 Rwy'n gweithio'r cyffredinell yw o fwy o Maes i 9771 yn jesuAngus Robertson o'r newid yng Nghymru, y costiwyi'r ysgolion yw costiwyi'r lleiddym i'r ddaff yn cribeithio i threemd. Byddwch yn gwneud i chi'n ei hunain yn ddweudio i'r ddaf, i'r bwysig i ddweudio i'r hyn o'r cyfreithio ein bod nhw o'r ddaf i'r cwellion o Angus Robertson i ddweudio i ddweudio i'r ddweudio y fwy o Maes i 11 mlyneddau. Ff casnymio, roeddystod ni'r mae battysieffordau a wneud dewysaeth mae'rnational themaire yn masch au os yna yn NOT. Felly, no sy'n ei ddigwydd i chi conductorio a wneud awddfa nhon a u'r plaud. Fyddwch chi i hollfa nhon a chyflwmp, caf ei stydd gweddi symud efo yn digwydd, byddwch ei hefyd, ond roedd eich wath ni gyntaf. Fy roedd mewn ddyacaim, rhiwf yn productl iawn iriad, roedd serredddo ardych chi scrambledraeth aeth alwedig yn cael ei s weerio i'ch The constitution reveals as much that it prescribes. It tells you what a country's priorities are. It tells you where power lies. yn cael digud y gallant, ond oes y mynd i gwneud ar yr unrhyw llwyddon yn unrhyw llwyddon, ddylch i'r cael unrhyw llwyddon. Felly, mae'r unrhyw llwyddon yn unrhyw llwyddon, ac dd文asu i ymwythbos yn ymdoedd yma ar gyfer ysgol, ac mae'n agos feddwl perolonau dechegol, yn yournmysgol. Mae'n pilnwch hwnnw, I amddol, oherwydd mae mae mae'n ei ddechrau i ddim yn in its effect and this is very real. So let me give the chamber some examples. The Human Rights Act is one of the greatest parliamentary achievements of the last 30 years. It has delivered justice for people across the whole of British society and has ensured that public authorities can be held properly to account. Yet it has no more protection under Westminster sovereignty than any other law. Successive UK Governments have threatened to repeal protections that the citizens of other modern democracies take for granted. This Parliament's Children's Rights Bill, the Supreme Court has ruled that under the Scotland Act, it cannot even extend across all of devolved law, since it affects acts passed by the UK Parliament, laws entirely within devolved competence in areas like health and education that would impugn the sovereignty of Westminster. International law. As we saw in the Northern Ireland protocol bill, the UK Government considers itself able to seek to legislate contrary to its international obligations, because Westminster sovereignty sees international law not as a celebration of common humanity or as an essential tool in rising to the challenges of the 21st century but as a threat to its place as the ultimate source of legal authority. Even this Parliament's powers and responsibilities, that we were all, regardless of our party, elected to exercise and to hold the Government accountable for the use of, nine times, and counting the UK Parliament has ignored the votes of MSPs and passed laws within or about devolved competence without our consent. The UK's unwritten constitution reveals that its priority to be the preservation of Westminster power, and that power elsewhere is held on sufferance at Westminster's grace and favour. Of course, happy to. John Mason. I'm very grateful for the cabinet secretary in giving away. He says that the UK is an unwritten constitution. Is the reality not really that the UK has no constitution? If you were to extend the period that I have to speak to this question, I would happily go into the highways and byways of the UK's unwritten constitution, but I see you shaking your head. I would suggest that we can do better than the situation that we find ourselves in in the United Kingdom. I believe that, in Scotland, we do have aspirations and values in common, and we can organise ourselves around those. Not talking here about the approach just of this Government or even those in Scotland that support independence as our ultimate constitutional destination, I'm talking about something more fundamental and more long-term, reaching across the parties in this Parliament, across the people who live and work in Scotland. A belief in putting rights and equality at the heart of everything that we do. A belief in creating opportunity in a wellbeing economy that combines dynamism and entrepreneurship with fairness. A belief in being outward looking as a nation reflected in our overwhelming vote to remain in the European Union and recognising that we amplify our sovereignty and not diminish it when we work together with our international partners as a sovereign state. A belief, one that certainly used to be shared on a cross-party basis, that has set out in the claim of right for Scotland, the constitutional tradition in Scotland is that it is the people here that are sovereign here. Presiding Officer, this Government has shown in the first paper in the Building a New Scotland series that it is in countries that identify and pursue and organise around these common aims that do the best, that are wealthier, that are happier, that are fairer. And what we have now set out in the fourth paper in that series is how we could, with independence, make real on the promise, on those shared values and those common priorities. How we could put in place an ambitious interim constitution at the point of independence so that a newly independent Scotland would start benefiting from constitutional government from day one. How we could come together as a nation, how the people who live and work here could contribute through a constitutional convention to the drafting of a permanent constitution for an independent Scotland. And how a Scottish constitution could put power where it belongs in the hands of the people who live here. That is what it means for there to be a constitutional recognition of the national health service in Scotland and a right to access a system of healthcare free at the point of need. It puts power in the hands of the people. If there were ever a government in Scotland that sought to retreat from or compromise on that principle, the constitution would empower the people to stop them. It would empower the people with the fullest range of rights and give them the tools to enforce them. We propose constitutionally embedding not just the Rights in the Human Rights Act, those derived from the European Convention on Human Rights and the related protections built into the Scotland Act, but the rights in the UN, CRC and all of the rights in the forthcoming Scottish human rights bill. And with independence, those rights would not be limited by Westminster sovereignty or by the devolution settlement. They would extend across matters devolved and matters that are currently reserved. It would not be possible for any government to simply use a majority in the Scottish Parliament to repeal those rights as it is in Westminster. Those rights would belong to the people and it should be beyond the authority of any democratically elected legislature to violate the right of the people that it serves. And we could finally constitutionally prohibit nuclear weapons from ever being based on Scottish soil. Presiding Officer, who could fail to be excited by the opportunities? Who could face with a question what sort of country would you like Scotland to be answer, one that organises itself around the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament? I have to say that I find it hugely encouraging that there are people beyond the independence supporting voters of Scotland who also agree. Many members in this chamber know and no doubt hold in very high regard, as I do, Barnas Kennedy, one of the leading human rights laws in constitutional campaigners in this country. She said that although she does not support Scotland becoming independent, if Scotland is thinking one day it is going to be independent, I happen not to be in the camp, but if that is the road that Scotland is going down, then people should be going to work on creating a written constitution for an independent Scotland definitely. I would do it now if I were in that camp. Well, that camp, Presiding Officer, is represented by a majority in this Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland. That is exactly what we are doing. We are doing what we have been asked to do by the electorate and we have published what I think is a hugely exciting document, regardless of whether one wishes Scotland to be independent or not. Imagine the future of this country where its rights, its obligations, its form is represented through a written constitution, just like pretty much every single other country in the world. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us, Presiding Officer. We are going to go on in future building a new Scotland, publishing a series of papers to set out what this Government sees as the opportunities of independence and how we would address the challenges of becoming independent. The next paper in the series published this summer will set out what an inclusive and welcoming approach to Scottish citizenship could look like. One that would ultimately see the people of Scotland have their rights as European citizens, rights that they never voted to give up, return to them. Future papers will go on to set out what we would do with culture, with our extraordinary marine resources, with the energy market and with Scotland retaking its place in the European Union and the wider world. However, sitting behind all of them will be the propositions and the possibilities of this paper. What could Scotland look like if we had the chance and the opportunity to put its future in the people's hands? Presiding Officer, I move the motion in my name. I can advise the chamber that there is a little bit of time in hand, so I should be able to give people their time back if they take interventions with that. I call Donald Cameron to speak to a move amendment 9711.3, around seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move the amendment in my name? Now, ordinarily, I would welcome the opportunity for a robust debate, even if the subject choice is deeply questionable, but not today. I'll come to the actual paper, which is the subject matter of this debate in a moment, Deputy Presiding Officer. However, I have to say that it pales in comparison with what we witnessed over the weekend in Dundee, which very much sets the context for this debate. We saw a First Minister or first activist, as he calls himself, announced that he wants to turn the next general election into another polarising and divisive vote on breaking up the United Kingdom. So, let there be no doubt about this. The SNP has said unequivocally that they want the next general election to be about independence. Page 1, line 1, in their phrasing, the SNP will treat a victory whatever that may be, and it is, of course, a word that they struggle to define at the weekend, they will treat a victory as a mandate for independence. Page 1, line 1, every vote for the SNP in that election will be taken as a vote for separation. I wonder if Mr Tham would recognise that we are perfectly entitled as a party, just as he is in his party, to lay out what our manifesto should say, and then we put it to the people just as they will put their manifesto to the people, and then we trust and they will decide. Donald Cameron. I do not deny that for a second, but the point I make is that you have said that Jamie Hepburn has said that every vote for the SNP in that election will be taken as a vote for separation. Just as every vote for the Scottish Conservatives will be taken as a vote to remain in the United Kingdom. That is why what was announced in Dundee is so serious. Can you resume your seat a second, Mr Cameron? I detect that this is a debate where emotions are going to run high, but I would encourage you to listen to it, whoever has the right to speak, to listen to that respectfully if you want to make an intervention, get to your feet and ask for intervention. Donald Cameron can give you the time back. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister. I will try and remain good-humoured throughout this, but the SNP have effectively come up with a turbo-charged version of Nicola Sturgeon's de facto referendum, except this time it seems the SNP has set the bar even lower by saying that they do not need to win a majority of votes or even a majority of seats. They say that they just need to win more seats than any other party. It is a nonsense, Deputy Presiding Officer. The SNP knows that a majority of people in Scotland do not want another referendum in the next few years, and that is why they have come up with this desperate barrel-scraping strategy that plays to a narrow audience of nationalists and ignores the wishes of a majority of Scots. People across Scotland will have witnessed... Yes, I will. Just for the record, it would be helpful to understand what the position of the Conservative party is on Scotland being able to determine its future. What do voters in Scotland have to do to be able to have a referendum about their future? People in Scotland had a referendum about their future in 2014, and they voted in that historic referendum to keep the United Kingdom together, Deputy Presiding Officer. People across Scotland this last weekend will have witnessed the events in Dundee. We will be horrified that the SNP is trying to make the future of the union, the one and only issue that the general election is expecting next year. Instead, people in Scotland want this Government to deal with the problems that affect them in their everyday lives. That means a focus on cutting the NHS waiting list backlog and recruiting more doctors, nurses and dentists. That means a focus on narrowing the education attainment gap across all age groups, investing in additional support needs and cutting class sizes. That means a focus on supporting victims of crime and making sure criminals serve proper sentences. No, none of these things are important to this Government. They are not its top priorities, and that is a tragedy, but it is also a scandal. Let me turn to the paper. I do know the sincere pledge given by the Minister for Independence to the National's Holyrood weekly podcast, something that I listened to with great interest most weeks. On 12 May he said that, given that the Government is accountable and responsible to Parliament, and that is responsibility, I take seriously. It is incumbent on me to recognise that we should say to Parliament what the next subject material of the forthcoming prospectus papers will be. Evidently, his words were lost on the First Minister because the paper was, of course, announced with great fanfare at a press conference last week, debated in Dundee, and with just a GIQ to let MSPs know that it had been published. No, I'm going to carry on. I love talking about the law, I love talking about history, I love talking about the constitution, but I'm not going to take the debate today. Tempted as I am to point out that the devolution settlement already enshrines European Convention on Human Rights. Acts of this Parliament, acts of Scottish ministers must, of course, comply with that convention, because this is a paper, Deputy Presiding Officer, which argues a hypothetical of a hypothetical. It concerns an issue that is entirely academic. It is a paper that prioritises a referendum on the monarchy and the weakening of Scotland's defences. How depressing is it that, after 16 years of SNP rule, that is all they have to offer Scotland? We know, we have long known that this Government has run out of ideas and ambition, and today's debate is further proof of that. There is one point in the paper that I will cover as a Highlands and Islands MSP, because I take a keen interest in how this Government might prioritise the region that I represent. However, this paper does none of that. Its proposals for island communities are glib and vague. It argues that a future constitution could place a duty on the Scottish Government to take needs and unique geographical character—I am sorry, I do not have enough time. It says that a future constitution could place a duty on the Scottish Government to take needs and unique geographical character of island communities into consideration when it considers its function. That is precisely what the islands act passed last session was meant to do. Island proofing was the phrase, but rather like island proofing, it is likely to be no more than warm words. What about a right to a ferry? What about actually providing a ferry? To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have to say that there was a moment a few months ago that I thought maybe just maybe a hint of realism was occurring within the SNP. Humza Yousaf himself spoke during the SNP leadership election. He said that independence was not yet the settled will of the Scottish people. Mike Russell, the President of the SNP, said that independence could not be secured right now. There was a moment, temporary as it was, when a realistic honest appraisal was being made by senior figures within the SNP. That is why the announcement in Dundee showed such an absence of judgement. That is why, in launching this paper with all its myths and theories, the SNP have completely misread the mood and temperament of people in Scotland. I do not expect a nationalist to stop believing in independence any more than I expect a unionist to give up their faith in the United Kingdom. Those are views that are sincerely held, genuinely held, but I do expect them to read the room to understand what truly matters to people in Scotland right now and what they expect us as their representatives to be debating. For all those reasons, we encourage others to back our amendment to reject this fantasy and to focus on what the people of Scotland put us in Parliament today. Neil Bibby, to speak to and move amendment 9711.2, around six minutes, please, Mr Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today thousands of our fellow Scots are worrying about their mortgage payments. Our junior doctors are considering three days of strike action because of low pay, and every one of our public services is creaking through a lack of investment. These are just some of the very real and pressing issues facing the people of Scotland right now. People watching today will be wondering why Scotland's parliamentarians are not talking about their priorities. Instead, here we are discussing a fantasy constitution for an independent Scotland that the people do not want. Why is this the most pressing topic when every other part of Scottish life, from health to education to economy to transport, is in dire need of attention? Let us be honest and clear to anyone watching why we are having this debate today. We are having this debate today because of the Scottish National Party Convention in Dundee at the weekend and the need for the Scottish National Party leadership to kid onto the grassroots that they are making progress when they aren't. We are therefore having to indulge in an exercise in SNP internal party management, as well as a desperate attempt for the SNP to try and be relevant at the next general election. At the weekend, SNP members were asked to ignore the blue police tents, the opinion polls and other minor issues like the currency and borders, the promised referendum date in October and instead take their imagination for a walk up to the top of the hill once again. To imagine a world where Scotland is free, where everyone agrees with each other and the scary problems of the outside world dare not intrude. While they are doing that, I will take an intervention. I am glad that Mr Bibby has chosen to give way. He talks about imagination. I would like to hear what the imagination of the Labour party is in relation to these matters. Does the Labour party believe fundamentally that people's rights should be set out in a codified written constitution, or does it believe in the supremacy of the philosophy of the sovereignty of Westminster's department at which it can be changed at the whim of a Government? Neil Bibby, I can give you the time back. We do believe that there should be a change in the Government at Westminster, and we need a Labour Government to bring about the social, economic and political change that Scotland and the rest of the UK needs. We are looking forward to setting our plans for the general election in the coming weeks and months. The SNP members are being asked not to ask any hard questions and about an abysmal record in public services and a failure to make a credible case for Scottish independence, which can command the support of fellow Scots. A case that the Government presumably knows that they are failing to make, because at the weekend HUMS has shifted the goalpost so much so that it can apparently now achieve independence without a majority of people voting for it or the SNP. The previous plans for a de facto referendum lacked credibility with the public, and many inside the SNP too, but the new plans are frankly ludicrous, and the Government benches note. This paper isn't a game changer, and the strategy hasn't been thought through. For example, a special envoy to the EU was announced at the weekend, but the EU has already indicated that they won't speak to them. There are a number of other many questions that I could ask about the inconsistencies on thresholds that bowling club constitutions wouldn't have and other issues, but doing so would be completely pointless. Back in the real world, this Government is promising people in its document basic rights in the future, but it's failing to get the basics right for people today. Scots are no longer falling for the SNP's empty promises and just accepting what they say. We already have legislation on climate change targets and on homelessness too, but climate progress is off track and homelessness is at a high. The SNP claimed that they want to protect the rights of islanders, but this Government can't even sort out the ferries. The SNP said that they want to defend and enshrine local government, but they and the Greens have cut a combined total of £6 billion from council budgets over the last decade. And the SNP said that they want to protect a right to healthcare, but have broken the treatment time guarantee, a law that they passed over half a million times. We do not need Police Scotland to tell us whether this is a Government of law breakers. The cabinet secretary tells us today that we need a written constitution for an independent Scotland to tackle those issues when what people need is competent Government-focused on their priorities. Let's constrast that with another announcement last week. The First Minister, Humza Yousaf, was unveiling his imaginary constitution for an independent Scotland. There was another political speech in Scotland. Keir Starmer, the man who most Scots, in fact most people across the UK, want to be our next Prime Minister, was setting out a real plan to secure our energy supply, green our economy and create jobs here in Scotland. The SNP promised an abandoned plans for a publicly owned energy company, but Labour will create a publicly owned GB energy company headquartered here in Scotland. While the SNP managed the divided party and play fantasy politics, wasting taxpayers' cash on papers described by the Minister for Independence as campaigning tools for SNP activists, Labour is getting down to the real business. We have a plan for real change, a plan to fix the mess our country is in by tackling the everyday problems facing Scotland. The next general election won't be a de facto referendum, it will be a general election. The latest poll suggests Labour gaining more and more support in Scotland. Whether you voted yes or no, the Tories need to go. While the SNP talked to themselves about themselves, we will seek to offer Scotland the economic, the social and the political change that it needs and move the amendment in my name. When Alex Salmond was sitting in the seat that Angus Robertson was sitting in 10 years ago, he could cut the atmosphere with a knife, he could feel the anticipation on the SNP benches, the desire to get stuck into the independence referendum and to give it their credit. He built a campaign that was quite phenomenal, it was quite daunting. Today, the more that Angus Robertson said, and I'm sure he said it several times, who could fail to be excited? I am hugely excited. I am hugely encouraged. The more he implored people to be excited, the more the backbenchers stuck into their laptops and looked at their phones. There is no anticipation, there is no excitement about this. I am somebody who does get excited about written constitutions, but even I haven't read this paper. I'd be surprised if less than 0.0001 per cent of the population have read this document that has been produced by the new minister—no, not just now, I'm sorry. I've only got four minutes and I've got so much to say. I'm not ready—no, I haven't read it—and I'm not going to read it. I'll tell you why I'm not going to read this paper, because this week I have been dealing with constituents who are facing cuts to fire services in their constituency. I have been dealing with the victims of Professor Elgemel at Dundee, who have been scarred for life by that professor because of a failed system. I have been dealing with a family who is desperate—I've seen her now—now they are looking at their phones, now they are not interested. The only thing that gets them interested is the constitution. When they face the hard reality of life that my constituents are facing, they are no longer interested any more. That's the hard reality. I'm dealing with people, patients in Newburgh, who are about to have their NHS dentist closed. I am dealing with a family of a beaten-up pupil in my constituency because of violence and behaviour in our schools. I have been dealing with a constituent who has been waiting for months to get their adult disability payment because now Scotland has longer waits than the DWP, the evil DWP, according to the SNP. Those are the harsh realities of life. It's not a written constitution for a fantasy independence campaign that nobody on those benches isn't at all excited about because they simply don't believe it's going to happen. We're wasting our time. Last week we were having a debate about the Care and Justice Bill for children. We were debating whether people should go through the children's hearing system and whether they should go to secure units rather than young offenders' institutions. I had four minutes. We had a whole range of issues to discuss—enormous, massive consequences, a good bill that is potentially mismanaged, and that's why we need to spend more time on it. We were given four minutes to discuss this phenomenally important bill. Today we've got this fantasy debate just to keep this lot united behind the First Minister who's failing. We need to be focusing on the harsh reality that my constituents are facing and I know all of your constituents are facing as well. So let's get real. Today, of all days they choose to have this debate, we have got the longest delayed gist charge of all time. It was supposed to have been eradicated, but of all time they chose today to debate that, not cancer waiting times that they could have debated, but the worst on record again. Why are we not debating those issues? Rather than this fantasy paper—I'd be surprised that even the back benches have read it, it's so bloody boring—let's get focused on what matters in people's lives, rather than wasting our time with this debate. Thank you. We now move to the open debate. I call first Kevin Stewart to be followed by Shan Dowie around four minutes. Presiding Officer, to put it simply, the UK's current constitutional arrangements are not good enough. There is nothing to protect our health service or workers' and citizens' rights, which we have seen the Westminster Government take advantage of with keeping NHS privatisation and the ripping away of the right to strike. It seems that we will be offered nothing different from Labour. Mr Bibby has admitted so today. Sir Keir Starmer will carry on in the same old vein saying that you will have had your rights and will keep the House of Lords to boot. That is Labour's way too. In terms of dealing with constituents, as Mr Rennie has just pointed out, all of us are dealing with the problems of the cost of living, Brexit, the Ukraine war and, of course, Tory austerity, which has been driven upon us by a Westminster Parliament that is sovereign. Independence offers the people of Scotland the chance to create a permanent, modern written constitution that puts their rights at the heart of Scotland's democracy. In my opinion, the first line of Scotland's interim constitution should make clear that Scotland is an independent country in which the people are sovereign, not the Parliament that people are sovereign. The new paper, creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland, sets out how people in Scotland can shape their newly independent country. It tells us how independence could radically shift where power lies, replacing Westminster sovereignty with the sovereignty of the people who live in Scotland. It explains how a written constitution could put rights and equality at its heart, including by protecting the right to strike and giving constitutional recognition to the NHS in Scotland. It lays out how a permanent written constitution could be developed by the people of Scotland and their elected Parliament, giving Scotland the constitution ready to take on the challenges of the future. I share the view of the First Minister that the constitution should very clearly and explicitly state that Scotland should not have or host nuclear weapons. As I have stated in this Parliament before, the hundreds of billions of pounds spent on weapons of mass destruction would be much better spent on our public services and on supporting our people. Nurses, not nukes, teachers, not trident, bairns, not bombs. Our constitution must be for all the people of Scotland enshrining human rights and ensuring progress and aspiration. In the last couple of decades, we have seen progress in areas such as LGBT rights, with the likes of the passing of equal marriage legislation. We have also, in the last couple of years, seen an effort by some, including by politicians, to roll back on that progress that has been made. In my opinion, those hard-won rights should be embedded in the constitution of an independent Scotland. We need to ensure that the voices of minorities are heard in the formulation of our constitution and that we create a system that serves all. The words dignity, fairness and respect are now used a great deal in this Parliament by MSPs from all sides of the chamber. I am very proud that those three words mean so much, dignity, fairness and respect, were first enshrined in law by an amendment that I proposed to the Scottish welfare fund bill. In my opinion, dignity, fairness and respect should be at the very heart of our constitution for an independent Scotland. For far too long, many people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, autistic folk and those that are neurodiverse have not been listened to to the degree that they should have been. Let's change that in our written constitution. If we do all of that, we will create a fairer, wealthier, aspirational independent Scotland that we so desperately need. I hope to see all MSPs backing those proposals today, which puts the values of the people at the heart of our society. This Parliament was set up to improve the lives of people in Scotland, to create more highly skilled jobs, generate exciting new opportunities for young people, improve public services such as our NHS, our education system and our roads. We should be spending all our time on those key issues, the things that really matter to local people. We could be increasing the number of subjects and schools that pupils get to experience. We could be investing to improve vital roads such as the A77 and the A75. We could be overhauling the justice system so that it puts victims first. That's the Scotland that I want to build. One where victims get justice, schools provide more opportunities, motorists have good roads to travel on, vulnerable people get mental health treatment, islanders can get a ferry and everyone can access vital NHS treatment quickly. But nothing that the SNP are talking about today will help build that better Scotland. They're not focused on those top priorities, they're only focused on their endless constitutional obsession. This debate is a total waste of everybody's time and effort. It's a disgrace to come here talking about some fantasy constitution when people in Scotland desperately need better public services now. But this shows what the SNP government has become. It's not really a government anymore, it's a constitutional campaign group, nothing more. It now exists solely to create grievances with the UK government, to divide people in Scotland and to promote division about everything else, no matter the cost. The SNP government has somehow convinced itself that a Minister for Independence is a necessity. They are now in the ridiculous position of insisting that it's good value for taxpayers to divert Government resources and a team of civil servants away from front-line issues. Just look at what they announced over the weekend. The SNP have said that the next general election will be fought on the issue of independence and that every seat won by them will count towards a mandate. Hamza Yousaf has taken Nicola Sturgeon's reckless referendum plan and put it in steroids. He has decided that the de facto referendum isn't extreme enough. Now the SNP genuinely seem to be claiming that they will try to break away the United Kingdom if they get one more vote than any other party in Scotland. We are told by Labour and Tory politicians that this union is a voluntary union. Can he ask what route the Scottish people have right here, right now, to express their views on that? The one thing that I would say is that normally when we have debates in the chamber about things that matter, there is not a Minister to be seen in sight. Today, when we are talking about the constitution, everybody is here. Everybody is here to discuss the constitution instead of what matters. The Public Health Minister, I would much rather see, Presiding Officer, finding dentists. Can you resume your seat a second? I made a plea earlier in this debate that people who had the floor should be listened to with respect. The member has taken an intervention and she should be listened to in respect of her response. You do need to be concluded fairly shortly. The ministers are all in to speak about the constitution. The Public Health Minister, I would much rather was looking to find the solution to why we do not have any dentists and my constituents cannot get any dental appointments. Social care minister, looking for bedblock and why are people stuck in hospital. Community safety, if we looked at the fire and rescue, then I would be able to clear my inbox because my inbox is absolutely jam-packed full of emails from the fire and rescue service asking what is happening to cuts. I note that I can look forward to in the summer at building a new Scotland series. There is a future paper coming out. I would much rather see a paper on building a new national treatment centre for carrot glen in air that seems to have went to a standstill where the orthopedic surgery in there would much help my constituents. People across Scotland, even many SNP supporters, can see that this Government is out of touch. You do now need to conclude, Mr E. I welcome the publication of creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland, the opportunity that it sets out for the people of Scotland to directly shape a new, modern and more democratic country with constitutional safeguards for democracy and human rights, provides hope in what can feel like pretty desperate times. Times where important values are under attack by the Westminster Government, a Westminster Government that has introduced laws that stripped rights of asylum seekers and other vulnerable people, encouraged voter disenfranchisement, limited judicial oversight of government actions, and placed new draconian restrictions on the right into peaceful protest. A tax that it should be noted that none of the UK parties appear interested in reversing as they appeal to general election voters outwith Scotland. To the Opposition amendments, I suppose in summary, I would say three things. Number one, democracy is not a one-off event. Two, debate and disagreement are normal, healthy and do not have to be divisive. Politicians can take responsibility in displaying this and not feeling bad feeling and fear amongst those with different views, beliefs and aspirations. Further to that, as for not discussing theoretical plans, at first I smiled at that because I thought surely that's what all political policy ideas start out as, but then I actually felt a bit sad for whoever wrote that, the misery of it. Goodness me, can we not raise our eyes a bit and imagine a better way of doing things? Imagine a better Scotland. If not, I don't know what we're here for. Presiding Officer, with no written constitution, the UK is an outlier. It's one of the very few countries in the world that does not have a single written document that could be called a constitution. The issue with the series of laws, conventions and presidents that form how the UK works is that, at its heart, the idea that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign requiring a simple majority to legislate on any matter. What that means is that, no matter how central any law is to our society, like a publicly owned NHS, like workers' rights or even like devolution itself, a simple majority vote at Westminster could change or overturn that. Perhaps the thought of a first line of a Scottish constitution stating that Scotland is an independent country in which the people are sovereign won't spark as much joy in those for who sustaining the union as a priority as it does for me and others who want to see Scotland regain her independence. By hope, when we get to that point, when the people of Scotland make it clear via the ballot box that independence is the destination that they want, that all colleagues in this chamber, as Democrats, as people of principle, will see that the chance to create a permanent modern written constitution that puts rights at the hearts of Scotland's democracy is above party politics and they will participate fully and positively in a written constitution that the people of Scotland believe in that has the collective authority of our nation so that those in power accept that, under the constitution, they are accountable to the people in a modern, more democratic country. Surely we can all get behind that. Thank you. I call Carol Mocken to be followed by Keith Brown. Usually I would welcome the contents of a debate at the start of my remarks, but it is worrying and frustrating in equal measures that yet again we find ourselves debating the SNP's confusing and incoherent plans for a referendum. Plans backed by the admission of independent supporters are at best unclear. It often seems that when scrutiny of this Government's performance on issues such as DRS, not the moment, thank you, the NHS or just general, an airshare becomes too prevalent, you can guarantee that the next item on the agenda will be independence and here we go again. For many members of the public, this looks like naval gazing during an on-going cost of living crisis in an increasingly unstable geopolitical situation across the world. In fact, it is verging on a fantasy that this Government sees discussion about a written constitution as a priority during these difficult times and I would implore them to get their act together and work on things important to the communities in Scotland. Why not, not at the moment, thank you? Why not use this time to produce a real recovery plan for the NHS that will have an immediate impact on staff morale, pay and patient capacity? Or to fix lifeline services for Scotland's constantly underappreciated island communities? What about the ferries? Not at the moment, thank you. Why don't we address the crisis in local government funding in this country that is seeing many of our towns and villages without key services? You will have that in your inbox, you will know that to be true. Or perhaps most importantly of all, we can maximise assistance to the families across Scotland struggling with the surging cost of living that is rapidly eating up their pay packets. Any one of those things is of much more immediate importance than a sitting Government acting like a debating society. Looking to consider, absolutely not, thank you, looking to consider hypotheticals rather than the wolf at the door. This is very clearly and blatantly an attempt to play to the crowd because this First Minister is on the ropes within his own party and voters are turning away from this Government. Let's not pretend otherwise. On the notion of a constitution itself, although I have no issue with a clearer statement of rights and protecting such important things as the right to strike, there are plenty of positive steps that the Government could take right now simply through their own actions. We can give people more power in their workplaces and communities with the powers available to us currently, so why is that not being pursued? Why is that not being pursued? They do not need another mandate to implement those things. Jamie Hepburn and Angus Robertson are quick to tell us that they have a mandate to deliver a referendum on independence, but they are equally quick to forget the commitments to abolish council tax, to reduce primary class sizes and who can forget, as I have heard before, the treatment guarantee. Only the SNP Government can forget the treatment guarantee. Their talk of a mandate only suits them when it comes to independence, not delivering on the real priorities for the Scottish people. In short, the public want this Government to deliver on what they have already secured votes for before they start constructing the next promise that they will break. I do not think that it is too much to ask. All it takes is accepting the barrier of a reality that it is this time that they should appreciate what the communities of Scotland want. They are not looking for independence and certainly at the moment none of them are looking for another referendum. That is just a hard political reality that faces them. A mature Government would consider accepting that point. It is not the time to discuss this paper. I was going to talk about the virtues of a written constitution that many of my colleagues have done, but it is important for the chamber to realise just exactly what it is that the Opposition parties, all looking at their phones, support when they support the current unwritten constitution. Rather than quoting Dicey or Edmund Burke or Montesquieu or any of the thinkers that they would normally cite in defence of an unwritten constitution, it has just been a pure isle attack on the SNP. I do not know how many times Neil Bibby mentioned the words SNP, for example, in his speech, but let us look at what they currently support. What do you get with an unwritten constitution? First of all, you get the prorogging of a Parliament when it becomes inconvenient. You stop the Parliament and lie to the head of state about the prorogging of Parliament. Prorogging of Parliament stopped working altogether. What they are doing here in the empty benches that we see is walking away because they have no arguments to counter our proposals for a written constitution. You also have a situation where you can make international agreements and then break them immediately once you have made them. Or it may only be in a specific and limited way, but you lie to people that you have made an agreement and you trash the reputation of the state that you support in the process of doing it. Or, of course, you can stuff to the gunnels, the House of Lords, that paragon, that mother of parliaments, where you have 800 plus cronies of various political parties, Labour and Tory, ones that are donated to those parties, and you call that a democracy. It must be the only legislature in the world where the majority are unelected and yet not a word of condemnation from any of the parties in this Parliament. Then, of course, you can lie to Parliament without a word being said on those benches about the liar himself, Boris Johnston, not a word of condemnation from those benches in this place. Of course, for years we had the fiction that we had a separation of powers within the UK Parliament. Of course, you had a person in the name of the Lord Chance who was a member of the Executive, the judiciary, as well as the legislature, the embodiment of the fact that there was no separation of powers with all the attendant problems that that brought as well. However, when you put all those flaws into the fact that you have an unwritten constitution with the presence of the constitutional vandals that we see in Westminster just now, that is where you get some of the major breaches of that constitution. That would have been much more difficult for those constitutional vandals to have done that had there been a written constitution with protections for individuals and groups within society. However, it is easy to go through that unwritten constitution and make those breaches if you have this thin veneer of respectability of an unwritten constitution. It has been a source of shame for many years to me, having studied political science to see when some people put this up in a pedestal as some fantastic, almost mythical virtue of the UK state that it is anything but. It is also true, of course, that it allows for democratic denial, a rewriting of what most people understand as the basic principles of democracy. If you win an election and you get to implement your manifesto, that has been ditched. The idea of the mandate at a cornerstone of democracy has been ditched by the people and the opposition parties in this chamber. Of course, you have the devolution mess that we are seeing just now whereby parties that simply do not like your party can change their mind, can act with caprice to make sure that you are stopped in your legitimate aims from exercising devolved powers within the devolved settlements. Of course, before Labour gets too comfortable, you can have illegal wars as well. That is one of the things that you can do, which is to consign many people to deaths in those wars at the same time as going straight past their normal democratic processes. The point that Paul McThenna has made is that you can have an active union, which you can tell people is voluntary, but you just make sure that there is no way that you can exercise your rights to leave that union. Even if that was a deal that he signed up to, of course, in the first place. It is quite clear to me that the virtues of a written constitution will appeal. Despite what you say about fantasy, I think that they will appeal to the people of Scotland, not least because the curtain has been pulled back from the unwritten constitution and I think that rights respecting Scotland, which looked after the rights of individuals in the way that we have heard, will prove to be very effective in making sure that people vote for independence for Scotland. Thank you. I call Ross Greer to be followed by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Independence is a worthy goal in and of itself for Greens. We believe that bringing power closer to people is worthwhile, but we certainly believe, and I am sure that I know that SNP colleagues do as well, that we want these powers, the powers of independence for a purpose, because we believe that our nation can achieve so much more with the powers of a normal independent nation. We can be fairer, greener and more democratic, and the process of establishing that new nation is a hugely exciting opportunity. It is an opportunity to discuss and to decide and to enshrine our founding values. Who do we aspire to be as a nation? In Scotland, sovereignty lies with the people, not with Parliament. That is a radical and ancient tradition, and it is one that we will honour with a process that allows the people to write the constitution, not just the politicians, because too often for people across the UK, politics feels like something that is done to them, not something that we all do together. That is what Westminster is to me. A politics done to people, and an independent Scotland is our opportunity to do politics differently, to do politics together as a people. For Greens, we see a huge opportunity in the fundamental questions of democracy, like who our head of state should be. We are told that the British monarchy is an appropriate head of state because it is neutral and does not interfere in our politics, but that is not the case. We cannot search their properties for the loot of centuries of British imperialism, they are exempt from equality's legislation, so their staff cannot take them to court if they are mistreated, and they are exempted from inheritance tax. Of course, now we have the ludicrous spectacle of the heir to the throne claiming to dedicate himself to ending homelessness whilst committing a fraction of what his family should have paid in tax to that cause. His dad claims that he is committed to tackling the climate crisis, but, of course, his family's lands in Scotland are exempt from various bits of climate legislation such as the Heat Networks Bill. An independent Scotland can follow the wave of commonwealth nations for switching to an elected head of state. We just need to look to our nearest neighbour in Ireland for an example of how astounding individuals can come forward for that position, Mary Maclees, Mary Robinson and the incumbent Michael D Higgins, who I think gave possibly the greatest speech ever heard in this Parliament. Independence is about democracy above all else. We will root our new nation in that principle from top to bottom, and we can enshrine the powers exercised at local level. That is not just about creating another sovereign Parliament like Westminster here at Holyrood. It is about empowering our communities as well, because we need democratic renewal. We certainly need rid of the house of lords. If it was not thoroughly discredited before this week, the revelations that MI5 officers had to warn Boris Johnson not to appoint Evgeny Lebedev to the lords, only for him to ignore them, should surely destroy any credibility that that institution still has. That was hardly the first scandal, whether it is cash for honours or the appointment of donors and hangars on for decades and centuries. Writing a constitution is an opportunity for us to be bold in guaranteeing the rights that are needed by people and by planet. We can enshrine the right to healthcare and protect the status of our NHS. We can enshrine the right to strike and to protest. Fundamental rights are required for any group of people to genuinely be free, but they are under attack by the UK Government right now. We have one party of government in the UK attacking those rights, and the other party either supporting them or at best abstaining and committing not to repeal them once they have been passed. The people through our constitution will constrain the power of both Parliament and Government in an independent Scotland, and Parliament's role in relation to government will be made clear. Major decisions like declarations of war should absolutely be passed by Parliament rather than through the executive power of a Government. There are few inequalities in Scotland as long or unequal is the huge concentration of land ownership in very, very few hands. That is exactly the kind of issue that we could tackle with our constitution. We just need to look to international examples out in Brazil, whose constitution requires land and property to fulfil a social function. We could look at New Zealand's ban on nuclear weapons, the Swiss model of direct democracy. There are so many inspiring examples, exciting examples, of the kind of nation that an independent Scotland could be. I am excited for us to take the first steps on that journey. The Conservative and Labour amendments allude to or promulgate the proposition that a written constitution is an abstract, which displaces the real and current issues for the people of Scotland, the economy, cost of living crisis, free access to healthcare at the point of need at a warm affordable home, a decent living wage, the right to withdraw your labour, to be free of weapons of mass destruction, to provide a sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Our written constitution is the framework, the foundation of a just society, where human rights, the rights of our children, the rights especially of the vulnerable, the rights I have referred to, the rights of my constituents, Willie Rennie, who is not here, are fundamental and protected. It is a contract with the people who, of course, are sovereign and have remained so despite the union of 1707. I quote McCormack against the Lord Advocate in the 1950s session, case 396, on appeal to the inner house. Lord President Cooper Obertor dictum quotes, The principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle. Reinstated in the claim of rights signed on 30 March 1989, we gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention to hear by acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and to hear by declaring pledge that in all our action deliberations their interests shall be paramount. Yet the UK Parliament has placed what to all intents and purposes is a permanent veto on the Scots exercising their sovereign right through a referendum. I remind the unionists in here that in 2014 the Scottish people were told that to vote yes to independence they'd be thrown out of the EU. We voted 62 per cent remain and we've been dragged out against our will. With no UK written constitution, Westminster has free reign to undermine and even erode basic human rights, especially for the vulnerable, the rape clause, the bedlam tax, providing a haven in Scotland for nuclear weapons and for those seeking sanctuary, the irony given its imperial past of a reverse slave trade paying for the shipping of desperate migrants to Rwanda, whose own breach of human rights the UK has actually questioned. We in this Parliament find that our protection of these rights is restricted and being eroded and that is in the context not only of a majority in here with manifestos committed to an independent Scotland but with a majority of Scottish MPs, 45 SNP to six Tory, one Labour, four Liberal Democrats. Independence with a written constitution means that no Scottish Parliament could unilaterally remove or amend the rights of the Scottish people embedded in that constitution. It would require the consent of the people who are sovereign. That is not what the Westminster Parliament is doing day in and day out. A constitution, which is pragmatic in its implementation, giving rights and remedies to the people of Scotland should any Scottish Government default, these are rights that are the stuff of fact, not fiction. Thank you. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Michael Marra. Presiding Officer, of all the issues we could spend precious parliamentary time on, we are here today to debate the constitution of an independent Scotland. We could have spent today focusing on the NHS waiting time crisis, which includes the cancer treatment target that has been missed for almost a decade, or coming up with a plan to reduce Scotland's shockingly high drugs deaths, which the SNP are unable to get a grip of, or addressing falling educational standards and closing the attainment gap that continues to widen under the SNP, or tackling violent crime, which is at its highest level since 2014. Or tackling climate change, such as exploring how the SNP and Greens can stop missing their emissions targets, or how they can rescue their botched deposit to return scheme. But instead of dealing with the real issues affecting people across Scotland, the SNP and Greens would rather use up the time of this chamber discussing their ever more convoluted independence fantasy. A fantasy constitution, triggered by a fantasy independence referendum, which triggers another fantasy referendum to adopt the fantasy constitution. That is all that this latest independence paper is—more fantasy released in time to placate the party faithful at the SNP's weekend conference on independence. However, what is not a fantasy is the £1.5 million a year that the Scottish Government is paying 24 civil servants in their constitutional futures division to work on those prospectus for independence papers and similar projects. No. Up until recently, the First Minister suggested that those prospectus for independence papers were a waste of time. I thank Maurice Golden for taking the intervention, but he will be able to tell the chamber how much the UK Government spent on civil servants to deal with Brexit. I am neither responsible for or accountable to the UK Government, but if the member would like to question the UK Government, there will be a general election coming up, which the member may want to consider standing in. The First Minister suggested that the prospectus for independence papers were a waste of time, as they were being ignored by the general public. According to the First Minister, it will be different with him. Of course, he wants to be known as the first activist, and it would be his job as First Minister to get those fantasy documents into the hands of activists, which begs a number of worrying questions. Does the member really think that this is the role that the First Minister entails? More alarmingly, how can it be appropriate to have 24 civil servants at a cost of £1.5 million a year producing documents to be used by SNP activists? I know that the £1.5 million may seem like a drop in the ocean when it comes to the hundreds of millions of pounds that this Government wastes, but I will try to explain that to the families up and down the country who are struggling every day with the cost of living crisis. The SNP act, as if they are alone, I need to make progress in the last 22 seconds. The SNP act, if they alone know what is best for Scotland, but the Scottish people rejected independence in a free and fair referendum Scotland told them no, and the SNP have never come to terms with that. To state that independent Scotland would have a written constitution is an exercise in stating the obvious. I thought of a very fine and eloquent speech when Christine Grahame made that very straightforward statement and turned it something into the more of the poetry of it, but no new state is now formed that does not develop and adopt a written constitution, so it is a statement of the obvious. The lack of a codified constitution in the UK is a historical anomaly, and it is maintained by institutions that have, in relative terms, globally been stable over centuries. The debate that we have to do, not right now, but I will certainly come back to you, is brought today that there is benefits to codification above flexibility. It offers very little insight so far into the trade-offs between them, although I think Keith Brown also gave a good speech in that regard. I have to say that it is not a debate that greatly animates me or my party. We are, and always have been, more animated by the delivery of social protection and progress rather than writing down those aspirations on parchment. No, I am just getting started, thank you. The paper in question suggests that the NHS be written into our constitution, but the reality of protecting our NHS will not be achieved in prose or by a plebiscite. As Bevan made clear, the NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to fight for it. It is a political question of the will and means to raise the resources and competent government to channel them appropriately, and it is this incompetent SNP Government who have driven our NHS to its knees and to the brink of collapse. Professionals who have dedicated their lives to our citizens through our NHS are now openly asking whether it can survive. As reported just this weekend in the Herald, we have 7,000 Scots awaiting treatment for more than two years compared to 600 in England, a country 11 times our size. There has been the complete failure of the NHS recovery plan, the longest waiting times ever, and a plethora of waiting time guarantees that have been met. The SNP is making an unholy mess of protecting our NHS today. Instead, we are invited today to welcome its protection in a fictional document in some undetermined future, and that should be a worry to all of us. None of that addresses the fact that no comparable small nation has an NHS, that the weight of such committed expenditure is not normally borne by a more limited tax base. None of that recognises the immediate loss of over £10 billion in revenue in the event of secession, which we have been asked to believe would have no adverse effect upon our ability to retain and improve our NHS. None of that is recognised in the cost of establishing a new state, building exchange reserves to defend a pegged currency for a foreign power, who would at that point be setting interest rates for our separate country. None of that is my proposition. It is this Government's policy platform, which brings us to this weekend's headline performance at the Great Care Hall in Dundee. The reviews are rolling in and they do not make for pretty reading. It is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to genuinely know what to make of the whole thing. SNP MPs are included, apparently. Maybe it is just dreadful writing, they say. Surely it could not have been purposely ambiguous. The First Minister is certainly trying to get good value out of his money for his new spin-doctor. The First Minister appears to be telling the country that independence can be decided by 33 per cent of the votes, taking Nicola Sturgeon's widely discredited proposal and going even further. Will the vote be monitored by a slightly smaller independence thermometer, Ash Regan might let us know? It is not a serious plan, but that is no surprise because he is not a serious First Minister. He is attempting to reframe an election and manage party expectations in a desperate attempt to hold on to his job. All of this time of NHS distress, cost of living crisis and mortgage rate meltdown, would that we could talk about all of this instead. I have been reading the words of James Madison, who was the father of the constitution of the United States of America. There was one quote in particular that struck me, and I would like to share it with the chamber. He said that the people are the only legitimate fountain of power and it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the several branches of government hold their power is derived. For centuries here in Scotland, sovereignty is said to lie with the people, and so it should come as no surprise that such an absolute should be instilled within James Madison because he was educated by a Scott, a tutor Donald Robertson. When the United States of America declared independence from the United Kingdom, among the first lines of the Declaration of Independence were the words, we hold those truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. When Scotland regains her independence, we too should put equality, not only for men though I might add, in the opening lines of our written constitution. The Declaration of Independence goes on to say, let facts be submitted to a candid world, and in the list of facts, the document outlines why independence is needed. Of the then leader of the United Kingdom, it says, he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people relinquish the right of representation in the legislature. For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world, for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments, now does this sound familiar to anyone? Since 1939, 62 countries have become independent from the United Kingdom, and to date none of them have asked to return. The near totality of those countries has codified constitutions. It took three centuries for Scotland to regain her parliament and just a few short decades for the UK Government to overrule and undermine it. The UK is an outlier without a written constitution, and while the Scottish Government is enshrining rights, the UK Government is trying to take them away. The first line of Scotland's interim constitution should make clear that Scotland is an independent country in which the people are sovereign. Never again should power so far, both geographically and democratically, from the people of Scotland be able to undermine our sovereign will. The publication of creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland lays out a vision for our constitutional future. It is a vision that embraces the principles of democracy, human rights and the sovereignty of the people. It is a document that reflects the aspirations and the values of our nation. In recent years, we have witnessed a persistence from the UK Government and the Conservative Party as a whole in restricting the democratic will of the Scottish people. Time and time again, our voices have been undermined and our choices disregarded. The power imbalance is evident with decisions that directly affect Scotland being made without our consent or our consideration. Those are just a few ideas that have close to my heart in the constitution, protecting the right for workers and protecting the NHS, which would be free at the point of use. I want to finish my remarks today with a plea to Scots across the country to dwell on and articulate our vision for Scotland. We do not just have to imagine a better country, but this is not fantasy. We can build it. Do not let anyone think that you cannot. A written constitution is precisely the opportunity to create the foundation of a society where every citizen is valued, where rights are protected and where the interests of the people take precedence over narrow political considerations. I heard across the chamber that we are not looking at the wolves at the door absolutely, but I do not know about MDL's buying a fed-up of the wolves at the door. Let's stop the wolves of Westminster coming to Scotland. Thank you, Ms Adam. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Foisal Choudhury. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This debate today could have been used to debate the crisis in our NHS and how children are having to wait months for routine medical tests or to help students who are threatened with homelessness due to rising energy costs and housing supply. We would have been discussing much needed education reform or local government budget cuts. Instead, we are here today to debate independence. Yet again, this document brings nothing new to the table. In fact, it is the fourth office kind. Presiding Officer, the S&P have said time and time again that the revelation is being undermined in Scotland, when, in fact, the revelation is being trumped by two governments who refuse to work together. It is being undermined by the Tories in Westminster and the S&P here in Holyrood refusing to communicate and cooperate. While the two governments cannot reach an agreement, Scotland suffers. This government should be spending this time with the real problems facing Scotland. There could be tackling waiting times in the NHS, helping the people of Scotland pay their bills or addressing social and health inequalities in Scotland. But, as Willie Rennie mentioned, the S&P does not want to face the hard reality of the issues facing the people in Scotland. That is why, as Sharon Dowey pointed out, we often struggle to see ministers in the chamber to address these issues. Instead, the S&Ps are doubling down in the politics of division. Scottish Levers' constitutional offer will see revelation stracted, not weakened or undermined. It would ensure the government focus on the principle that power should be as near as possible to the place in which it is exercised. It would focus on moving power into the hands of local authorities and communities. Neil Bibby spoke of the £6 billion in cuts to local governments. Scottish Labour would ensure fairer funding for local communities. This is the reality that Scottish Labour is offering, not an ideological pipeline of independence, one which there is a little more support for than in 2014. I've got a long list to go through. Presiding Officer, Scotland is not a colony. At the S&P conference at the weekend, Murray Black MP referred Scotland becoming the 63rd country to gain independence from the UK. The rhetoric following an S&P MP last year commenting in the chamber that it was beyond belief that Labour MSP would support a motion celebrating Indian independence but not Scottish independence. Presiding Officer, in Kenya during Mao Mao uprising in 1952, there were widespread reports of detention camps, torture, sexual assault and brutal bodily harm. During the colonial rule in India in 1919, the Amritsar massacre so protestor against colonial rule brought inside a world garden and fired upon until the guns ran out of ammunition. British rules also saw widespread famine and poverty. In 1943, up to 4 million Mngales starved to death while millions of tons of wheat were exported in Britain. Are we actually comparing this Scotland dealership ship in the UK? No, sorry, no. These countries were fighting for independence from Scotland to even try to compare the experience of British rule in these countries to Scotland relationship with the rest of the UK is insulting. We must stop the rhetoric of Scotland as a colony and address the legacy of Scotland as a coloniser. In closing, Presiding Officer, as the S&P talk to themselves about themselves, as they hide behind the ill-founded arguments, as they continue to fail to make the case for independence, Labour is focused on strengthening devolation and being the change that Scotland needs. I suppose that this afternoon's debate fits neatly into the traditional BBC summer schedule of repeats. Unfortunately, I am suffering from a chronic migraine this afternoon, so while I can see you, I cannot actually see anybody else in the chamber. You are all just an afog there, but I hope that you will take that into account. A couple of weeks ago, I attended an event at a local primary school of my constituency, Eagleson Primary, who had got into partnership with Scottish Opera and had put on a marvellous production. The kids were in fantastic costumes, they were singing. It was altogether more coherent, joyful, original and better rehearsed than any speech that I heard from those advocating this motion this afternoon. I understand the importance of the games industry to Scotland. I have never played one, but my sons, when they were younger, used to play something called The Sims. In The Sims, you were able to construct this completely artificial little world in your own head. You built buildings and put in police stations and wrote constitutions. I never expected—Mr Robertson knows more about it than I do, obviously—that it has inspired him for his contribution today. However, I never expected a video game to be the hallmark and centre of Scottish Government policy. Mr Robertson, who is indulging in this fantasy, and what I suppose must be regarded as the high-water mark of his contribution to public office has otherwise written some really rather nice books. He wrote an excellent book on Vienna, which I commend other people to read. He would be far better applying himself to that task than to the ridiculous nonsense and fantasy that he has brought before this chamber this afternoon. I do not know how many of the SNP members or Green members sitting behind him this afternoon were here in the 2007 Parliament, a smattering perhaps. That Government, led by Alex Salmond, with no record to defend, was actually quite impressive. Of course, in the 2011 election, it won an absolute majority, and it won a right to fight a referendum on Scottish independence. It fought that referendum, it lost that referendum, with the highest turnout in any public vote that there has ever been in any contest at any time in the entire history of the United Kingdom. I will in just a second at any time in the United Kingdom, and in no election since has the separatist movement come close to achieving anything like the poll in favour of independence it achieved then. I am grateful for Jackson Carlaw taking an intervention. I intervened on his front bench colleague earlier to ask what the position of the Scottish Conservative Unionist party is in relation to Scotland being able to make a decision about its democratic future. He failed to answer that. Could Jackson Carlaw tell the chamber what do Scots need to do to be able to secure a vote on their own independent future? In that referendum that the separist lost in 2014, they said that it would be a once-in-a-generation event. What surprises me genuinely is that, in the years since, there has been no attempt whatsoever from the SNP to define what a generation is and when another referendum might reasonably take place. I was calling for quite so that we might hear you, Mr Carlaw. Some people have defined it as 25 years and some have defined it as 40. By the end of this Parliament, we will be 12 years from the date of the last referendum. Surely, a far better purpose in engaging on the future of Scotland's constitutional future would have been to work with others to say when might another referendum reasonably take place. If it was two parliaments before now and two parliaments from now, we would have covered that 25 years. Mr Brown, I think that you and I had all this out in a television programme once, and I am afraid that you failed lamentably. I happen to notice that, since you accused others of looking at their phones, you have done nothing but look at your own phone ever since this afternoon, which are deeply ironic. We have also heard from Christine Grahame talk about the European Union, and it's true. I was one of those who voted to remain. Scotland did vote to remain in the EU referendum in 2016, and that has been trumpeted by the SNP. It hasn't changed the opinion polls in favour of independence. Mr Brown likes to pop to his feet and sometimes not even from his feet. Talk about Liz Truss and the dreadful economic catastrophe as he sees it brought about with the Government last year. It was certainly an inglorious period in the history of Conservative Government. That hasn't changed the opinion polls in favour of Scottish independence. Nothing has changed the opinion polls in favour of Scottish independence. So, when Nicola Sturgeon said on television repeatedly after that referendum that she would not call for another one until there was a sustained, substantial and consistent majority in opinion polls in favour of independence, it's never happened. Instead, we have this wheeze, a little backroom exercise, and how can we keep the conversation and independence alive? What can we pretend to say differently? Instead, as others have said, the real issue is that there is no constituent of mine in Eastwood who has ever knocked on my door and said, Mr Carlaw, what I want is a new constitution to be thought up for an imaginary post-independent Scotland. What they have said to me is, why is it four years before I can get my gallbladder operation when 20 years ago, when I had mine, it was four months? Why is it that they can't get a ferry to and from the Isle of Arran? Why is it that schools are unable to actually provide qualifications and an education of a standard that we saw before this Government came to office? Why is it that the firefighters are queuing up complaining about this SNP Government? Those are the issues, and Sharon Dow was quite right in the debates that we have on those issues in this Parliament. The SNP benches are largely empty, but where are they today? Absolutely. Yes, we'll turn out to discuss the real issues. Let's hear Mr Carlaw. When the SNP turns out to discuss nothing but fantasy instead. And then, at the climax of it all, we heard from that would-be international revisionist historian Ross Greer, with his usual backdoor attack in the monke. Let me just say to him and to the SNP series ranks beside him. The majority of people in this country, I am confident, look forward to the reign of King Charles III, King William IV, and long after we are all dead and gone, the reign of King George VII. Let me conclude, Presiding Officer, with two simple statements which sum up the mood of the unionist majority in this country, advance Britannia, God save the king. I don't intend to make the monarchy the central focus of my contribution today, but I did notice a little discomfort from Mr Cameron in the ovation for the current monarchy. Mr Cameron understands his family history. I think it might be for Mr Carlaw to read the history of the Cameron family to understand the reference that I was making there, but to the debate at hand, can I thank members for their contributions? Can I begin by thanking Mr Rennie, who confirmed what many of us have long suspected that in advance of debates we have in this place, he undertakes no form of reading or research to inform his contribution? Fousal Chowdhury, can I respond to his contribution? The cases that he laid out in terms of the historical experiences of those countries that were colonised by the United Kingdom do not bear any contrast with the modern Scotland that we live here and now. No-one in these benches would have the insensitivity to suggest that there is no chance of giving way to Mr Chowdhury who did not give way once. No-one in these benches would make such an insensitive comparison, but surely that is not the standard by which any country has to go through to determine whether or not it should become an independent country. Let me begin with some of the critique that has been… Mr Hepburn, sorry, I am just conscious of some echo. Can I ask you to direct your microphone just over to yourself? I was not conscious. It was not directed towards myself, but hopefully it is better directed. Let me direct my remarks to the chamber. Starting with the critique around having the debate, the first critique was that we should not have it at all. That is not somehow important. I remind members that the Scottish Government has secured a mandate through the 2021 election. We stood in that election on the basis of seeking to advance the independence case. We won that election. Mr Cameron suggested that we should read the room in the context of what we should debate. I would rather suggest that he should look round this room and look who constitutes the members of this chamber. His party is in the minority. That party is in government and has every right to advance this case. The second point is that it is perfectly legitimate. I think that it is necessary that we should have brought forward this debate. Mr Cameron was suggesting that we did not announce the publication of this document to Parliament. We did. We answered the Government-inspired question and I wrote to the relevant committee conveners. Now we have brought forward a debate on this Government paper to enable Parliament to try and hold this Government to account. I take that matter very seriously indeed. I find it odd that we hear from other benches routinely, wrongly and accurately, that we do not open ourselves up to accountability. Then when we seek to do it, we are criticised for doing it in the first place. The third point that I want to talk about is the idea that we are not concentrating on the priorities of the people of Scotland. This is a Government that, through its policies, has lifted 90,000 children out of poverty. This is a Government that, over the course of its lifetime, has built 122,000 affordable homes. This is a Government that has put in place a just transition fund to help people move into the opportunities and the renewable energy sector. This is a Government that has tripled the fuel and security fund. This is a Government that has promoted the real living wage, which sees its working-age population paid—the highest percentage of the population of any UK country—paid, at least at this level. This is a Government that is mitigating against the Tory bedroom tax. That is some of what the Scottish Government has done. It is a nonsense to suggest that we are not focused on the people's needs. Donald Cameron mistakenly thinks that we are directing attention away from our record as his amendment suggests, but let us focus on his party's record in government. I thought that it was telling that Carol Mocken talked about the wolf at the door. Let us talk about the wolf at the door. Let us talk about a UK Government that is attempting to roll back the human rights act. Let us talk about a Tory Government that has put in place its pernicious trade union act. Let us talk about a Tory Government that has taken forward the creeping privatisation of our national health service. Let us talk about a Tory Government with its draconian approach to asylum policy. All of that is happening in the real world that Mr Bibby spoke of. He appears to be letting pass him by. It is all made possible because of the UK Government's uncodified constitution, which is anachronistic and outlier, as Karen Adam suggested, because it enables the sovereignty of Parliament. The UK Government is able to pursue this agenda unfettered because it is able to do so under the precepts of the primacy of the concept of sovereignty of Parliament. In terms of where we are in the contrast of our proposition, we want to see that Mr Bibby was kind enough for other members to let me intervene. Of course, I will give way. Neil Bibby. Minister for taking the intervention. He mentioned creeping privatisation at the UK. We have seen more and more people having to go private for NHS treatment in Scotland. 500,000 people have been failed by the treatment time guarantee. Why is that happening in Scotland under the SNP? No-one is suggesting for a moment that there are not challenges in the national health service. Of course, the health secretary is pursuing an agenda to make sure that we can rebuild back from the challenges that we have seen in Covid. In terms of the fundamental proposition that we should have a health service free at the point of need, that is something that we believe in and that is under attack from those benches over there. It is something that the Labour Party should have its eyes open to. That is how we can best defend that principle. One of the propositions that we have is having a written codified constitution that has a constitutional right to a system of healthcare free at the point of need. A written constitution, a codified constitution, a perfectly normal, overwhelming majority of countries in the world have such a written codified constitution. Indeed, it is less than 10 countries without which the United Kingdom is one, but there are other rights that we can secure. In a written constitution, we could put some of the fundamental human rights laid out in the European Convention on human rights into that constitution. Unlike the UK Government abolishing the Human Rights Act, we could put in place the United Nations Charter of the Rights of Children. We heard earlier today a statement from Silly Anne, showing some of the limitations that we have faced by being able to put that into legislation. We could have, in our constitution, a right to an adequate standard of living, contrast that with research that was published yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It shows that, while housing and benefit has remained frozen since 2020, rents have gone upwards with only 120 private rental properties advertised in Zwple. We are now able to be covered by housing and benefit. That is hardly speaking to an adequate standard of living. Of course, we would ensure that workers' rights were in our codified written constitution. That is core to the approach that we would take. In that sense, the notion that this is hypothetical or abstract is frankly a nonsense. It matters, because it is not, as has been suggested, an exercise in playing games, as was suggested by Mr Carlaw. We have absolutely no chance of giving way to Mr Marra. Mr Marra pretended that he would let people intervene and then take a single intervention. No chance, Mr Marra. What we are seeing is the casual erosion of rights and the narrowing of the scope of devolution under the current constitutional settlement. That is why it matters. We should have a written constitution where rights cannot be overturned on the whim of any Government at any given point in time. Donald Cameron, Neil Bibby and others were wrong to suggest, as their amendments do, that this is academic or theoretical. This is about a vision, ambition and we aim to turn it into a reality. At least Mr Marra accepted that the UK is anachronistic in not having a written constitution. It is just anomalous, he says. Okay, anomalous, anachronistic potato, potato. Let us just focus on that. He did not give any single commitment to change that state of arrangements. When I put the point to Mr Bibby, he utterly dodged the question. It is clear that the Labour Party does not support the codification of people's rights in any way. Contrast that with Helena Kennedy of the Labour Party, who said that people are going to work in creating a written constitution for an independent Scotland. Definitely. I would do it now if I were in that camp. I thought the response from Mr Bibby was rather a meager when he talked about, well, the way to deal with this has changed the Government. When we have a Labour Party that is U-turning and flip-flopping on various pledges such as abolishing congestion fees in England, on Brexit or when we have Keir Starmer saying that the Labour Party are the real Conservatives, that does not really sound much of a change of government to me. The real change is securing independence and in this case having a written constitution. We want to do that with the participation of people of Scotland. We fundamentally trust the people of Scotland, unlike those on the other benches in this place. We want to engage the population to make sure that, first of all, we can have an interim constitution from day 1 of independence, but thereafter create a convention that is representative of the people of Scotland to bring back a proposition to the people of Scotland. No, I am afraid that I will not be giving way to you, Mr Johnson. He did not take part in the debate. We are not here. We would create a constitutional convention to make sure that the people of this country can have their say. I trust them. They can come back and we would put that to the people of the country. I cannot say to you to open this debate by talking about the rhetorical power of an ambitious constitution. He was right to do so. I recognise that it takes more than just a written constitution to secure good government or to protect and advance people's rights. A written constitution is necessary but not sufficient. It also requires the right culture and it takes commitment. After all, the world is full of countries with written constitutions whose Governments and the way of governing fails to live up to their ideals. I am convinced that we have what it takes to embrace a new constitution. I am convinced that Scotland needs one if it is to embrace fully the opportunities of independence. We already have strong, highly trusted institutions. We have a Scottish Government and have shown over 25 years of devolution through coalition, minority, majority and co-operation models of government that we are innovative and responsive. We have a Government that, according to the Scottish social attitudes survey, three times as many people in Scotland trust to act in Scotland's best interests than they trust the UK Government to do so. We have a part that is elected through a fair system of proportional representation. We have an independent judiciary. We have public bodies such as social security. We have the underpinning things that we need to be an independent state. What we do not have is a written constitution that enables that law over there to attack our rights. We trust the people of Scotland. I know what future appeals to me. It is an independent Scotland with a written constitution. That concludes the debate on building a new Scotland, the constitution of an independent country. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 9709, in the name of Richard Lockhead, on electronic trade documents bill at UK legislation. I call on Richard Lockhead to move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9746, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 9746 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 9710, in the name of Emma Roddick, on illegal migration bill, UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to vote on members while there will be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting system.