, I will tell you that I am waiting for Westminster to deliver that social justice to Scotland's pensioners. The no campaign promised lower energy bills by some £170 per annum. Labour has said that it will freeze energy bills. Let's see how that all pans out. Let's see what happens to the winter fuel allowance of £200 currently not means tested. At the same time, those grannies and grandads should think of the grandchildren, because Ed Balls is committed to continuing the Tory austerity cuts. Freezing child benefit alone will cost the average family, your children's family, your grandchildren's family £400 a year worse off. That is the children's society that is saying—Scotland's pensioners, I simply asked them to watch this space. Promises made in the back of a fact packet, like five packets everywhere, are easily thrown away. Labour in Scotland has promised that nothing is in or out of consideration of our cuts if they are governed in this Parliament. Means testing—already a failure with a pension credit. Remember, one third not claiming, maybe extended to personal care, bus passes, even prescriptions on a Labour agenda. Add to that means testing or even ditching the winter fuel allowance, literally a lifeline to the many pensioners, and that pension will be under greater pressure making life even tougher for our older people. As for the pronouncements of the self-cocaine keeper of the promise, I prefer my late mother's dictum when I return from a night out full of jollity, it will be a different story in the morning. Indeed it is, and it has been. Promises, vows, I say this to my fellow pensioners, do not count on Westminster, instead count what you have in your purse, your wallet in the coming years, once you have paid those bills, and count up whether your grandchildren's prospects for a happy and fulfilling life in Scotland improves under Westminster rule. Labour, in particular, has a lot to answer for. It has saved David Cameron's political skin and aided or betted the Tories in the no campaign, scaring older people into believing they would be in the bread line when many of them are there already, so far from you mums of words. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Roderick Campbell. As I began my morning last Thursday morning and throughout the day continued to go around polling station after polling station, I was taken aback, I think, in terms of I have attended many, many election days in my lifetime, but I have never seen an election day where polling stations were so busy and continuously busy throughout the day. While we reached 10 o'clock and the polls were closing at night time, I was not sure whether that was a good thing or a bad thing in terms of how the vote would go. I was certainly absolutely sure in my mind that it was a triumph for democracy, and I think that that has got to be the starting point in terms of the discussion on the referendum. I do believe that there are issues and we need to learn from some of the issues. We should be condemning what happened in George Square. We certainly need to learn particularly from some of the social media and some of the vileness of that campaign, but we can learn from that. Overall, we need to be, I believe, positive. I do not just view it as two million people having voted no, and therefore they are somehow the winners. My view is that the 3.6 million people who took the time to come out are the winners, because 100 per cent of the people voted for change, and we will have change. We have a timetable set out in front of us, and that timetable will be met. However, in the campaign over the period, particularly the last number of months, I have certainly talked to thousands of people throughout the constituency and elsewhere. On the doorsteps, it was about change, but it was not just about constitutional change. It was about change for purpose and a purpose for a more fair, more just society. I think that if we are going to honour the fact that this was a triumph for democracy, then we need to look about how this Parliament uses the powers that it currently has and the powers that it will have coming down through the previous Scotland act and the powers that will be negotiated over the coming period of time, and how we use those powers to bring about social and economic change in Scotland that so many people came out and voted for. They are right to work. On the doorsteps, speaking to people, people believe that the best way forward to tackle social inequality in this country and poverty is to give every person the opportunity to be able to work and work with dignity and earn a decent wage. Therefore, we need to look at the policies that we currently have and the policies that we need to bring forward to give people the right to work, the right to health and social care. People are genuinely worried about the pressures. I have said before that no matter the colour of the Government in this particular Parliament, there are major challenges facing us in the NHS as we go forward, but we will not tackle those challenges by burying our head in the sand and then being in denial that those challenges and pressures are actually there. In Fife, and the health secretary is not here today, but I have written to the health secretary and I will be asking the health secretary for a meeting to start to look at some of the major crisis points and challenges that we have within the NHS in Fife. The right to education and the right to access for every child to achieve their full potential. There are far too many children in Scotland right now leaving our school system without the qualifications, without the skills to be able to get the jobs and get the work, and we have the ridiculous situation where, in my constituency, we have companies using recruitment agencies, recruiting all over Europe because they cannot get the skills locally, whereas we have young people with very little hope for the future. That has got to be addressed. The right of dignity and retirement. Every pensioner is not just about their pensions, it is about the communities, about the infrastructure, it is about the way that we support people in retirement to have an active life. The right to have a roof over your head, the number of homeless that we have in my constituency and right across many parts of Scotland, and we need a programme, a housing programme that will address the housing crisis that we have in Scotland. The right to localism. There have been far too many powers that have been centralised. I certainly have never campaigned and fought for a Scottish Parliament to bring powers to Westminster to then suck powers up for local government. We need stronger local government, and if we are to tackle social inequality, if we are to give people the best opportunities in life, then we need to recognise that we can do that through every level of government, and that means to empower local government. Finally, the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote. We should be united in this Parliament, we should be putting forward a motion, we should be campaigning and joining the political parties at a UK level. Just as Ed Milibant has done this afternoon to say, every 16 and 17-year-old should get the vote. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have listened with great interest to the First Minister's statement, and I particularly welcome his comments in relation to the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The observant among you will be aware that I put down a motion on this very point yesterday, and I am pleased to say that, as of 1.30 today, when I last looked, it had cross-party support of 26 MSPs, and I would encourage you all to give it consideration. Without it out, one of the truly memorable aspects of this campaign was the engagement of young people in the process. The interest was amazing. The 7,000 people who attended the Hydro in Glasgow for the referendum debate will no doubt recall it for a long time to come. Amongst the throngs of people at the polling stations last week, the sight of so many young people, some in school uniforms, as I witnessed at Wyrmit in my constituency, was something I won't forget in a hurry. I really believe that we need to build on that enthusiasm. Clearly we have shown the rest of the UK the way, and I am grateful for the comments that Alex Rowley has just made on the issue of the franchise. Moving on to other matters, as others have said, the unionist parties have committed themselves to more powers. Indeed, before the infamous vow was published in the daily record, the mantra in referendum literature was more powers guaranteed. Of course, as we know, Gordon Brown said on 8 September at the Lonehead Miner's Club that labour since Keir Hardy has been the party of home rule. He said, and I quote, we would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85% of the population is from one nation. He was reported as saying that he was seeking nothing else but agreement on a modern form of Scottish home rule. Then we had the infamous vow, where the language slightly changed. According to the three UK party leaders, it became extensive new powers. Although, of course, there was no reference to welfare, the continuation of the Barnett formula was expressly mentioned. Then at Dalgatti Bay on Saturday, Gordon Brown talked not about modern forms of home rule. He said instead, quote, the promises that were made last week about change, about the delivery of further devolution must be, and I believe, and will ensure will be delivered. So, at the very least, we have a difference in description. And despite its frequent use in the press, and with due respect to the First Minister today, Devo Max does not seem to have been used much by the political leadership. The public may indeed have a difficulty in understanding fully what it means. The Liberal Democrats, of course, and the Liberals before them, are, of course, historic home rulers. But the Campbell commission said nothing about welfare, and paragraph 26 called for the Barnett formula to be scrapped. So it was a wee bit surprising, therefore, that Nick Clegg was quite succinct to sign the re-affirmation of Barnett in the vow. But events move on, and I think we must accept that. And what of the line in the Sand Party, the party that has moved so far in a comparatively short period of time, now at a Westminster level adopting the slogan, English votes for English laws? Can I remind members of that famous speech of another Scottish former Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas Hume, at Edinburgh University in February 1979, at the time of the first referendum, when he urged a no vote? He outlined then five defects of the then Scotland Act, which required remedy. One of those was the ability of Scottish MPs to vote on English bills, while English MPs could not vote on comparable legislation for Scotland. So it's not just Tam Diel's signliness, so here we are. 35 years later, same issue, surely sufficient time for the Union's establishment to come up with answers to echo criticism of the SNP we heard often in the referendum campaign. Of course, there are answers. Independence would have been one, but that is not to be. But a move to further fiscal freedom would be another, with Scotland simply paying a proportion to the UK treasury of the joint services of the UK state. Indeed, one of the rising stars of the Conservative backbenches at Westminster, Dominic Rab, said in the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday, whilst arguing for the Barnett formula to be scrapped, that there is a case for diva max and indicated that there are international models to consider, such as the Basse country, where the Basse government levies income, corporation and capital taxes and pays Madrid for common national services. The Campbell commission, of course, argued for inheritance and capital gain snacks to come to this Parliament. Clearly, it seems to me that if there is a genuine desire to give effective parts to this Parliament, there is plenty of scope to go beyond the politics of the lowest common denominator. Strathglide, Campbell and Labour's devolution commission cannot be the last word. If we really want to respond to the 45, if we want to respond to the widespread disenchantment demonstrated in Scotland's largest city in elsewhere, if we want to respond to the concerns of the disabled, the army of carers and the despair of the long-term unemployed and if we really want to respond to the change agenda, then fresh thinking is required on all sides. The alternative, more Westminster stitch-ups, more jockeying for party advantage, more fudge and mud, will simply bring the question of where power lies in Scotland back sooner rather than later. Ultimately, I believe that it will be the people who take and force the pace, not politicians in party huddles, whether that be at checkers or elsewhere. What this referendum has demonstrated above all else is that the old order of politics is on its deathbed. The Westminster model of privilege and power preserved is not fit for purpose. People in Scotland and indeed increasingly in the rest of the UK as a whole recognise this. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, whilst this has been an energising campaign, my great regret is that the power we had in Scotland to take decisions for ourselves has been lost, at least for the time being. However, that does not mean that the people and certainly not that this Parliament should remain quiet. Presiding Officer, I noted Alex Rowley's saying change we will have and we have had references to the term vow made in many speeches. Well, if the prize of voting no was Debo Max, then the UK parliamentary motion suggests that it is not the prize that we are now being offered, and many people will know that the Conservative Party MPs are pushing for the Barnett formula to be scrapped. The confusion among the no campers to their position was highlighted again there by Rod Campbell, who talked about the Campbell commission and perhaps confused as the default position for the Lib Dems on matters fiscal. I wonder, Presiding Officer, what history will make of the 11th hour offers that have been made. I wonder what history will make of the treasury briefing. More importantly, as the First Minister touched on, I wonder what the legal authorities will make of the treasury briefing, because I think that we need to follow that with great interest. Reference was made by Johann Lamont to Labour's devolution report on the soul and the position of the Scottish Parliament, and that is to be welcomed. She will mention concerns in the workplace, and I wonder whether those are concerns that are necessarily shared by partners in the no campaign, because it was, of course, a combined position this was. Yes, indeed. I should probably have pointed out that it is my intention to take all the information that I have on that treasury briefing and put it in the hands of the correct legal authorities, so that the investigation can proceed, the investigation that the cabinet secretary does not want to make, but it can proceed through the appropriate legal authorities and then we will see what happens. I thank the First Minister for that intervention, and I am certainly reassured by that. We will pay great attention to how that progresses. That was not about electing a revising UK Labour Government. Indeed, I do not think that that is likely what we are going to see anyway, if there is any commitment to reviewing, for instance, the health and safety in the workplace, the position regarding employment tribunals, the fees, the arrangements there, which reward poor employers. Again, the Labour leader talked about different ways to get the answer that we both want, not back to business as usual, but, of course, it is business as usual, because I do not want a private NHS, although the Labour Party south of the border has been complaining about that. We have heard very little about that north of the border. I certainly do not want a house of lords. That is a way of rewarding the donors to the unionist parties, and I do not think that it is any place in our liberal democracy. I certainly will. Neil Findlay. I am hearing a lot from Mr Finlay off the critique of the no-side. Where was the critique from the left of the yes camp of some of the stuff, the regressive stuff that was in the white paper and the Government's policy? Mr Finlay was silent. Mr Finlay knows that I have spoken out in corporation tax, for instance, if that is what he is alluding to. What we also know is that more of the same is more illegal wars, and we have got trigger happy folk, including the peace envoy, Mr Blair, mouthing off. We know that business, as usual, will be tried in £1.43 billion spent on the early design, £130 billion, perhaps the cost of replacement. Osterity, which I raised with Mr Finlay earlier on, 60 per cent of those cuts still come. The Labour Party signed up to 97 per cent of those cuts, but do not worry that they will make up more by their attack on the under-25s. The other thing that I do not go along with, if we both want, is that I do not want the same language. I do not want the language of British jobs for British workers, for instance. I am very keen that we find common ground. I think that that is very important, but I am afraid that the UK unionist parties still view the corporations ahead of the citizens, and that is no place in my outlook on politics. Politics is about priorities, and priorities have to be funded. The question is what will having a no-vote-delivered improve? Will it improve the challenges for zero-hours contracts that seem to concern Mr Finlay? Will it improve the situation of workplace capability assessments? The UK will cut the Scottish Government's funding, and that will have implications for priorities decided in this chamber. I share Jackie Baillie's concerns about the 900,000 people affected by fuel poverty. She will be aware of the survey that was done in the highlands and islands that showed that the vast majority of people—pensioners living in the highlands islands—live in severe fuel poverty, the highest percentage being in Orkney, most of whom are ironically in sight of the flare at the flotta oil terminal. Energy, of course, is a reserved matter, but where I would take issue with her was the issue of the choice between heating and lighting. That is a choice that is already being made, and that is already being made and reflected in decisions made by food banks who are giving cold food out because people do not have the wherewithal to heat. I have a few points to make. I have taken a couple of things. I respect the result. I think that it is very important that we respect the result. I mostly respect the engagement, and the engagement that has taken place in many areas where there was not engagement historically. In my own town of Inverness, the radical independence campaign in Merkynsh, which showed that when people were encouraged that their views mattered, when they were given the facts that they did turn out—I am sure that all sides would respect that. Most of all, most of all, I respect aspirations. Those were the aspirations held by many people to make things better. Of course, we will work with everyone to deliver improvements. The Fiscal Commission says, of course, that we need the economic and taxation levers to do that. It does not mean that we should not keep fighting for social and environmental justice. I think that democracy is a great thing, and I think that we need to reinforce that message to the people who did engage but who might feel that because they did not get the result that they wanted, that it was a lost cause. Democracy is never a lost cause, and I think that we commend everyone for their participation in this historic event. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is not the same Scotland that it was when we all debated and stood up and went back to our constituencies to fight the campaign a few weeks ago. The SNP is not the same party, quite literally, because of the influx of new members that have been energised and who now, I believe, will make up a majority of the party's membership. I am not the man I was. I am 89 per cent of the man I was, thanks to the canvassing exercise programme that I see from around the chamber a few of us went through as well. I have had new experiences, whether that was having to divide up, say, activists here or journalists here for the last few days of the campaign as the world's media descended on central Edinburgh or when there was a car running around central Edinburgh in the last few hours of referendum day with Irvine, Welsh and a megaphone in the back trying to stir up some last-minute support and last-minute turnout. I have also had new friendships and renewed friendships, often across political boundaries, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that we have not got to a new constitutional arrangement. I came here not with a pre-prepared speech but with an intention to listen to what people were saying. Last night, I went to the radical independence campaigns meeting in Edinburgh to take the temperature and hear what they were thinking. Here, I wanted to look at the brave new world that has such people in it. I have heard a few things. I have heard, I have to say, the phrase settled will twice. I think that that is quite a dangerous phrase because that phrase was associated with the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1997, a vote that was carried by 50 per cent of the people of Scotland. Having taken to various media to try to calm my own side and make them realise that we lost, let me also say that that level of triumphalism can be dangerous. We must recognise that 2 million people voted no, 1.6 voted yes, 0.7 did not vote at all. There are three minorities in this country but we must not let that crystallise because we are one Scotland and should continue to be so. John Lamont said that we should let Holyrood be a lively energising place, and yes, we should. This has been a lively energising debate that took place outside Holyrood, but if it is to come here, if it is to be lively energising here, then we must allow that debate to flourish. Those walls do not just hold people out, they can constrain debate, they can hold it in, and we should be brave enough to continue to debate and consider and imagine a Scotland beyond the walls of this chamber. Ruth Davidson, in her contribution, said that the Scottish Government has spent seven years telling people what they couldn't do and that we should instead focus on what we could. This Government has shown over two terms what this Parliament can do and has done so in spades. Free education, unfair taxes, frozen others made progressive, the right to buy, scrapped, prescription charges gone, renewable energy put first and to the utmost of our power, the NHS protected. If Ruth Davidson alleges that this Parliament has done nothing, perhaps more accurate is to say it has done nothing or almost nothing that she agrees with, that is very different. I will make no apology for continuing to argue for more while working with what we have. An apology instead should come from anyone who says that this is all, this is what is yours, stay in your box. Holyrood can, Holyrood has and Holyrood will. Willie Rennie has set out a series of powers. That was a very interesting contribution and I would say yes to any of them, to make Holyrood more able. However, he does not need to look at the Campbell commission, he could look at the steel commission that preceded it and which found no in Calman or a succession of home rule pamphlets back to Gladstone and beyond. There is an imperative here in the people of Scotland who voted on a prospectus that said more powers were coming, who voted. 25 per cent of no voters said that they thought the most important reason for their no vote was that it would still mean extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. 34 per cent of those who decided in the last month at a time when no was hemorrhaging support at a record rate, losing undecideds 2 to 1 and no is going to yeses three times faster than yeses going to noes. It is fair to say that winning a vote but losing an argument is no victory and losing a vote but winning the argument is no defeat. Whatever those powers are, I would like to hear the other parties talking not just about powers in and of themselves but what they want to do with them. I want them to pass the test that they have insisted we meet because the problem for Westminster and it is going to be a problem delivering these powers, the problem beyond that is when the people of Scotland recognise how little has been offered, that that great flourishing, lively, energising debates, aspirations to change Scotland, to deliver the kind of social justice that Neil Findlay speaks of so highly, will not be realised by what was on the table. It was called Divo Maxx but that term does not describe it well. What we have to have emerging is something that is more like that. Ultimately I think that the independence question is going to come back but we need that to satisfy the aspirations of the people of Scotland that have been expressed because sovereign power lies in their hands while they have lent it to Westminster. Ultimately that is what the people of Scotland wanted and they will continue to want and must be given. The First Minister many times in this chamber has stated that we should accept the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Last week we did see the sovereign will of the Scottish people make their mark on the ballot papers. Over two million Scottish people made their way to the polling stations to state that they want to remain part of the UK. In my own region, in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway, more than two to one were against separation from Britain. There are, in fact, seven councils in my region—East Lothian, Midlothian, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, South Lanarkshire, South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire—and not one of those council areas supported plans to break away. After an election or referendum, the first question to ask is what has the electorate told us? The answer on this occasion has been definitive. The people of Scotland want greater self-governance. They want more powers and they want more powers and they shall get those more powers. We already have the most recent Scotland Act delivering the greatest transfer of fiscal powers to Scotland since the act of union. From 2016 this chamber will have more powers over income tax and borrowing, as well as other tax powers. However, the Scottish people clearly want more home rule. It is quite right, as Marco said. The Scottish Lib Dems have been sharing this desire for some time and have campaigned on that very matter. What was unhelpful was that mere hours after the outcome—and we have heard a little bit of this this afternoon—it became clear that, as Scotland was still digesting the results, voices were already decrying the reneging on the promise of more powers. There has been no reneging on powers and simply wishing it will not make it so that there is a clear timetable that remains on track. A motion has been published, confirming that a command paper will be laid before the UK Parliament by the end of October, which will then lead to a wide consultation of the Scottish people, not just this Parliament, but the Scottish people, and we will see draft clauses for a new Scotland bill in January next year. I thank the member for taking intervention. I wonder if the member is in a position to give any reassurance regarding Tory backbenches—colleagues on the Tory backbenches—regarding the Barnett formula. I think that all leaders have been very clear that they want to keep the Barnett formula in place. That has been very clear. This has been a divisive campaign. It has pitted some neighbours, friends and often families against each other. There has been pure behaviour on both sides of the debate, and I think that it is incumbent upon all of us in this chamber to lead by example and heal any wounds that may exist. The First Minister had it right on Friday when he appeared before a one Scotland banner, and I thought that the First Minister gave an extremely dignified speech on Friday morning during what I understand would have been a moment of great personal disappointment for him. He struck the necessary tone going forward, and I commend him for that. However, I was disappointed when, at the same time as a service of reconciliation at St Giles's Cathedral attended by representatives from all sides, the First Minister, and I quote stated, I think that Scots of my generation and above should really be looking at themselves in the mirror and wonder if we by majority, as a result of her decision, have actually impeded progress for the next generation, which is something that no generation should do. I want to state in the fullest of terms that no one in Scotland, regardless of whether they voted yes or no, has to look themselves in the mirror today and justify themselves on how they voted last Thursday. I think that to use such language is deeply unhelpful and reinforces that divide that exists between some yes and no voters. Where do we go from here? We get back to the bread and butter of politics and the issues that really matter to the Scottish people. It is time that the Scottish Government channels all its energy into governing. The people have spoken, and the sovereign will of the Scottish people demonstrates that they do not want independence, but do want the Scottish Government to work within the framework of a United Kingdom with greater powers here in Scotland. My hope is that now the Scottish Government will get on with governing and refrain from blaming Westminster for all of Scotland's ills, and that it should be able to govern so much more effectively if Scotland was independent. It can begin this process by taking a long, hard look at the health portfolio. Channel 4's fact sheet said last week that the idea that the Scottish Government has bravely struggled to protect the NHS budget under intolerable pressures from Westminster is contradicted by independent research. The reality is that the Scottish Government has for some years chosen to increase health spending by less than it has gone up south of the border. That blog post was in response to the publication of documents by a whistleblower, which revealed that there is about to be a £450 million funding shortfall for the NHS in Scotland over the next two financial years. That will clearly have significant ramifications for health authorities on their ability to deliver care to patients. The absence of typical questions from today's business prevented me from seeking answers from the Scottish Government on this worrying revelation. It was a misleading tactic during the campaign period to state that the only way to protect the NHS was through independence. It did not work. All of us want an NHS free at the point of need, and we must all work together to keep providing that. It is clear that people want more powers for the Scottish Parliament, and all the parties across Holyrood and Westminster must now work hand in hand to deliver that. Ultimately, what everyone wants is a better and fairer Scotland, and I hope that we can all work together in meeting those aspirations. Thank you very much. I now call Ken Macintosh to be followed by Christina McKelvie. In our last debate before breaking up for the referendum, we all spoke of our hopes for Scotland's future. Along with so many others, I expressed what I believe is our shared wish across this Parliament to build a socially just Scotland. Here we are, five days after the biggest outpouring of democratic political expression our country has ever seen, and it is now up to us. It is up to the 129 people in this chamber to carry ourselves in the manner that people of Scotland want to see and will respond to. It is up to us not to relive the constitutional arguments of the past three years, but to come together to use the powers of this Parliament to build that fairer Scotland. It is up to us to give Scots hope—hope that the Scottish Parliament, working within the UK, can deliver that better future. I want to make a few observations about the campaign and the result this afternoon, but most of all I want to say that I stand ready, and I believe that colleagues from every party stand ready to work with the Scottish Government, to work with the SNP, with the Greens and with every other yes or no supporter in the country to create that better Scotland, not to focus on further constitutional change. That issue has finally been settled once and for all, but to talk about protecting the NHS that we also clearly care about, to talk about improving our schools and colleges, to create a Scotland of opportunity and learning, to talk about decent work and how we give people jobs that reward rather than exploit them. In many ways, I am still the naive and hopeful optimist I was when devolution spurred me to stand for election in 1999. The non-politician, inspired to get involved, to get my hands dirty and to help to create the fairer society, I had always thought possible. I recognise much of that same spirit amongst yes campaigners and supporters over the last few months and weeks, and that alone gives me hope that we can come together in common cause once more. But 15 years in the Scottish Parliament has also taught me to recognise that there will be difficult hurdles and attitudes that we need to overcome. On the no side, the overwhelming emotion has not been one of joy or celebration or even victory, just relief. The last few weeks in particular, in the run-up to the vote were times of anxiety and I lost count of the friends and the neighbours who told me how worried they were that we would wake up on 19 September with our country splitting two. The word scaremongering was flogged to death in the campaign, but the point I am making is that people were genuinely scared. Although many of us are now ready to reach out, I know that there are many two who are still angry or resentful at the experience that they have been put through and will therefore be wary of working with the other side. I would simply ask those colleagues to take a few trusting steps once more. On the yes side, there can be few politicians, let alone fellow Scots, who have not experienced huge disappointment at some point in their lives and who will not have some degree or empathy for the feelings and emotions running strong. The temptation must be to lash out in anger to blame old people, the BBC, voting irregularities and, of course, to blame those closest to you—labor. I would simply ask those still wrestling with what is in the end a decisive result, not to dwell in bitterness and resentment, but to take comfort from the democratic engagement that we have all shared and the hope that that should bring to all involved in elected politics. What perhaps I did not fully appreciate until now is that there are also those on the yes side who did not expect to win and for whom this vote surpasses all expectations. Rather than coping with the bitterness of disappointment, there are clearly many who have been energised that their dream is one step closer. I am not asking those or anyone else in Scotland who still believe in independence to set aside their political beliefs. I am simply asking that we all respect the result of this referendum. Already, the immediate post-referendum debate seems to have remained focused on constitutional powers and what new powers will be devolved and when. However, what really matters to me is how we help families who are squeezed by austerity and recession, how we protect our elderly when social care has been cut, how we ensure that colleges and not just universities provide educational opportunity to those who need it. One of the most encouraging aspects of the whole campaign is that it has been fought using the language of progressivism, the language of egalitarian, altruistic, compassionate Scotland, labour language. Let us put aside the politics of grievance, let us put aside our political tribalism, hard though that may be, and work together to deliver the affordable, accessible childcare that is entirely our choice here in the Scottish Parliament, building the homes that people need. If we want to see an end to food banks using our powers to help the most vulnerable rather than simply railing against our political opponents. I want to conclude by joining others in the chamber today and beyond in recognising the achievements of the First Minister. He has taken what must have been the painful and difficult decision to step down, but I hope he will forgive me if I ask him for one more sacrifice. That is to leave us not on a note of constitutional disagreement but with a demonstration of political unity to accept the olive branch, the hand of friendship that is being extended, to set us on a healing path, to accept the verdict and the wishes of the people of Scotland. Our First Minister has helped us all to grow in this Parliament in confidence and self-belief and in democracy. At the start of the referendum campaign, support for independence stood at around 25 per cent and we had a party membership of around 15,000. Now we have surpassed the 50,000 member mark and we are sitting on 49 per cent plus of voting intentions for the 2016 election. That is a positive growth and the flood of new members is a clear statement of continuing the energy, enthusiasm, integrity and the truth of our movement. Yes, First Minister, you have much to be proud of. You have been central in galvanising grass root support and in building trust in our future as a nation. People who have never voted in their lives queued up to register and they got engaged in politics in spite of the no campaigns determination to frighten them into silence with and passivity. Sometimes you have been accused of being a bit too serious but I can think of many magical moments when your humour shone through. About humour, First Minister, but this is really not funny at all. In the week of the Labour conference, we have yet seen Mr Miliband's commitment to promises made melting like snow off a dike. We shouldn't be surprised the panic that brought about the three in a bed no vow to deliver more powers was panic indeed. According to a poll, one in four voted no on the strength of those vows and I believe that a vow is a vow and I vow today to support everyone who voted for more powers to realise that vow. Elderly people were told by no canvassers that they'd lose their pensions, their taxes would shoot up. Now, now, now they face a higher pension age, continued austerity and no, yes, no, heating allowance. That's Labour's vow today at their party conference. Alongside the lies were well some deadly promises as well. If we look at what Labour is saying today, Rachel Reeves, to date, 12.40pm on LBC, said that Rachel Reeves, for people who don't know, is a shadow working pension secretary. Labour's key driver in pension policy did not even know what the basic rate of the pension was. Three times, she was asked, well Rachel, it's £113.10. Is that part of the vow to the pensioners of Scotland? Mr McIntosh, that's Labour language. One of the worst of these revisions from Labour of berns not bombs, we now have the promise of bombs not berns. In Western Banshire, where Fazlain is cited, the people voted for independence, the nuclear convoys that pass through all of our towns, including Hamilton in February, seven times more powerful than Hiroshima, the obscene announcement by Ed Balls that he will cap child benefit at 1 per cent so as to provide enough money for the replacement of Trident. Replacement of Trident let's have more children in poverty but let's have big bombs, that's Labour language. So Labour, one supposed to weapons of mass destruction has tumbled gleefully into bed with Messers Cameron and Clegg to make sure that our largest population centres continue to be threatened by nooks. It doesn't want, and while they all work out how they can still get bigger bombs, they're more lethal and more destructive. The reality, one that Labour might have preferred not to mention, tells you a great deal about how Westminster political leaders will behave towards us in Scotland as we see them move into general election mode. Even if some of you are prepared to grant some benefit of doubt to folk like William Hague, personally based on experience, I am not, you need only look at the current crisis in London. Reneging on promises is never a pretty sight. Look what Reneging on university tuition fees has done to Nick Clegg, but Reneging on vows made jointly is a bit like turning up to church to get married and telling your new spouse it was all a terrible mistake. The people of Scotland should not be conned. The promises will not be delivered because the House of Commons will stop them and we have no power there. Even the limited representation we have made up of Labour politicians who openly back austerity suggests that we might be able to increase the 20 per cent of our tax revenues but not decrease them. They would rather promote nuclear weapons in our own backyard than look after the children of Scotland and the rest of the UK. However, we know that independence is now supported by 45 per cent of our population and that includes Glasgow, the Labour heartland. We know that in my own constituency the vote also runs high and why is that because the people have wakened up to the reality. What has Labour ever delivered for us? Look into the future. A future is still filled with hope and aspiration. People have embraced hope over fear. Groups like Women for India, Carers for India and the Commonwealth National Collector are not going away. They are not going back into their box and they will not go quietly into the night. Joanne Lamont in her contribution talked about going to vote with her 17-year-old son. She will not be surprised that I did likewise with my 16-year-old son. On Saturday I asked him, where do we want to go now? Where do you think I should go now, and he said the wise words of a young man, and I quote mum, get votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, there is no room in our country for racism, fascism or any other extremist view. This is a country that cares for all of its people, no or yes, to my son and every son and daughter of Scotland I give my vow to fight with every fibre of my being, to bring about the kind of Scotland that my son and Joanne Lamont's son wants. Thank you. People who live through great historic times are seldom aware of the significance of the events that they are experiencing. Because of all of us who have been so close to the referendum campaign and all that it entailed, few of us have had the opportunity to step back and consider how it might be viewed by future generations. All the twists and turns of the long campaign over the past two years, all the events that led up to the vote and the vote itself will be poured over by historians in the future. This has been a truly important period in our country's history, and it will probably be many years before any of us appreciates just how significant it has been. Our response to those events will also be treated as historic. How this generation of politicians, as the elected representatives of the people reacted to what has happened, will shape the future of our nation. What we say in this chamber today, and what has been said elsewhere in the past days and will be said in coming days, will be part of Scotland's historical record. I have often been remarked in politics that we should be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. As a Scottish Conservative, I have, over the past two decades, had to develop a good line in being gracious. Today, and accustomed as I am, I will try my best to be magnanimous, and if I fall short, I can only plead my lack of experience. We have heard from some of those on the losing side of this referendum many gracious words, and I hope that we have also heard from the victors a tone not of triumphalism, but of trying to bring the country together, recognising that it has been divided. In that vein, I would like to pay tribute to the First Minister. He has been an extraordinary political figure whose place in the history books is assured. As an occasional challenger of orthodoxies myself, I salute his mastery in this field. Given some of the comments that he has made since Friday morning's result, I welcome the more constructive tone that we heard in the chamber today. As to the referendum result itself, this was a substantial victory for those of us who believe in the maintenance of the United Kingdom, and we should not shy away from recognising that. I let there be no doubt that this was a result with great credibility. The turnout alone, that remarkable turnout, established that beyond doubt. This was the first time in 307 years that the people of Scotland had been asked the question whether they want the United Kingdom, this remarkable family of nations, to continue in existence, and they voted by a substantial margin that they wished that to be the case. As someone who is a committed unionist, I could not hide my pleasure at that outcome on Friday morning and nor am I any less enthusiastic about it today. A lot has been said and written about the great debate that has taken place in Scotland over the past two years. In my experience, that debate was in the main a decent, intelligent and a civilised one. I myself took part in maybe 30 debates, many of them with SNP colleagues here in the chamber and on the whole those were conducted in a civilised fashion. There was some nastiness at the edge of the debate, but I do not think that it does as much credit to dwell on that at the present time. However, we should not forget that for many people in Scotland, hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, held no interest whatsoever. They had made up their minds at an early stage that the prospect of Scottish independence had no attraction for them. They did not want to hear the arguments or engage in discussion. They just wanted the whole thing over with as quickly as possible. To those people, even the debate was a threat to their identity. For them, a significant proportion of our fellow citizens, the result on Friday morning was this, as if a great weight had been lifted from their shoulders. They have no wish to see the debate continue now, the matter has been settled, and the matter has been settled. Let there be no doubt about that. In the very last speech in the Scottish Parliament made before the referendum, Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister and who knows maybe our next First Minister, described the referendum as our once in a lifetime opportunity. Other people in the SNP have talked about it as being once in a generation. Let there be no talk about a rerun of the referendum for the foreseeable future. That would be an affront to the democratic outcome, and they clearly express the view of the majority of the Scottish people. The case has often been made that those voting no were not voting for no change, and I entirely agree with that. Further devolution will be delivered, and it will be delivered quickly. There is a challenge here, too, for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have never made any secret of the fact that I believe that we should move towards a federal or at least a quasi-federal system of government across the UK. I believe that it is highly likely that this will now happen, but it should not be a precondition of further devolution being delivered to this place, and indeed the Prime Minister has made it clear that it will not be. Finally, Presiding Officer, as others have said, we need to move on from just talking about the constitution. That has been a lively, at times impressive and at times wearying debate. Scotland has reached a conclusion and decided its future. Now it is time to pay attention to other issues. How do we tackle the poverty that affects too many Scottish communities? How do we deliver excellent public services at a time when our public finances are under pressure? How do we create the best educational opportunities for our young people regardless of their parental background? Those are the issues that we in this Parliament now need to turn to address. If we continue to obsess only about the constitution, if we neglect these other vital matters, then I fear that the verdict of history will be that this generation of politicians have failed, and for that the people will not easily forgive us. I thank the First Minister for his statement and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution from Alex Salmond over all these years. Although I am quite slightly taken aback by his comments coming as though Alex Salmond was in the past, I simply do not accept that. I think he may be demitting office, but I do not doubt that he still has a huge role to play in Scottish politics. Nor do I think that somehow the result on Thursday Friday morning is somehow done and dusted, and the settled will of the Scottish people. That may be a majority of people on that occasion—that big occasion—and it was fantastic, but life goes on. Things do change, of course. Will everybody who voted yes be content with whatever the vow turns out to be, I doubt it. There will be people who are always committed to Scotland governing herself. I will certainly be one of them, and I know that there are hundreds of thousands of others, and we may have another referendum. I do not know. It might be in my lifetime. It might not, but the idea that we can change 1.6 million minds overnight somehow to drop their ambition and their enthusiasm and their excitement about a future. I think that that is what I am trying to say. We can accept the result, but it will not stop our ambition for something else. One of the things that I think was really staggering was people discovering Scotland for the first time. People who, I think, have not had that opportunity before, folk who had never been north of Shettleston, appearing in Caithness, appearing in Shetland, appearing in the Western Isles and east, west, north and south. Actually, for the first time—and that leaves a big question for me—as to where we go as a country, the first thing that we have to do is really encourage people to get to know what this country is because, without really knowing and understanding Scotland, how can we see what is best for our country? I think that that is the exciting thing that has happened as people have come to realise that maybe not enough of us and maybe for some of us too late on this occasion, but when we recognise that people have actually found a case, found their place, and more than discover Scotland, discover politics and then discover themselves, and what we have done through this campaign is actually excite people to the possibilities of what their involvement would be in the governance of Scotland. There has been a great deal of talk of the Scottish Parliament having control of its health service. Health service was a hot topic. There were many people within the health service who clearly agreed that there were issues around the budget and so on and where we take that forward. I think that the difference came back to one of being in control because the health service is not a budget that operates somehow in this vacuum. If we do not have control of welfare, if we do not have control of employment opportunities, two of the biggest pressures on the health service are people who are out of work because work is good for health. We know that and the other is people who are not in a position, who feel completely powerless over their welfare, their own welfare bill, and what that means is that it is making people sick. Those are two levers that we would immediately need to have back in order to build and recognise the pressure on the health service. The answer to the West Lothian question for me will always be independence. Of course, there is no sense to MPs from Scotland going to Westminster to vote on the English education service or the English health service. Why would they do that? However, there is no other way around that. I think that Westminster now will turn itself inside out and in knots trying to see how that might happen, but there is only one answer. The one answer to all of that, to our health, to our wellbeing, to the discovery of our country, to really allowing people to take part in all of that. It does not mean that they will not care about people in Liverpool. I am so sick of an argument that talks about universal socialism as though we cannot. The answer is that we should not ever govern Scotland. It is a nonsense. We can share unions work across the world. As a country, we have done that ourselves, and I care as much for somebody in Liverpool as I do in Bonn or Gaza or anywhere else where there is real concern for a fellow human being. However, the answer for us in order to do best by our country will always be that we absolutely govern it. My dedication to an independent Scotland will not be diminished by the outcome last Friday morning. I suggest that it is only the start of a long road or a short road, not the end of one. Thank you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and for your own words and opening time for reflection this afternoon. I begin, perhaps unusually, but not in precedence, and I hope not for the last time by agreeing with Annabelle Ewing. It is a privilege for all of us to take part in this debate today, just as it has been a privilege to be part of the historic discussions that we have had in the chamber and, indeed, outside of the chamber over the past two or so, or perhaps three years. The votes now, all of them, are counted and the result is known. The people have had their say. Before this afternoon's debate began, one might have asked what was there for politicians to add when the people have spoken so decisively. Unsurprisingly, we have managed to fill the time, but beyond our anecdotes from the campaign trailer, our next task will be to meet the hopes of those that we represent. When we last met members on this side, we were clear that whatever the result, we would, of course, accept it. There was much talk about self-determination, and it was pointed out then that self-determination would be the result whatever the outcome of last week's vote. The people of Scotland have, by a margin of 10 points, exercised their right to self-determination in favour of union with the rest of Britain and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that those in this country and, most obviously, in this chamber who are grieving as a result of their side losing this argument with the people of Scotland. Indeed, in the public debates that I took part in over the past few weeks, I am certain. I thank the member for taking intervention and absolutely agree with him regarding respect in the will of the people. Will he respect the will of the people of Glasgow, who overwhelmingly voted yes? Of course. The question that was asked was a question of national self-determination is what I would say to Sandra White, and I believe that it was national self-determination that Sandra White has campaigned for, so I hope that we will respect that. In the public debates that I took part in over the past few weeks, I said at the vote that, if it had been for breaking up the United Kingdom, I would accept it, but I would also deeply regret it. I am happy that the positive case for partnership has won out over the case for independence. That means that, although I accept that the grief—indeed, I have to say unfortunately, Presiding Officer, this afternoon, the bitterness that we have heard from Christine Grahame and Christina McKelvie—is genuine grief, and I respect that, but I also say that we cannot allow grief to be transformed yet again into grievance. The vote was a decisive endorsement of our place in the United Kingdom and of this Parliament's permanent place in the governance of that kingdom. We argued that Scotland could vote for the best of both worlds last Thursday, and that is what it did. A strong Scottish Parliament within the UK is not in opposition to it. That is now the duty of all of us, of all of us in this place, in this generation, who have determined our future. This Parliament has come of age, and now it will be strengthened. Those who continue to believe that nationhood can only be demonstrated by statehood may see more powers as some kind of consolation in their defeat, but I do not believe that devolution is a consolation prize. It is a prize worth taking on its own terms. This Parliament has always had real power, even if it has not always had the unity of national purpose to exercise it. Big decisions lie ahead in the days in which we are now agreed in the years to come. The first decision facing all of us is whether we have the courage to accept the result and to choose to make this place work in the way that campaigners and leaders who founded it wished it to do. The referendum campaign had good and bad points—we have heard that this afternoon—but it is a truth acknowledged by us all that the energy and ideas that have dominated the last period were not just about which country we will be, but about what kind of country we choose to be. I often felt that many on the yes side were asking the right questions about our politics and our future, but I was never convinced that their answer was the right one. The people of Scotland have come to that decision for themselves, too. Those questions of social justice and of democracy were the same ones that led to this Parliament's creation at the end of the last century. They must now lead our approach to the future of devolution, which is, as others have said, the settled will of the Scottish people. In two referendums over my lifetime, the people of Scotland have affirmed the place of this Parliament, and now the people of Scotland have affirmed the place of Scotland within a union with our closest neighbours and friends. It falls to us to reach out to one another whether we are cheered by the result or depressed by it, to pick up the baton which campaigners on all sides and which the people of Scotland have carried to the final result. The result of this vote is more than a rumour—it is the settled will of the Scottish people. The nation as a whole has determined it, and no one in this place or elsewhere has the right to ignore that. On this side, we relish the task that lies ahead of us as members of a great and proud Labour movement to reconnect and to articulate the concerns of real people in this Parliament, just as you asked all members to do, Presiding Officer. To do the job on our side that Labour has always strived to do, to rebalance power in our society in favour of people. Whether or not the hand of reconciliation is accepted by the other side, there can be no doubt that it has been extended today. What happens next will be the ultimate test of positivity. I hope that those who have lost their argument have the courage to accept that hand in the spirit in which it is offered. No one side of this binary debate has demonstrated that they have all the answers, and we are now a country blessed with a national ambition for change. Whether on the question of powers or on the purpose for which they are exercised or on the coast that the people have set, partnership, not partisanship, let us have the ambition and the determination to deliver the better Scotland, the better Britain that our people have instructed us to bring about. Finally, Presiding Officer, since you have generously given me the time, one example that I used in the campaign was the one million children lifted out of poverty by the last Labour Government, 800,000 across the UK, 200,000 here in Scotland. I was a no-voter because I am just as proud of that achievement, of that change in the rest of the UK as I am of any change that we have made here in Scotland. That is the bigger idea and the ideal that people voted no for on Thursday last week, Presiding Officer, to make change here and to be part of change with all of our neighbours and friends in our United Kingdom. Thank you, Mr Smith. I now call the First Minister to close the debate. First Minister, I'd be obliged if you would continue until five o'clock. In that case, I shall obey your strictures, Presiding Officer. Can I start by apologising to the chamber that I won't be at the debate tomorrow? I've got an unavoidable First Ministerial appointment to keep. I'm excited to sum up today so that you can get two for the price of one on the first day of the debate. I actually think that it's been a rather good debate because I just heard Drew Smith talk about bitterness. I actually think that there's been surprisingly little bitterness in this debate unless he's been hearing a different one from me. I think that the contributions on all sides have been very interesting. I've listened to every single one of them and I'm going to go through them to demonstrate that I have done so. I'm also going to turn to the free unionist parties and say a bit about the future. First, Kevin Stewart and Christine Graham talked about fear, particularly about fear among older people about their pension. I think that they have a substantial point in pointing that out. There is no credit, incidentally, in making older people afraid of things. It's a pretty low campaigning tactic. Neil Findlay and Jackie Baillie asked me if I was going to declare UDI. I have no intention of a unilateral declaration of independence. Only get that if you read the Daily Mail. If you read the Daily Mail, you get into a spiral of delusion that can spread throughout the body politic. I believe in referendum. I know incidentally that only 30 of the 142 countries have joined the United Nations since the second world actually had a democratic referendum. However, I think that in Scotland, in particular, referendums are really important because it applies to the key constitutional requirement and the history of Scotland that's the sovereignty of the people. That's why I've advocated it and continue to advocate it. If you read very closely my interview on Sunday, you'll see exactly that was the point that I was making. Annabelle Ewing spoke movingly about 60 and 17-year-olds coming to vote. Stuart Stevenson claimed that campaign reform in the 1970s. I deny that. I think that it was the 1980s or the 1990s. Mark McDonald spoke movingly about Brian Adam and how proud he would be of Northfield and its participation in this referendum. I absolutely agree with that. Annabelle Goldie, I hope that she's here. Yes, she is. Fantastic. You should know better, Annabelle. Never when you were questioning me across the floor there would you have suggested that the Scottish National Party would plan a £450 million cut in the health service budget. The health service budget will be increasing, Annabelle. The pressures on the health services budget are caused by two things in the main. One is pensions and the other is withdrawal of the national insurance rebate. Interestingly enough, two pressures on our budget are directed by Westminster, which is exactly why we want to control the finances as well as the administration of the health service budget. Alex Rowley made an excellent point about that. When we talk about participation, we shouldn't talk about the £1.6 million or the £2 million. We should talk about the £3.6 million people who participated. I thought that that was a first-class point. Roderick Campbell forensically analysed in a way that only an advocate of his experience could. The offerings of the Unionist parties—I thought that that was an object lesson on how to apply logic to some of the logical aspects of their proposition. John Finnie put the whole matter into its democratic context and did it extremely well. Mark Ebbiasio spoke without notes spontaneously, and I think that his speech was all the better for that. I think that you should remember that the Campbell commission advocated the ending of the Barnett formula in what it did. Therefore, there has been an adjustment in your position. I would never insult people of my generation in any observation because I would be insulting myself. Ken Macintosh said that he was naive and hopeful once upon a time. Ken, I still regard you as naive and hopeful as you go forward. Gertrina McElvie uttered the words, I am sure that no Labour member in this chamber will utter for some kind to come, the words child benefit. I think that it will be some time before we hear that expressed by the Labour Party. Murdo Fraser, can I congratulate Murdo Fraser in overcoming his crushing disappointment that fiscal federalism is not the policy of his party, something that he has long advocated? I thought that Jeane Orkut very movingly put the issue about how you continue with an aim while accepting the will of the people, a very substantial point. As I said, I did not recognise the true Smith designation of this debate as in any way better. If I could turn to the propositions that were put in the debate by the free Eunice in a second, let me turn to those propositions first. Johann Lamont said that she agreed with Graham Smith for the SDUC. I was struck by that because what Graham Smith for the SDUC said was the vast civic movement for meaningful and progressive chains that has built up in the last two years is impatient for change and will not accept minimalist proposals developed to the pre-referendum context, handed down and take them and leave them basis. If Johann Lamont agrees with that, I think that she should say so, because I think that he put his finger absolutely on the mood of Scotland at the present moment. The Labour Party are in a position where, at least Gordon Brown has talked about home rule or something just short of federalism, but actually the Labour Party's offering is the most modest of all of the Unionist parties, offering a control of some one-fifth of this Parliament's and this country's revenue. I have pointed out that the Liberal Democrats are rather encumbered by the fact that their offering, which they claim is the most radical, actually wanted to get rid of the Barnett formula, which they are now defending, as far as I can make out. I give way to Willie Rennie. If he checks the actual report, which I am sure he has read, it does say nothing of the kind. It talks about the continuation of the Barnett formula. That has been confirmed by Danny Alexander. It has been confirmed by the three UK party leaders. The Barnett formula is remaining. When you wanted to replace it with a needs-based formula, that is what you have been arguing for in 2010. We have come to the Conservatives, who, of course, I spoke to the Prime Minister on Friday morning, and at no time when I spoke to him did he tell me a few minutes later that he was going to utter the words about the general debate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that they should be able to vote on those issues. That all must take place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement in Scotland. Not only I, but others across the political spectrum, low, even unto Danny Alexander, detected in that a suggestion that was not made during the campaign that, at the same pace as and in tandem with, went what it said by the Prime Minister on Friday morning and would result in that. Excellent, please. Does the First Minister recognise that you can have concurrent activity without one being contingent on the other? The problem is that your concurrent activity, as far as the Labour Party is concerned, is a non-starter. I am sure that I do not have to explain this to Ruth Davidson. The Prime Minister was laying a trap for the Labour Party. The Prime Minister wants to have a situation where the Labour Party loses a majority over English business. Ed Miliband does not want that position. That is why I suggest that, in tandem and at the same pace as, given that you cannot agree on the English situation, it would result in a bare betraying and breaking your promises in terms of the Scottish situation. Therefore, I think that we are absolutely entitled to make the point that the guardians of this process should be those politically active people in Scotland who have moved into this marvellous, wonderful, energetic political debate. It was said a number of places across this chamber that we should be grieving on this side of the debate. We are actually in a very enthusiastic position in Nain, not just because of the participation. Because of the 51,284 members of the Scottish National Party, people who have been encouraged to join us, the Greens and the other yes forces, because that political awakening of Scotland will take us forward. That is why we look forward to the next few months and years of Scottish politics. Thank you. The debate on the First Minister's statement will continue tomorrow afternoon. Can I gently remind the First Minister that we should be using full names in the chamber, not first names? We now move to decision time. There are no decisions to be taken as a result of today's business, so we now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.