 Thank you for your time. Welcome to the fifth meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in Session 5. I'd like to remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones and ensure that they don't interfere with the broadcasting equipment. Any members using electronic devices to access committee papers during the meeting should please ensure that they're switched to silence. No apologies have been received today. Agenda item one is a decision on taking business in private. Arsgadee. Agenda item 2 is the EU referendum and its implications for Scotland, and today we are taking evidence from the First Minister, our main item of business today. I would like to welcome the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to the committee, and Karen Watt, director of external affairs with the Scottish Government. Can I first invite the First Minister to make an opening statement? reliably i y g welchef yn ei gwinio i yw, iddyn nhw'n cyfwincio gydag fyddai'n gweithio yn y cwmwythau am y Llywodraeth Grefwyng, gyrfaenwyr 23 ddiwrnod, goll witnessio ddod yn ei gŷn. Rydyn nhw'n ei gweithio gydag i'w gwyfforddiadau yr hyn yw'r hyn sy'n iawn gyda'r symud o brexitau iothan, neu mae ei gydag chi wedi bod yn i gweithio'r hyn a chweithio'r yn ei wneud i chi'n eu hwnnw i'n bryde allan agon nhw'n gwith yn bryd. Felly, mae'n meddwl eu ddigon nhw'n fатовiddad ar gyfer S 잡d, ac mae'n meddwl nhw'n meddwl. O'r gyflaenau ac oedd i'n gwybodaeth o gyfliadau o iddo yn y cyflaenau, mae'n ddigon nhw'n meddwl o mygradol, o'r oedden nhu, o'r awrgrfaith o'i wneud ar gyfer eu newidau newid yn ond, ond y Tydwyr Bryddoedd yn gyffredig oedd yn ddefnyddio eu llwyddoedd, ac mae'r gwybod i'r unig i whati wrth hyn ymlaen nhw, ac mae'r cyffredigau ynglynig yn ddifydd o'r ddych chi i'w ymwneud, ac mae'r ddych chi'n gwneud o'r ddefnyddio'r ddefnyddio'r ddifydd, rwy'n ddod, mae'n gwybod i'n ddifydd yng Nghymru yn ddifydd yn ei ddyn nhw. Mae'r ddysgu'r ddiffygol yn gwybod i'n ddifydd, però it is made worse by the fact that Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union. A majority of those in Scotland have voted to remain, which is why I'm so determined that the Scottish Government will explore all options to protect Scotland's interests. Over the summer, I set out what I see those interests as being. Our democratic and economic interests, our interests in social protection and solidarity and of course our interest in continuing to have influence in terms of the world With regard to how we will seek to protect Scotland's interests, I have made clear that we will seek to embed ourselves as firmly as we possibly can in the UK process of developing its negotiated strategy. More than happy, obviously, to update the committee as we go through this session on where we have got to in that effort. Then, in terms of how we will use our influence as I set out to the chamber last week, First of all, we will seek to make common cause with those of like mind across the UK to try to reach the least worst outcome for the UK as a whole, in my view, in my very strong view, that means remaining within the single market. There is a lot of conflation at the moment between membership of the single market and access to the single market. These are two very different things and I think membership of the single market is important. Secondly, we will seek to explore differential options for Scotland, and our standing council of experts is already working on a spectrum of options. Again, I can talk in more detail about that later on. Thirdly, and lastly, of course, we will make sure that the option of independence remains open if we include that it is simply not possible to protect Scotland's interests within the UK. That is a very brief summary of where we stand at the moment. Clearly, there will be a lot of detail that the committee wants to go into. I think that right now we are at the start of what is likely to be a very long and perhaps a very tortuous process. As I said previously to the chamber last week, as we navigate our way through that process, protecting Scotland's interests will be the guiding principle that the Scottish Government operates by. I am happy to expand on that and any of the other brief comments that I have made so far. Thank you very much, First Minister. When the Prime Minister visited you in Edinburgh in July, she said that she would not trigger article 50 until there was a UK-wide approach. If I can quote her, she said, We have discussed the up-and-coming EU negotiations and I am very clear that I want the Scottish Government to be fully involved. That was almost exactly two months ago. Can I ask whether you believe that there has been a UK-wide approach so far, given Scotland's remain vote, and whether the Scottish Government has actually been fully involved in any negotiations that Mrs May promised would happen? You have accurately quoted the Prime Minister on the occasion when she came to Edinburgh shortly after she took office. What we have been doing in the intervening period is trying to turn that commitment, that very clear commitment that she gave me and then narrated publicly, into reality. There have been extensive discussions that are on-going between Scottish Government officials and UK Government officials about what the process will look like that will ensure that the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations are meaningfully engaged. As I say, those discussions are on-going. They are not proceeding as quickly as I would like them to, but I hope that we will see some progress in the next few days. Mike Russell is going to London to meet with David Davis tomorrow, and I would hope that there would be some multilateral meeting taking place in October involving all of the devolved administrations. I will keep the committee fully updated as those discussions conclude. I want the Scottish Government to be fully and meaningfully engaged in the process, principally from now until article 50 is triggered, because that is when the UK's negotiating strategy will formulate. Obviously, we will require to be involved after that as well. What I am not prepared to do is allow the Scottish Government to be used as the phrase that I used last week was window dressing in some kind of talking shop. We want to be engaged in a way that gives us input into the decision making, not just treated as another consultee. A view that I know is shared by the First Minister of Wales, who, when the British Irish Council met in the summer, said that he thought that there was an argument for the parliaments in different parts of the UK to have a say before article 50 is triggered. I cannot speak for the other devolved administrations. I think that there is a common view that we are not just going into a process to be consulted. We want to be part of the decision making. That is what the discussions that we are engaged in are trying to achieve. As I said, they have not concluded yet, but as soon as they do, or when there is any further material developments, I will make sure that the committee is fully advised of that. I wonder if there had been a change of tone from the UK Government, because I noted that the Scottish Secretary, David Mundell, recently gave a television interview in which he seemed to be backing away from Mrs May's reassurances and insisting that the UK Government was very much in the lead in this matter. I wonder what your reflections were. Was he perhaps expressing a personal opinion, such as his colleagues Liam Fox and David Davis? I am not genuinely not sure. I am not just trying to be pejorative here or to be party political. I am genuinely not sure that we can read too much on a day-to-day basis into whatever minister of the UK Government happens to be speaking on any particular day. We saw that very clearly last week in terms of David Davis' comments that were immediately disavowed by the Prime Minister and, similarly, Liam Fox's comments at the weekend. At this stage, I am not just talking here about the process of how those things will develop, but much more pertinently in terms of the substance of some of the positions. I think that, if I can put it politely, a rather underdeveloped UK Government position. We are seeking to try to get a point of agreement on the process. As I say, I have been frustrated about the fact that that has not been moving more quickly. I hope that it does conclude over the next few days. If we have a process that will be a mixture of a bilateral stream involving direct discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government in terms of us bringing forward our views on the interests at its stake and our views on perhaps different options for Scotland, but also a multilateral process that will involve all of the devolved administrations, it must be meaningful and I cannot stress that point enough. There are other aspects that we will no doubt get into about the UK Government's position just now that I think I have got to change. I think that the lack of any answers to basic questions about what the UK Government is actually seeking to achieve three months on from the referendum is just unacceptable and becomes more unacceptable with every day that passes. The idea that there can be a cloak of secrecy over the position of the UK Government as it develops is untenable. I hope that we start to see much more detail and definition from the UK Government before too much longer. Before I hand over to my colleague Lewis MacDonald, there has been a recent, significant intervention in the House of Lords constitution committee has said that it believes that Westminster Parliament should be involved in triggering article 50 and that the royal prerogative is not enough and that is obviously very different from the position that the Prime Minister has taken. What is your view on that? As you are aware, there is also legal action around this issue. If it was the case that this had to go to the House of Commons, what do you think the role of the Scottish Parliament should be? For example, should there be an LCM? Let me unpack that a little bit because there are a couple of stages to that. I read the report of the House of Lords yesterday and there are legal actions that have been raised in England and also a legal action has been raised in Northern Ireland. I think that the expectation, although I am obviously not privy to the decision making around any of this, but the expectation is that one or both of those legal actions will end up in the Supreme Court. As I understand it, the argument at the heart of those actions is that because our membership of the European Union was delivered by statute in the 1972 act and because a triggering of article 50 would trigger a process that would, to all intents and purposes, nullify the 1972 act, then that triggering of that process cannot be done by the royal prerogative, it would have to be done by an act of Parliament. Otherwise, you would have a situation whereby, by executive action, you could effectively overturn primary legislation. I understand that it is more complicated than that, but that is the argument at the heart of those actions. Obviously, that is not a legal view, it is just my personal view. That sounds to me pretty compelling. I think that there is an issue here that may well come to the fore in terms of the role of Parliament and we may well, obviously I have no inside knowledge on this, but we may well get to a stage where we have a court decision that says that Parliament has to be involved in that way. I should say that the Scottish Government is keeping a very close eye on those court actions and will assess as they proceed at all stages whether or not there is an argument for us to become more directly involved to make sure that the interests of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are protected. If that was to be the case that there was a decision, and I am obviously speculating now that Parliament had to pass legislation, that brings the issue of an LCM into sharp focus. As I understand it, the Northern Irish action is very much about the need or otherwise for an LCM in the Northern Irish context. It would be that argument that would give the Scottish Government potentially an interest in that as it develops. I think that if there is going to be House of Commons legislation, my view would require an LCM, and I think that the views of the Scottish Parliament become very central to that. As I say, I am talking here about a legal action. I hope that we get to a position notwithstanding any legal action where the commitment that you have already quoted from the Prime Minister that the Scottish Government and the other devolved administrations will have a meaningful role in this, effectively, part of the decision making framework, will mean that for us the legal action is more of a moot point, but nevertheless these are really important issues. Are just part of the many issues that are plagious now, which makes me think that the road ahead, rather than becoming less complicated as we move on from the referendum result, actually become more complicated across a whole range of different areas. I take it from what you described that the meeting between Michael Russell and David Davis tomorrow will be the first ministerial meeting to discuss this since your own meeting with the Prime Minister some time ago. If that is the case, can you tell us what official contact there has been at senior civil servant level between the two Governments about the basis of discussions going forward and the basis on which the UK intends to take forward negotiations? I have had, not long after he was appointed, telephone conversation with David Davis, so tomorrow's meeting will not be the first discussion, it will be the first ministerial meeting in the way that you describe. There is extensive and has been extensive discussions between our respective civil servants. The Scottish Government is involved in what, as the relevant director, Ken Thomson is involved in. One of our other DGs is involved and those discussions have been intensive as we try to turn the Prime Minister's commitment into a mutually agreed and understood process. As I said, those discussions are on-going and therefore I cannot tell you what the concluding point of them is yet, but we are looking at developing a process of bilateral discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, but also this multilateral process where we have a forum for all of the devolved administrations to feed directly into the process. I understand that you are not at the point of conclusions. Are you at the point where you can say to us today that those discussions have made progress and that we are getting to the point where we can see the future shape beginning? I hope so. I am optimistic and I hope that the meeting between Mike Russell and David Davis will move them on even further tomorrow. That said, when I made my statement to Parliament last week, I probably hoped then that by today we would have had a conclusion in those discussions. Without overstating this, they are not progressing quite as quickly as I would have liked them to, but they are making progress. At this stage, I am optimistic that they will conclude soon, and I am optimistic that they will conclude in a forum that enables the Scottish Government in good faith to go into a process that allows us to have our voice meaningfully heard. I am encouraged that one of the endpoints that you see potentially coming is a multilateral engagement with the other devolved administrations. Clearly, Wales and Northern Ireland will be at that table. Can you tell me if your expectation is that the mayor of London will be at that table, given the particular London perspective? I am not going to try to speak for the mayor of London. He will be having his own discussions, but we are talking here about the devolved administrations and the discussions that would take place there. I certainly would be very happy to have the mayor of London fully involved. He has, in many respects, got some of the same concerns that I have about Brexit and I have had very good discussions with him since the EU referendum. The Crown Dependencies, although they are involved in the British Irish Council, will also be an important forum as we go through this process. They have different relationships with the European Union but are very centrally affected by this decision and Gibraltar, of course. I have met the chief minister of Gibraltar since the referendum as well. There will be different forums in which different players, if I can use that term, will participate. Obviously, what I have been talking about so far has been related to the devolved administrations. I am presumed that they are in the format of a joint ministerial council. That is not finally agreed yet, but that is the kind of framework that I would hope that we would get to the point of agreeing. Richard Lochhead, is it in the subject? I am not sure about the negotiations or the options. I will bring you in and then Jackson Carlaw. Good morning or good afternoon, First Minister. On the Scottish Government's negotiations with the UK Government, clearly the Scottish Government's position is that all options should be explored to continue a relationship with Europe, particularly access to the single market or membership of the single markets. On those options, it would require either the UK Government to pick up Scotland's demands and negotiate them with EU institutions and other member states, or to give blessing for Scotland to deal directly with EU institutions and other member states. Is there any indication so far that the Prime Minister is willing to use those two routes? First, you rightly put your finger on why we are viewing the process of developing the UK's negotiating strategy with the importance we are. If we want to make sure that Scotland's interests are protected in this process, we have to make sure that we are embedded into that process. I think that I have just been answering questions about the fact that we are still discussing the process by which we are going to do this. It would be wrong to say that we are yet at the stage where we are into the substantive discussion about what that position might be and therefore what Scotland's particular asks in that might be. We should work on our own part through the Standing Council of Experts to develop what those options would be and what options we might want to put on to the table in that process. Some of that will depend on which way the UK Government decides to go in terms of what it is seeking to achieve. We are at a very early stage of that. In some ways, it is gobsmacking to use, hopefully, non-parliamentary language that we are at such an early stage. We are three months on from the referendum where basic questions about what the UK Government is seeking to achieve are not being answered in or out of the single market. I have just, on my way through here, caught part of Prime Minister's questions where the question, do we think that we should continue to seek visa-free access to the European Union? No answer to that question. I remember all too well in the independence referendum being pressed not just for plan A but plan B, C, D, E right through to Z on every single issue. Here we are three months after a referendum and the UK Government does not even have plan A. It is absolutely breathtaking. I'll come back with her. Jackson. Thank you, First Minister. Of course, having said that the Prime Minister wants to involve the devolved administrations meaningfully in the discussions that take place, were she to be unilaterally announcing positions now, it might be taken that that had not given proper place to the devolved administrations to have contributed to whatever that position happens to be. But I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, slightly following on from which Richard Lochhead was about events over the summer and also the committee's visit to Brussels. In your statement last week, I think you made mention of having met three of the EU member state heads of government. The Prime Minister, I think, spoke and met them all. That's just a function, I imagine, of the fact that the Prime Minister is the head of the member state, the United Kingdom, in the discussions that are taking place. What kind of conclusions have you drawn or thoughts have you evolved about how Scotland can engage with EU member states, given the kind of protocols that currently exist, which perhaps inhibit member states from feeling that they are able to meaningfully engage with the Scottish Government directly? Okay, just one point on the first part of your, or the preamble to your question. There would be no objection from me, and while I can't speak for them, I can't imagine there would be much objection from the First Ministers of Wales or even Northern Ireland. The First Minister of Northern Ireland took a different view on the referendum than I did. I can't imagine any of us would object if the Prime Minister was to say, now, yes, I want the UK to stay in the single market. So I don't see any barrier to basic questions like that being answered. I think sooner or later, hopefully sooner, those kind of questions are going to have to be answered. Except it could become an extended list. I think that three months on some very basic questions shouldn't still be the blank sheet of paper that they are right now. In terms of your question protocols, I have to say that I have not found the people that we have been speaking to in Europe, either in the institutions or in member states. In addition to my discussions, the Cabinet Secretary for External Affairs has been meeting representatives of a number of member states at ambassador or consul general level. There's no great inhibition in terms of speaking to the Scottish Government. There's been a very warm and open-door approach to the Scottish Government. What there also is, though, is a recognition, and I have always readily accepted this, that when article 50 is triggered, the negotiation is going to be between the European Union and the UK Government, which is why it's so important that our voice is heard in the development of that position. I guess that the inhibition that I have detected, which is very openly said, is that there is an inability to engage in that just now before the UK Government comes and says what its position is and actually triggers that process. If there's any inhibition that I'm picking up from at the European Union level, it's because they don't know what the UK Government is asking for and therefore how can they have a meaningful discussion about what their position might be on that. There's no great inhibition in terms of the approach to Scotland and the response to Scotland. Remember, in these discussions, we're not yet at the position of asking for anything. This is about raising awareness and making sure that the Scottish Government's position is understood. There has been a receptiveness, a warmth and a willingness to see the view of Scotland honoured and respected as far as that can be possible. I've been very encouraged by it so far. Just a final point following that up. Yes, I think that when we met EU ambassadors from member and other states, there was the recognition that there can be a distinctive representation of Scotland's position with any final agreement that has arrived at. That member states would wish if they could to participate in those discussions directly, but that would be conditional upon the lead member state, the UK consenting to that. Otherwise, I think that the expression that was used was that shutters could come down. They felt that that was conditional upon the sincerity and non-partisan engagement in which the Scottish Government and I suppose the other devolved Administrations actually enter into the discussions that are going to take place. I suppose that, at the heart of that, there is always the political argument that you addressed right at the start of your remarks about Scotland taking a different view from the rest of the United Kingdom and you wishing to represent that. How do you square that circle to ensure that, in forcing the point that I think you wished to make, it doesn't compromise the UK in any way, subsequently saying that they're not comfortable with the rest of the European Union member states having those kind of engagements that might lead to those differentials in any settlement that has finally arrived at? I'm trying to keep track of where you're ended up there. I hope that we don't get a situation where the UK Government is saying that it's not comfortable with the Scottish Government representing its interests at European level and to be fair to the UK Government and I'm not just talking in a Brexit context here. There has been an understanding and a respect for the fact that the Scottish Government engages with other Governments in a whole range of issues and I would hope that that would continue in all circumstances. You asked me how I square the circle. So far in terms of the discussions that I've been having, I'm doing that by being perfectly straight with people. I don't think that I'm betraying any secrets to tell people that I'm somebody who believes that Scotland should be independent. I've always believed that and I still believe that, but as I said immediately after the referendum in June, I am not taking that as my starting point in the post-Brexit discussions. I believe that the UK's interests are compromised and damaged by Brexit, but I'm the First Minister of Scotland and I believe that Scotland's interests are damaged and compromised. Therefore, my starting point is how do I find a way as best I can to protect those interests? That's why I'm very clear. I want to see if we can make common cause with others across the UK. I think that you'd be on the same side on this, Jackson, although I don't know of saying, let's try and keep the UK in the single market because that's not as good in my view as being full members of the European Union, but it's not as bad an option as some of the other options having simply access on the basis of a free trade agreement with the single market or world trade organisation rules. I'm taking that very interest-driven approach to it. The difference between you and I is that, because I am being driven by Scotland's interests, I'm not prepared to rule out certain options that may be necessary to protect those interests. That approach in the discussions that I've had so far has been met very warmly. I campaigned very hard, as did many people around this table, and made the argument for the whole UK to stay within the European Union. It's not being driven by my own views on the constitutional future of Scotland. It's about how we protect our economic and other interests in the best possible way. That's the principle that I will continue to be guided by throughout this entire process. Ross Greer, Emma Harper. First Minister, you have highlighted that the UK Government has hinted at a particular form of Brexit that we would collectively regard as certainly being against Scotland's interests. Does the Scottish Government have any criteria that, if the terms of Brexit fail to meet them, would mandate a second independence referendum? I've set out at a high level the interests that we will seek to assess different options against. Our democratic interests, our economic interests, social protection, solidarity and influence are the five interests that I set out. Obviously, underneath all of those, there will be much more detailed assessments that we will require to do. That's part of the work that we are doing as we are working across the whole of government to assess the impact on different sectors. As that work develops, the committee will have an interest in scrutinising and overseeing that work. I've said all along and I've been absolutely clear about this. It will be the difference between us, I assume, and some others around this table. I believe that, as part of a process that is driven by how we protect Scotland's interests, we have to have the option if we get to a point where we cannot protect our interests within the UK because the UK is heading for a hard Brexit that denies our financial services industry, that has our exporters having to jump over all sorts of hurdles to sell their goods in European markets, that has our universities locked out of horizon 2020, our students locked out of Erasmus, that has restrictions in free movement that damage our economy. If we end up in that position, it would be wrong to deny people in Scotland the right to consider whether independence is a better way of protecting those interests. As I said to Jackson, that is not the starting point. I am going to methodically and systematically work through all the options. Some of them will have to be explored in parallel to see how we best protect those interests. That, as I keep saying, is the guiding principle that I will continue to have in mind. To explore that hypothetical slightly, what co-operation would you expect from the UK Government if that were to happen both for the referendum itself and potential direct Scottish negotiations with the European Union? We are not at the stage yet where I could say what position the UK Government would take if and when we got there. I think that I would be getting several steps ahead of myself. Obviously, I can say that I hope that we would have a co-operative and constructive approach from the UK Government, but that is perhaps more hope over expectation at this stage. Those are things that we have to work our way through. I know that people in different political parties will raise an eyebrow when I say that, but I hope that they will not. If we can get to a conclusion of the discussions around the process that I have talked about, we will go into that in good faith, trying to examine all options to protect our interests. I believe that the whole of the UK will be better served by remaining within the single market. If we can be part of a coalition of interests across the UK—a progressive alliance, let's call it—where we can make that case for continued single market membership, we will do that. Obviously, if that is not going to be possible, we have to explore different options up to and including the independence option. What I would say about the UK Government is that I hope that it would respect the views of the Scottish people. Obviously, with independence, that would ultimately depend on the views of the Scottish people, but I hope that there will be a respect for the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. What we should never forget in all of this debate—I know that it has come back, but it is a pertinent point—that people in Scotland, when they voted in the independence referendum, were told that voting no was the way to secure our European Union membership. Here we are two years later with our European Union membership in real jeopardy because we are not independent. Emma Cymru and Rachael Hamilton I think that the process that lies ahead for the UK now is a long one. Again, it is part of this whole thing where I do not think that all of the implications are yet fully understood or appreciated. If you take article 50, the two-year period that is talked about around article 50, that is the two-year period for the UK exiting the EU. That does not necessarily determine the new relationship between the UK and the EU. That will take goodness knows how many years after that. Presumably, that will require to be a transition period. How long is a piece of string when it comes to considering the length of time it will take to put in place new trade deals between the UK and not just the EU but other countries? I think that there is a real risk that the UK is facing right now a lost decade or more when the uncertainty and turmoil of Brexit and everything that comes after that before there is clarity about what the UK's place in Europe in the world actually is will dominate and the damage that that will then do to our economy and other areas of our society and life will be deep and severe. That is why I am so concerned about this. I feel the frustration and everybody should feel it right now. Every time we hear somebody say, I have seen it on social media this morning about the unemployment figures. Unemployments down shows that Brexit has not damaged the economy. Brexit has not happened yet. It is not even at the starting point in terms of the process that will see those implications start to hit home. I am not saying this just to try to depress everybody, but going into this we have got to be really open-eyed. Nobody is doing anybody any favours by trying to suggest that we are through the worst. We have not even started this process yet. That potential for a lost decade for the UK should make us all sit up and take notice. In Scotland we should make us think very carefully about whether there are better alternatives to just accepting that we have to be part of that. I have got some very practical questions for you. I wondered how many extra civil servants have been recruited by Mike Russell, the new Brexit minister, and has there been a budget allocated to the new department? Thirdly, assuming that Mike Russell has a team in place, what discussions are taking place between his team and the UK Government civil servants to achieve our objectives? I have already talked a lot about the discussions that are taking place between the Scottish Government officials and the UK Government officials, so I will not go over all that again unless there are particular elements of that. You want me to go into it in more detail. One of the lead officials in Mike Russell's team is Karen. There is a team of officials. We are still, as you would expect, because we are still trying to work out exactly what the process with the UK Government is going to look like, so we are still in the process of making sure that that team is fit for purpose. The other point that I would make is that it would be wrong to look at that in terms of just. There will continue to be a discrete team in the civil service in Scotland that supports the work that Mike Russell is doing and the work that I am doing, and Fiona Hyslop is doing on that. The work extends right across Government, so our agriculture officials, fishing officials, economy officials and education officials are all, in addition to all of their other responsibilities, centrally involved in trying to assess the implications for Scotland and develop the positions that we will then want to feed into to the UK Government. I am happy that we can provide, over the next period, details of the numbers of civil servants and such like that that are supporting Mike Russell. However important that is caution against thinking that that is the only impact on our civil service of Brexit. It is going to have an impact. It is probably not much of an exaggeration to say that it will have an impact on everybody working in the Scottish Government. In terms of the Standing Council, are you able to provide any more information on the work that has been undertaken by the Standing Council? I know that it is going to have subgroups. Will they be able to update the committee on the work that they are doing? I am keen for the committee to be very closely updated on the work of the Standing Council. There have been two meetings in plenary sessions so far. I think that the minute of the first meeting has already been published and the note of the second meeting will be published shortly. There are a number of substrands to the work, so one looking at the different options that might be open to Scotland, one looking at education at particular economic impacts, and we will make sure that there is—I wrote to the committee last week with some early thoughts on how we keep the committee updated. I would be keen to hear the committee's views on what flow of information and what form of information would be helpful. If I can focus on the options work so far, I know that the committee will understand that. We are constrained to some extent in the development of different options for Scotland before we know what options the UK Government is going to try to achieve. However, notwithstanding that, we are trying to get as prepared as possible, so there is work being undertaken by the Standing Council looking at a spectrum of options that, if I can summarise, go from how we protect different aspects of our relationship with the European Union, Horizon 2020, Erasmus, for example, to what I would describe as more holistic and wholesale solutions where Scotland would have a much more different relationship to the European Union or the single market than the UK as a whole. That works in its early stage, by definition, because of the position of the UK Government just now. That is at an early stage, but there is a lot of detail behind that work. However, as that develops, I am very keen that we have a working arrangement with the committee that allows you to be kept appraised of that work and be able to engage with it as well. In the last parliamentary session, after the referendum, we went through the Devolution for the Powers Committee and the process for the Scotland Act 2016. One of the issues that was quite key to that whole debate was the issue of intergovernmental relations. In terms of that experience for going through that particular piece of legislation, how has the Scottish Government used that discussion and that debate at the time of IGR to help to fashion your discussions with the UK Government now? There is a well-developed system of intergovernmental relations. They are not perfect. You rightly say that the work of the Smith commission and after the Smith commission was all about trying to strengthen those. In short, the intergovernmental work operates through the joint ministerial council in plenary session. There is also a joint ministerial committee that deals with Europe. It is long-standing. It is not dealing with Brexit Europe issues. It deals with the on-going business of the European Union. There is another sub-committee that deals with domestic issues. What I think is essential is that we have something additional to all of that to deal with the particular negotiations around Brexit. That is what we are in the process of trying to finalise at the moment. The experience of intergovernmental working, the strengths and the weaknesses of it are useful to try to devise a process that is going to be meaningful and is going to be able to cope with a set of discussions that are much more complex than those that we have had to deal with prior to now. In terms of article 50, what do you think the process should be for triggering article 50? Who do you think should be involved? That goes back to the question that the convener asked me earlier on. I was just stating an opinion about the legal actions and the Lord's Committee report. I think that the argument that the House of Commons should be involved in the decision to trigger article 50 is a compelling one. The UK Government is taking a different view and we will see where that argument goes. If that happens, it brings to bear the LCM question very centrally, which is why we are keeping a close eye on the court cases, as I have said. Regardless of all that, it seems to me that, given the nature of what we are talking about here and adding into that the different way in which Scotland and Northern Ireland voted, there must be a central role for the Scottish Government in decision making. Not just to be consulted but to have a role in decision making. Forgive me if I am repeating myself, but, after the British Irish Council, Carmen Jones said that he thought that there should be a role for all of the parliaments in the UK to agree the position before article 50 is triggered. That is a position that I think should be seriously considered, because we are all affected by that. If the Prime Minister's words when she came to Edinburgh are to be given real meaning in practice, it strikes me that some kind of arrangement like that or a multilateral process that involves us in the actual decision is essential, and that is still part of what we are seeking to work our way through. Finally, First Minister, how optimistic are you that the acquired rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU will actually be protected post-Berexit? I am sorry to say that I am not optimistic. The name of the particular expert is going to escape me just now, but somebody who was giving evidence at a committee yesterday, Professor Alan Vaughan Low QC, who—this is only an opinion. I should say that I hope that he is wrong when he said this, but he described the chances of EU citizens here retaining all of their rights as zero. I hope that that is wrong, but it is one of those areas where, until we start getting answers from the UK Government on what the position actually is, nobody can answer that with any certainty. Of course, it does not just apply to EU citizens here or non-UK EU citizens here. We are all still EU citizens, but it applies to UK citizens living in other EU countries. I think that it is absolutely shameful and disgraceful that the questions that affect people's lives and livelihoods, families and careers have not even started to be answered. Of course, there is the other related question, and it is not the same, but it is related about our ability to travel. We heard at the weekend, although some of us tried to make this point during the referendum. It is only now that we are starting to hear this and the Home Secretary conceding that it is entirely possible that we will all have to apply for visas to travel to other EU countries. Those are just utterly depressing things to be contemplating in this day and age when we have all enjoyed free travel across the European Union for as long as we have. Absolutely essential is to give people who have made their lives here, who have done us the honour of coming to live in and contribute to our country. We owe them some certainty. I would call again today on the UK Government and the Prime Minister to start providing that certainty. Tavish Scott. First, can I just ask you, First Minister, about an answer that you gave to Jackson Carlaw, in which you said, and I absolutely take your point, that there were no inhibitions on any discussions with Europe at this time in the lack or in the complete absence of any UK position. I think that that is an entirely fair point. Would you accept in that context that there are other EU member states who have profound concerns about Scottish independence because of their own internal political dimensions? Absolutely, of course. The discussions that I am having across Europe just now that we are having are not about Scottish independence per se, they are about how Scotland can best protect our place in Europe. It is a very different discussion. Of course, I accept that there is a range of different views. One of the things that I always tried to do, which one particular person I have spoken to in Europe in the last few weeks who I will not name but who said to me is what the UK Government never tries to do, is put itself in the shoes of other European countries. The UK Government always decides what it thinks is right for the UK and then expects everybody else to fall in line, whereas we are dealing with a range of different countries. Of course, I am very aware of the different views, but I am here in a position where I did not ask to be in, I did not want to be in. We are taking a case to other interests across the European Union that says that it is probably quite good for the European Union as well as for Scotland that we try to work out how we protect those relationships rather than have a situation where we are all wanting to leave and rip them up. I think that it is because of that that the mood music around it is quite warm. I do not underestimate the challenges or the difficulties that we face in all of this. I have said that from the first moments after the referendum. We face a really challenging period, but I have a duty to try to, in all of what lies ahead of us, to try to protect Scotland's interests as best as I can. I would not deserve to be sitting in a seat right now if I was not determined to do that. That is very fair. I am grateful for that. Can I just ask you one other question? You gave me a perfectly straight answer to the issue of the fishing industry, basically voting no back earlier in the summer. You mentioned earlier on that your civil servants are now doing assessment work in the domestic policy areas such as agriculture and fisheries and the environment. Can I therefore take it on behalf of all those people who clearly do have profound concerns about just the continuation of a policy that they think has failed over many, many years, that your officials are working on that so that that will not happen, so there won't just be a continuation of everything that they put up with over many decades. I would quickly hazard not under any particular government. Absolutely. I am acutely aware of the fact that, although a very clear substantial majority of people in Scotland who voted to remain, there were a number of people who voted to leave. That was for a variety of different reasons. There were particular sectors, and fishing is probably the best example here where there were some very strong and strongly expressed reasons. We will, and we are seeking to engage with those so that, notwithstanding that difference of opinion, we can ensure that, in all of the work that we do, we are seeking to represent their interests as well. I let her just yesterday from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation making some of those points again, and Fergus Ewing will continue to engage very closely with them, as he is doing with the farming community, to make sure that we try to, as much as possible, put forward a set of arguments in this process that lies ahead. It is about representing the interests of all of these different sectors that is our duty to represent. Thank you. Richard Lochhead, did you want to come back in? I was just going to ask the First Minister for her view on that, as she has partially answered the question from Tavish Scott. Does she agree that it is very important that, in the times ahead, we do articulate all parties, the Government, Parliament that believes in European membership, the reform programme that we would like to see put in place in the future, given that the worth of 38 per cent of the population voted to leave the EU? Absolutely. I totally agree with that. One of the frustrations of the position that we are in just now is that what are very legitimate arguments about reform of the European Union can get lost because it is about in or out. I have never been somebody—I do not know anybody—who argues the case that the European Union is perfect. I think that there are various things about the European Union that we should be working to reform. The difficulty now is that our ability to do that is compromised by this almost existential debate that we are having about whether we are in or out. As we develop our positions and as we engage with the different sectors, it is important that we do not lose sight of that. There are some sectors that want to see real change in how Europe does certain things. As we make our arguments and put our case forward, we do not forget that and do not lose sight of that. If and when Brexit happens, we are still a member of the EU and, given that there is unlikely to be a lot of goodwill during on-going negotiations over fishing, farming and environments, is there not a case for Scotland to ask for a greater role in those negotiations, given that we do have goodwill among other member states and given that we may have a long-term interest in the outcome of those negotiations? I am just glancing around this table. I think that I can probably safely say that you are the person around this table with the most direct experience of European negotiations. You know from that experience how much goodwill there is but how much more difficult this current situation makes things. As we go through this period, particularly when article 50 is triggered and there is a couple of years, if that is what it is, of initial negotiations, our on-going interests in the European Union are not lost sight of an even greater role for Scotland in some of those council discussions and other negotiations that take place as a very strong case for that. If I could just come in a supplementary on that, since we were discussing fishing, obviously the Norwegian position has been arrived at through EFTA EEA in part to protect their fishing rights. In terms of that example, the EFTA EEA example, as far as I can see through our discussions in Brussels and elsewhere, is the only example of a non-EU member being in the single market. The Prime Minister, notwithstanding that we do not know what the UK Government's position is, quite recently she basically ruled out the EFTA EEA position by saying that we are not going for it. I wonder what your reaction was to that. I do not know for sure that the EFTA membership has ruled out. I certainly hope not. Let me just be quite simple about this. I think that EU membership is the best relationship for all the imperfections that we have talked about being in as a full member, because that avoids you being subject to all the rules of the single market without having any ability to influence them. If you are asking me what the second best option is, I think that it would be to be within that EEA type relationship, because that secures membership of the single market. It does not secure membership of the customs union, so it is not perfect. It also puts you in the position of having less influence over the rules of the single market. Nevertheless, you only have to read, for example, the IFS report that takes you through or tries to quantify in economic terms what some of the differences between these different types of relationship would be. We have to understand—people talk about access to the single market—that any country can have access to the single market comes down to the agreement that you have about what the terms of that access are. Access on the basis of a free trade agreement is not the same thing as membership. If the trade agreement is giving you access, presumably that is principally about taking tariffs away from the export and import of goods. What does it mean for services? What does it mean for the whole array of non-tariff barriers to trade, licence and regulation? The whole thing is that, if you are outside the single market seeking just access to it, it becomes all on the table and up in the air, if it is possible to be on the table and up in the air at the same time. We have to get very clear about the difference between membership of the single market and just seeking access to the single market. Those two terms are used interchangeably at the moment and it is completely wrong to use them interchangeably. To follow up the last couple of answers, I am looking ahead a little to the end of the process that you have described already today. If we get to a position where the bilateral and multilateral discussions produce a UK Government approach to the negotiations that supports membership of the single market rather than simply access, and Scotland has a greater role in discussions in the council for trade, in the way that you have described, does that mean at that point that the Scottish Government signs up to the proposition of British exit from the European Union, but on the basis that those are the terms on which that exit will happen and how then do you engage in that negotiation at that stage? For very understandable reasons, I am trying to take me to the end of a process that we have not started yet and I am going to resist doing that for very good reasons. I want us to stay in the European Union and I do not want to lose sight of that. That is not just what I think is in our best interests, it is what Scotland voted for. However, I recognise that we are where we are in all of this and therefore we have to look at what the least worst options are. There is no doubt in my mind that the least worst option is remaining within the single market. I do not think that it is as good an option, which is why I am not describing it as the best option, but it is the least worst option and that is why I have put such a stress on that. The reason that I am not going to take myself to the end of the process is because I think that notwithstanding everything that I have said and stand by about the lack of any real answers or detail from the UK Government, if you are to try to read the smoke signals, all of them would say that that is not where the UK Government is going ahead, that they are going to head to a position that is outside the single market seeking access. That is why I think that it is premature to say that I think that we will get to the position that you have outlined, but we will be trying to do that. Questions that you have with them will be intended to persuade them to take that route. I mean, when I talk about the options that we are exploring, there may come a point where not all of those options can be explored in parallel, but I talk about trying to get the UK Government into the least worst option, looking at differential options for Scotland to retain our relationship with Europe, making sure that they are independent options. Those are all options that we will continue to pursue in parallel to protect our interests and to make sure that we are keeping as many options on the table to protect our interests as we can. We will get to a stage where some of those options, for one reason or another, fall off the table, but at the moment, for as long as possible, given the complexity and the likely timescale of the process, keeping as many options on the table to best protect our interests for as long as possible is the right thing to do. Just in conclusion, First Minister, I realise that we are just on time. We are supposed to finish at half past one. A number of witnesses to this committee and it also outside have talked about the opportunities for Scotland if the rest of the UK exits and Scotland remains within the EU either as part of the UK through some differential agreement or through independence. Are those opportunities that were raised by Virgin Money and others in this committee, are those things that are in your mind something that we should be exploring? You have always got to look to take the good out of any bad situation that you are in. Of course you do, but I am yet to be convinced that the good opportunities that come from this situation will come anywhere close to outweighing the real downsides. I know that there will be a whole variety of reasons why some people do not understand what they said before the referendum and say, well, we just have to shrug our shoulders and get on with it. I think that the implications of this for us are so potentially damaging across a whole range of different areas that we should not give up the fight. We should try to do what I have been talking about to protect those interests. Does that mean that I will not always try to put the silver linings on? Of course we will, but let us be clear here that the downside of this decision in my view massively outweighs any potential so-called opportunities that arise from it. Thank you very much First Minister and thank you for coming to speak to us today. We will have a brief suspension before we begin to private session.