 Next item of business is topical questions. Our first question comes from Oliver Mundell. Oliver Mundell Cymru To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it made of the reported level of support for independence ahead of the decision to bring forward the referendum bill before article 50 had been invoked. Minister Michael Russell Our starting point remains protecting Scotland's national interest as set phobl yn ysgolwyr i'r ddigest o gwnaes bimbod o bail astudon yn ysgolwyr Cymru ac yn mynd i gael eu gael. Mae Scotllin wedi ymlaen i sgolwyr o amdanoenol yn byw hwnnw i'r gael, ac mae'n deimlo i ddweud i ddim yn dweud y gael a IFF, a'r ddigest yn gallu gweld i ddweud i ddweud yn credu ymlaen i dweud i ddweud. Mae'n ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud ar gyfer o fain grewl o fath, ond mae'n is about the mechanics of the referendum, should we conclude that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland's interests? I take it from that answer, the real answer is none, but does he agree with me that in pushing ahead with the bill, as the Government plans to do, is its number one priority before even listening to his own party's listening exercise, exposes the SNP's true colours and true intentions, independence at any cost? The Government is listening, engaging and consulting, but it is also acting in Scotland's national interest, and that is what we will do each and every day. That is our day job, standing up for Scotland against a hard right Tory Brexit that will impact on the economy of this country. We will do what is best for Scotland. If you want to talk about opinion poll ratings, that is fine. I welcomed the most recent opinion poll that showed that 51 per cent of people in Scotland would support the SNP and the Scottish Parliament constituency election. That is more than all the political parties in Scotland put together. No wonder that the people of Scotland trust the SNP. If we want to talk about public opinion, why is it that his Government is so keen to ignore the 2 million no-voters who made their intentions crystal clear? Why is it that the SNP is so keen to airbrush out of history the 1 million no-voters in this country more than voted and put their cross next Nicola Sturgeon for First Minister? If he is saying what I think he is saying that this legislation might not be needed, the question is how much taxpayers' money has been spent on the publication and preparation of this bill, and under what illegal authority has that money been spent? It is clear that the Scottish Government has a mandate to consider this. It was clearly outlined in the elections in the manifesto where the SNP secured victory in that election to form the Scottish Government. When Oliver Mundell wants to talk about the cost of policies, does Mr Mundell realise what the cost of Brexit is to the whole of the United Kingdom, as well as Scotland? In terms of respecting this nation, because Scotland is not just a constituency, it is a nation. Every part of this nation, every local authority area voted to remain within Europe, and that is what should be respected by the UK Government. The ball is in the court of the UK Government to respect Scotland and to respect how the people voted. If they do that, then maybe we can find a solution that works for every part of the UK. Here is a Scottish Government that is not just standing up for Scotland, but trying to help the whole of the UK. The UK Prime Minister could react positively and constructively, but first and foremost, respect Scotland's interests and the democracy of this country. To ask the Scottish Government how it will take forward plans for the minimum pricing of alcohol following the decision by the court of session. The Scottish Government intends to implement minimum unit pricing as soon as possible. The order bringing minimum pricing in must first be laid in draft before the Scottish Parliament for approval, before it can be made by Scottish ministers. While we respect the right of the Scottish Whiskey Association to seek permission to appeal the judgment, I hope that it will accept it, enabling us to get on with implementing this life-saving policy. The member will be aware that I am limited in discussing the case due to the Parliament's guidance on subjudice. James Dornan I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and I am aware of the restrictions placed on her. However, can she tell me what research into the public health benefits of this policy have the Scottish Government reviewed? Minimum unit pricing is underpinned by a wealth of international evidence on the public health benefit, which has been before this Parliament on a number of occasions and before the court. Just today, we have seen the publication of alcohol-related hospital statistics, which show that the rate of admissions remains four times higher than it was in the earlier 1980s, adding further to the need for this life-saving policy, which, as I said earlier, I hope that we can introduce as soon as possible. I thank the cabinet secretary again and the facts that she gave us show the importance of this piece of legislation. I look forward to the drinks industry now respecting the wealth of Parliament and allowing those life-saving measures to be introduced without further delay. However, can the minister outline what other measures the Scottish Government is taking forward in conjunction with minimum pricing to address Scotland's relationship with alcohol? Of course, we have a comprehensive strategy to tackle alcohol-related harm in Scotland. It contains 41 measures, including minimum unit pricing, but other measures include the multi-byte discount ban, which has seen a reduction of 2.6 per cent in consumption. There has been a nationwide programme of alcohol brief interventions, which has delivered more than 667,000 since the introduction back in 2008. We have improved substance misuse education, we have legislated to ban the responsible promotions and, more recently, introduced a lower drink-drive limit. A lot has been done, but we are certainly not going to be complacent and we are working on a refresh of the alcohol framework, which we will introduce soon. Does the cabinet secretary accept that a crucial part of the inner house's judgment was its approval of the provisional or trial nature of the legislation and that the sunset clause that is argued for by the Scottish Conservatives is integral to that? Of course, I respect all the judgment that has been made. I welcome the cross-party support that we have seen for this very important public health measure. I hope that Donald Cameron will join me in hoping that we will now get the opportunity to implement this important life-saving legislation. As I said in my earlier answer, I would hope that the Scottish Whiskie Association will accept the judgment, enabling us to get on with the job of introducing the public health policy, and that all of us will get behind making sure that it works for the people of Scotland. Ask the Scottish Government whether it will quash the convictions and cautions issued to people for now abolished gay sexual offences and issue pardons. I thank Kezia Dugdale for raising that important issue. It is sadly the case that Scotland has only relatively recently modernised how our criminal laws operate so that they no longer discriminate against same-sex sexual activity. It is shocking to consider that consensual sex between men was only decriminalised in Scotland in 1980, and the age of consent for same-sex sexual activity was not equalised with sexual activity between men and women until 2001. Thankfully, we can now look back at the operation of these discriminatory laws, knowing that they no longer operate with a sense of pride. Such laws clearly have no place in a modern, inclusive Scotland. However, there are people in Scotland who have criminal convictions for same-sex sexual activity, which is now lawful, and we must right that wrong. Over the summer, I instructed officials to look at the necessary steps that would need to be taken in Scotland to correct that injustice. I can therefore advise the Parliament that we want to introduce an automatic pardon for people convicted so that they know that they are absolved fully of that conviction. We want to address the injustice that people experience simply because of their sexual orientation in circumstances that are now legal, and the granting of an automatic pardon is one way of achieving that. Separately, it is the case that information on those convictions is held on records maintained by Police Scotland, and we have engaged with Police Scotland over the summer to seek views on steps that could be taken to right those historic wrongs. I have therefore instructed my officials, working in partnership with Police Scotland, to determine the practical steps that are required to establish a scheme that will allow men convicted for actions that are now legal to have those convictions disregarded. That scheme will ensure that convictions for activity that is now lawful are removed from central conviction records. Where an offence is disregarded, a person will be treated as not having been convicted of that offence, and so it would not appear on, for example, disclosure checks. I know that Parliament will want to work together to resolve those important issues. That is a hugely welcome announcement. In fact, it is nothing short of a historic moment for Scotland to be a more equal and respectful country. The minister will be aware that there are many men across the United Kingdom who have been prosecuted, convicted and, in some cases, imprisoned for who they are and who they love. A pardon is therefore the very least that the Government of the day can do. Given the significance of that announcement, I hope that you will forgive me for three very quick questions. Can the minister confirm that this would be a blanket pardon for any gay or bisexual man who has been convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime? Secondly, can the minister confirm that no legislation is required for such a pardon and, indeed, that those affected need not apply to be pardoned, as has been argued elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Finally, the Scottish Government is not responsible for those laws, was not responsible for the prosecutions, the convictions or, indeed, the sentences that gay men faced, but they could issue a formal apology, which would go a long way for many people and recognise that they should never have accepted liability for this in the first place. For many men, an apology is as important as a pardon because an apology demonstrates that they should never have been convicted for a crime in the first place. I will try to deal with each of those issues for the member. On the issue of the blanket pardon, it will be an automatic pardon for those offences that are where individuals were convicted for offences that are now lawful. It is important that we have a system in place that also recognises that there were individuals who were convicted using the old criminal law, which are matters that remain criminal offences, so that is why we will create a system that will allow that to happen so that it will take place on an automatic basis for those who were convicted of crimes that are now lawful. For the provision of an automatic pardon, we will require legislation in which to do so. What we will do is seek to bring forward legislation at an early date in this parliament over the course of the next year at the very least to make sure that we make progress in this matter swiftly. With regard to the disregard, that is an issue that we can take forward as a practical policy measure and may not require legislation for its implementation, so we will seek to make progress on that as quickly as possible. I fully acknowledge the issue about the writing of the wrongs of those who were convicted, some of whom were imprisoned as a result of the offences that they were convicted of and which are now lawful. I think that the issue of an apology is an appropriate measure that the Government should give consideration to. In my view, that would be best dealt with in a collective way when we look at bringing forward further legislation in this Parliament on the matter of a pardon. I will certainly give that serious consideration as being part of that package of measures that we will take forward. Can I welcome the question from Ced Dugdale and also the answer from the cabinet secretary very much? Just to reinforce that final point regarding the importance of an apology, does the cabinet secretary appreciate that, while many will welcome a pardon, others take from it an implication that they are being forgiven for having done something wrong? That is not the message that should be sent out, but the Government also has a responsibility to acknowledge that the state is the body that has acted wrongly by enacting laws based on such values that we would regard now as completely immoral. I just reinforce the importance for many people in that situation that the apology comes alongside any pardon so as to ensure that it is not misinterpreted. I recognise the very point that the member has made because the state has been responsible for creating the situation in the first place, but I do believe that the most appropriate way in which to take the matter of any apology forward and to consider the issue of an apology would be alongside any legislation that we intend to bring forward for the introduction of an automatic pardon. However, I recognise the sentiments and the points raised by the member and they will be part of our thinking on how we bring forward the legislation in the coming months. Douglas Ross I associate the Scottish Conservatives with the remarks that have been made. The cabinet secretary will be aware that there is cross-party support for what is being proposed throughout the United Kingdom and indeed in this Parliament, but he will also be aware that the developments down south last week and the case put forward by one of his party members, the issue about the blanket ban was difficult because down south there were concerns that it would cover offences that are still illegal. He mentioned in his second remark to Mr Dugdale about creating a system to ensure that that does not happen. Could he provide Parliament with more information on how he envisages taking that element forward? I welcome the fact that the member has recognised that this is an issue that has got cross-party support. I am sure that the member will also recognise that there was provision in my colleague John Nicholson's bill to deal with the issue of offences that were committed previously that remain criminal offences. I regret the approach that the UK Government has taken on that particular issue. It could have worked harder to ensure that cross-party agreement was achieved on that matter. Setting that aside is that there are clearly offences that were, individuals were convicted on previously under the old criminal law in this area, and what we need to do is to make sure that the pardon arrangements that we put in place make provision so that those individuals continue to have those offences on their record and that they will not receive a pardon. Parliament will be given the opportunity to consider how the legislation seeks to achieve that, while also delivering the automatic pardon to those who are entitled to it to be delivered.