 The next item of business is debate on motion 15032, in the name of Michael Russell, on protecting our interests. Scotland responds to the UK Government and EU's withdrawal agreement and political declaration. May I ask those who wish to contribute to the debate to press a request to speak buttons? I call on Michael Russell to speak to and move the motion. Let me at the outset make it clear that, in keeping with the vote of the people of Scotland of 23 June 2016, the Scottish Government regards membership of the EU as the best outcome of the current chaos and, moreover, believes that that aim is still achievable. Nonetheless, when I addressed Parliament on 25 October I committed to bringing any EU withdrawal deal and political declaration when agreed by the UK Government to this Parliament before it was voted on in the House of Commons. I am pleased to do so today with the motion, which is the result of a unique collaboration between four of the five parties in this Parliament. If it is passed, Scotland will say that it rejects both the Prime Minister's deal and no deal, and instead looks to its politicians to find a better way forward. It is important that those politicians, including ourselves, do not let the people down. Of course, there are various options that could provide, if I can make some progress. Of course, there are various options that could provide a long-term solution to the problem of Brexit, a problem that is absorbing huge amounts of time and effort and is worrying and upsetting so many of our fellow citizens. Staying in the EU might be achieved by providing the opportunity for a second vote, as strongly backed in this Parliament by the Liberal Democrats and supported by ourselves and the Greens. However, short of staying, the only acceptable compromise, which the Scottish Government has advocated for two years, is continued membership of the single market and the customs union. Others, primarily in the Labour Party, have argued for a general election as the best way to resolve the issue. That option would also be supported by the SNP in a vote at Westminster. In fact, the only option that does not provide a solution to the current chaos of Brexit is that proposed by the Prime Minister. Let me outline some of the many problems with this deal and let me do so by trying to bring home the effects of this proposal to members sitting on the Tory benches. Let me start with the Highlands and Islands, part of which I represent—no, allow me to make some progress—part of which I represent and the region for which Mr Cameron is a list member. Indeed, he was the Conservative candidate for my constituency of Argyllyn Bute at the last election. The population of Argyllyn Bute and of the Highlands is not growing naturally. We are, to put it bluntly, not reproducing ourselves. We need migration, even to remain static. A fifth of the working-age population of the area will retire in the next five to ten years. We need to replace them, for if we don't, there will be continued depopulation and accelerating economic decline. The only way we can do so is by migration. The best solution is freedom of movement, which allows easy passage and great flexibility. Business in my constituency tells me that all the time. The Prime Minister has set her face against such a solution that is strident and deeply regrettable language. Unless that deal is rejected, the area that I represent, which Mr Cameron has sought to represent as a constituency member and may again, will be severely and permanently damaged. Is he going to vote for that? Rural areas will be hit, of course. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to Mr Russell for giving way. He just mentioned what business wants. Every leading business organisation in Scotland, the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Scotch Whiskey Association, leading figures such as Sir Ian Wood, are urging this Government and politicians of Westminster to back the Prime Minister's deal. Shouldn't he listen to business? Michael Russell is not entirely accurate. For example, the CBI's head of EU negotiations Nicola Sykes argued that there is no need to have credit to negotiators because it is not a good deal. That is the CBI view of the deal. Of course, there are fishermen the length and breadth of Scotland, including in my constituency. I declare an interest as the president of the honorary president of the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Association, who says that this is not a deal that should be backed. Let me continue, because I shall come to the issue of certainty, which is what business wants in a moment. Unless that deal is rejected, rural areas will be hit in other ways, too. The guarantees for agricultural funding run only until 2022. The failure of the UK to agree on the agricultural bill makes it even more urgent for us to legislate here, and for fisheries measures is even starker. The Tories have sold out Scottish fishing yet again, linking it to trade and agreeing to build any new settlement on the existing access and quotas. The deal says so, despite the increasingly desperate assertions from Mr Carlaw last week, egged on by north-east MSPs on either side of him. So, Mr Chapman and Mr Burnett will vote for that. Our cities also benefit greatly from EU funding. There has been, for example, money from the European Social Fund, which has in part helped unemployed people to gain qualifications and find jobs. Money from the European Regional Development Fund has also helped to accelerate the growth of Glasgow's small and medium-sized enterprises. An EU green infrastructure funding has helped the environment. Not a single promise has yet been made about replacing all those much-needed sums of money in Glasgow. So is Mr Tomkins really going to vote to impoverish the city that he represents, and vote for decline in the university sector, which he also knows well? The EU is the largest single market for Scotland's international exports, which is worth £12.7 billion in 2016, supporting directly and indirectly hundreds of thousands of jobs across Scotland. In 2015, Scotland exported around £3.6 billion worth of goods to countries with which the EU is a free trade agreement. Those exports make the difference between success and failure for businesses large and small, businesses such as those who employ many in constituencies such as, say, Eastwood. So, is Mr Carlaw going to vote against his own constituents' employment and prosperity? There is, to put it bluntly but accurately, no free trade agreement in the world, which provides anything close to the freedom of movement for services as presently exists for Scotland within the European single market. Services cover many sectors, but Edinburgh is particularly dependent on financial and legal services that fuel the economy of the city. Members for Edinburgh know that well, including the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. Yet this deal from the Prime Minister will make it considerably harder for Edinburgh companies to trade in services with Europe. Why would the party led by Ruth Davidson vote in favour of that? Presiding Officer, in every area of Scotland, there are businesses, organisations, communities and individuals who will suffer, directly suffer over a long period of time if this deal is approved. Each and every person will suffer. The analysis that we have done indicates that by 2030, if after leaving the EU we move to a free trade agreement, GDP will be cut by £9 billion, equivalent to £1,600 per person in Scotland. Forget £350 million a week more for the NHS, the reality is that £30 a week less for every man, woman and child, with no respite. Presiding Officer, this deal is not even the end of uncertainty. That is just another false promise. In fact, the uncertainty flowing from the Prime Minister's deal would have to last until the end of the transition period, which will not be in December 2020. No one believes that, more likely in December 2022 or even later. That is at least four years of uncertainty to add to the two and a half that we have already had. Four more years of stagnation and lack of investment, with no guarantee that a free trade deal will ever be struck. Those are the fruits of Conservative government, more of the same and worse. More meaningless assertions, false claims, cliff edge negotiations and economic lack of confidence and security. It must not happen. Scotland needs and deserves better than the Prime Minister's blindfold Brexit. For in truth, Presiding Officer, this deal is about saving the Prime Minister, not about saving her country. It is a matter of fact that there is no certainty in the Prime Minister's deal on the future trading arrangements neither for goods nor for services. There is no possibility of much-needed flexible future mobility arrangements. There is no clarity on which, if any, of the existing justice and law enforcement tools and measures may remain available. There is no guarantee of continued participation in that broad range of EU programmes and funds that support our universities, communities, NGOs and businesses. The Scottish Government has recognised the danger inherent in that, but there is one silver lining. It does not have to be like that. Let me repeat this fact. The choice is not between May's deal and No Deal. Yes, it is opinion from the advocate general demonstrated that. The vote by MSPs and MPs confirmed it. Reasonable people are now moving to make sure that a better way is found. Last night, the Welsh Assembly voted decisively to reject the Prime Minister's deal, with revealingly the only votes against coming from the Tories in UKIP, a party now so far to the right that even Nigel Farage has had to resign from it. This chamber can contribute to and move on that process by voting for that motion in my name, Mr Finlay's name, Mr Greers and Mr Scott's name today. I commend that action and that motion to the Parliament. Paul-Adam Tompkins, eight minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's two and a half years since the British people voted to leave the European Union, and in all that time, only one credible proposal has been tabled as to how we leave and as to the detailed terms on which we leave, and that proposal, of course, is the 585-page withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister and her team have painstakingly negotiated over the last 20 years. In analysing that deal, two simple legal facts must be borne in mind. First, under the terms of article 50, if no exit deal is agreed between the UK and the European Union, we will crash out of the European Union on a no deal basis. Second, exit day is fixed in law as 29 March 2019. The reality, Presiding Officer, whether we like it or not, is that the country is rapidly approaching that point, where it faces a clear binary choice. Either we leave the European Union on the basis of the orderly withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister and her team have negotiated, or something very close to it, or we crash out of the European Union on a no deal basis that would be a disaster for the economy. That's the reality. That's where we're heading, and those who would prefer to reject this deal must confront the plain legal fact that their actions serve only to make it more likely that we end up crashing out of the European Union on a no deal basis. Now, you're making my point for me, Mr Finlay. Now, there continues to be a great deal of noise around this. Excuse me, Mr Tomkins. Could we do, Mr Tomkins, the courtesy of listening without shouting at him, please? Thank you, Mr Tomkins. There continues to be a great deal of noise about this. There should be a people's vote. Article 50 should be delayed. We could stay in the single market in the customs union. We can be Norway. We can be Norway Plus. We should have another general election. But so much of this is just noise, as is today's motion. We want a better alternative, says the motion, without any clue as to what that alternative might be or how it could possibly be delivered. We've had two and a half years since the referendum, Presiding Officer, and in all that time, no credible alternative to the Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement has even got off the ground. Never mind being made successfully to fly. So let's face facts. As things stand, the only credible choice before us is whether we leave on the basis of the Prime Minister's negotiated settlement or something very close to it, or whether we crash out without a deal at all. Presiding Officer, we are leaving because that's what the British people told us they want, to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, and that's exactly what the Prime Minister's deal delivers. I wonder if you could confirm that there's plenty of time in this debate for members to take interventions. It is absolutely up to speakers whether they take interventions or not. It's also the case that I would prefer less disruption so that we could, in fact, listen to the speakers. Adam Tomkins, please continue. Presiding Officer, to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, and that's exactly what the Prime Minister's deal delivers. If it turns out that we, the Scottish Conservatives, are alone in standing up for the 1 million Scots who voted for that outcome, so be it. Ever since June 2016, Nicola Sturgeon's SNP has been trying to weaponise Brexit to suit their own nationalist agenda. They aren't interested in Brexit for its own sake. For them, it's just another tool in their endless pursuit of independence. It seems today that they've hoodwinked Labour and the Liberal Democrats into supporting them in this endeavour. If it turns out that we, the Scottish Conservatives, are alone in standing up for the 2 million Scots who in 2014 voted no to breaking up the United Kingdom, so be it. Labour can't be trusted on the union and would rather get into bed with the nationalists as they do today. The Liberal Democrats cannot be trusted on the union and would rather get into bed with the nationalists as they do today. Please sit down, Mr Rennie. It is entirely up to the individual speaker whether or not they take interventions. If it is quite clear that he is not taking interventions, please do not resort to shouting. Please just sit down. Thank you, Mr Tom. The Scottish Conservatives, Mr Rennie, will never cave in to the SNP, not today, not now, not ever. Unlike the SNP, we believe that the results of referendums must be respected. We voted to remain in the United Kingdom in 2014 and, two years later, we voted as one United Kingdom to leave the European Union, and that's precisely what we will do. Among other notable matters, this deal withdraws the UK from the EU's hated common fisheries policy, which the SNP would drag Scotland back into in a heartbeat. Under this deal, we will become an independent coastal state with full control over our own waters. The Prime Minister has been clear that, under her leadership, this is something that will never be traded away against other priorities. Much has been said about the unique position of Northern Ireland under this deal. We have just heard the Minister wrongly claim that the deal gives Northern Ireland a competitive advantage and that Scottish business will suffer as a result. Wrong on both counts. Yes, the backstop does mean that Northern Ireland will be required to adhere to certain limited provisions of EU single market law as regards goods, but the Prime Minister's number two, David Livington, told this Parliament on Thursday last week that if the backstop comes into force, that will be true for the whole of the UK and not only for Northern Ireland, so there is no competitive advantage for Northern Ireland and there is no disadvantage to Scottish business. The SNP would have us believe that it is only the UK Government who is saying that it's this deal or no deal, but let us not be misled. It's the European Union itself who is saying this. For the EU, Britain's withdrawal is now a done deal. There's no appetite in Brussels or in any major European capital for this deal to be unpicked or renegotiated. On the continent, they've moved on. The concern in France and Germany is not Brexit. It's whether the Italians are about to crash the economy of the entire Eurozone. When the Europeans do think about Brexit, they think about our future trading relationship, not the divorce agreement, which, as they see it, is done and dusted. Business backs this deal. NFU Scotland backs this deal. The Scottish Whiskey Association backs this deal. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce backs this deal. Nicola Sturgeon and Mike Russell decided to ignore all of those voices and to condemn the Prime Minister's deal before they'd even seen it, but the time for nationalist game playing is over. As a country, we have a choice to make. Do we back the Prime Minister's carefully negotiated withdrawal agreement, or do we crash out of the European Union on a no deal basis? My answer is simple. We should reject today's SNP motion. We should support the Prime Minister's efforts to secure and orderly, negotiated and agreed withdrawal from the European Union. I call Neil Findlay. Seven minutes, please. Thanks, Presiding Officer. So much for the great constitutional lawyer, afraid to take a single intervention from a bricklayer, a used car salesman and a Liberal Democrat. How timid is he? There you go. Let me tell you why he's so timid, because this gets to the crux of the hypocrisy of the Tory party. Look at the legal advice that's just been released by the Attorney General. It states in paragraph 8 that GB is essentially treated as a third country by Northern Ireland for goods passing from GB to Northern Ireland, and later explains the different terms that will be in place between GB and Northern Ireland. Who wrote this? We would not support any deal that creates a border of any kind in the Irish Sea and undermines the union or leads to Northern Ireland having a different relationship with the EU and the rest of the UK beyond, which currently exists. Point of order, Gil Paterson. Let me tell you before that. Point of order, Gil Paterson. Ruth Davidson and David Mundell are saying that. You can repeat that line when you get back in your feet, Mr Findlay, but currently it's a point of order, Gil Paterson. Just to correct your record, I don't sell cars. OK. Neil Findlay. David Mundell and Ruth Davidson, that was their word. That's why they're so embarrassed and won't take an intervention. In just a few months time, the UK is poised to leave the EU and a 40-year long economic and political relationship will come to an end. For businesses and consumers, workers, students and all their citizens, the overwhelming feeling is one of uncertainty. Businesses want to know how to plan ahead. Workers want to know their hard-won rights won't be sold down the river. The people of Ireland want to know that they won't see a hard border and manufacturers want to know if they'll be able to access European markets. All of those groups have been left hanging by a Government, paralysed by a 40-year civil war over Europe. David Cameron, remember him? Called the referendum to try and bring to a head these historic divisions in his party and in doing so made the political miscalculation. A political miscalculation unprecedented in modern politics. One that risks a 9 per cent decline in the UK economy, that threatens jobs or security or future international relationships with the near neighbours. Of course, it won't be Cameron whose livelihood will be threatened. He'll no doubt continue to relax and sunny claims with his trotters up as chaos reigns. It won't be Cameron whose rights at work will be lost. It won't be Jacob Rees-Mogg who will not be able to afford the children's school fees or Boris Defeffel Johnson who will still rake it in from gullible newspaper editors paying him for writing his ill-informed drivel. For the establishment, clique life will go on almost untainted by the impact of their own ineptness, but for working people and the companies that employ them in these uncertain times. On Tuesday, the future of our country will be determined. One thing is clear. With 100 Tory-backed benchars opposed, the Prime Minister's deal is indeed doomed. I am grateful to Mr Finlay for giving way and I agree with his analysis and his predictions of what will happen if Brexit goes ahead. What the people he is talking about genuinely need is the transformation of economic policy domestically. Does Mr Finlay agree that any Brexit will make that transformation that is so needed harder, not easier and should we not be standing up against Brexit in all its forms? Patrick Harvie, I agree with him that what those people need is the transformation of the economy. The biggest transformation that the economy will have is the election of a Labour Government led by Jeremy Corbyn. The Prime Minister's deal is doomed. Labour will not support it because the deal will not protect jobs. It will not ensure frictionless trade. It provides no certainty about our future relationship with the EU. It fails to deliver close cooperation. It rules out a permanent customs union. It fails to deliver a good deal in services and would limit access for British businesses to markets. It would weaken our international security and cooperation, and it undermines devolution and fails to deliver for all the nations and regions of the UK. Of course, it is not just us that oppose the deal. The Liberal Democrats oppose it, the Green Party oppose it, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the DUP and around 10 Tory MSPs, if they were honest with themselves, all those who voted leave oppose it. The PM has united leavers and remainers in opposition to it. The deal is doomed and will be rejected out of hand by the House of Commons. When it is rejected, that does not mean that we revert to no deal. That is the false choice that has been presented by the Prime Minister who is trying to bail her out of as a combination. If he wants to intervene by all means, I will take an intervention from you, Mr Tompkins. Adam Tompkins. Will the member tell us what his alternative is? Neil Findlay will absolutely set out our alternative. I will tell you. You have some cheek to criticise anyone for the chaos that you have brought in. We have set out our alternative clearly. The six tests that we have set have been failed and we do not accept what has happened. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister came to Scotland on her fantasy campaign tour, with all the women vigor of her actual election campaign, which she characteristically hid from the people that she fears most, the voting public. She is the only candidate in an imaginary election who is still heading for a landslide defeat. When that happens, all bets are off. Such a rejection would be an unprecedented failure of government and a personal humiliation for the Prime Minister. Her Government has been found guilty of contempt of Parliament. It has lost two Brexit secretaries, a series of ministers. The Tory party is revolting in many ways. The DUP have deserted them and yesterday in Parliament they were defeated not once but on three occasions. A rejection in such a key area of government policy leaves the Government unable to govern or deliver its programme. In such circumstances, it is my view that the Government has lost the confidence of Parliament in the country and that a general election should be called. If the last few years have shown us anything, it is this. The world is an interconnected place where businesses and people work together, where relationships grow and develop across borders and where we communicate and trade at the click of a mouse. Unraveling 40 years of economic and political relationship building is self-evidently a monumental and complicated task. I hope that this painful and paralysing experience provides much food for thought also for the cabinet secretary, his Government and his party. Finally, the Prime Minister's days are numbered. For the sake of the country, her economy, her jobs, her children, her environment and the rights that we enjoy, the Prime Minister should admit that the game is up and let democracy prevail in a general election. I remind members that, even during interventions, they should always speak through the chair. I call Ross Greer, six minutes please. It is a sorry situation that we have been put in today, one that the chaotic dying Conservative Government is responsible for. Not Michelle Barney, not the EU-27, not those of us who campaign for remain, this is a crisis of the Tory party which they have turned into a profound national crisis. Scotland's decisive vote to remain has been completely disregarded. No attempt has been made to accommodate it or even to recognise it. The withdrawal agreement and the declaration on future partnership put Scotland and the wider UK in a worse place than we are currently in. They are not the sunny uplands that the liars of the leave campaign promised. Free movement will be ended. The social, cultural and economic benefits brought to Scotland by European citizens will be restricted. The right of our citizens to move to live to work across the EU will be lost. That is a process of reducing our rights and our opportunities. Scotland's aspirations to be an open and an outward looking society will be undermined. Our universities and our world-class research centres will be unable to attract the best talent. The Tories intend to take us out of the single market, particularly for services, which for a service-based economy like the UK is simply self-sabotage. Labour standards and environmental standards are certainly not protected by this agreement. There is some positive language, a bit of rhetoric, a commitment to maintain a so-called level playing field, but when you look at the detail, it completely falls apart. Those provisions are exempt from arbitration rules and apply only temporarily under the protocols on the island of Ireland under the withdrawal agreement. Instead, there is a reliance on the UK creating its own domestic enforcement procedures. Given that Britain routinely breaks legal limits on air pollution and has the weakest employment protections in Europe, the loss of EU-level enforcement should be a concern to all of us. For all of this, the loss of free movement, the loss of single market membership and the loss of those protections for the environment and labour standards, we are going to pay almost £40 billion. Even if Brexit does happen, the UK, of course, has an obligation to a number of European funding streams, not least the pensions of those who have served us as a member state, for example. Even the Tory negotiators must concede that paying to lose out on rights, privileges and advantages, paying to be poorer, is a ridiculous place to be. So many issues have just been kicked into the long grass. Permanent provisions on labour and environmental standards, on our level of access to the single market, whether the Irish backstop will have to be implemented long-term, all remain to be negotiated. There is one thing that the Brexit years have accurately grasped. It is just how likely that the Irish backstop does become a permanent or certainly a long-term arrangement. That is because they have been unable to come up with the magical alternative solution over the last two years that they have promised us, and no one seriously believes that they are going to be able to come up with it over the next couple of years. That is a deal so chronically unappealing that the two Brexit secretaries allegedly responsible for it have resigned to vote against it, and I cannot see how it will pass the UK Parliament. It is a bad deal for Scotland, democratically, economically, environmentally, societally, culturally and so much more. It is a bad deal for every part of the UK, and it was dead on arrival in the Commons yesterday, delivered by a Government that is collapsing before our eyes. It is a Government that was found in contempt of Parliament, a Government that has lost the confidence and supply of their own partners, and a Government that has suffered more ministerial resignations than any other in modern history. It is not a Government fit to take us out of this crisis. This Government is the crisis. It is the cause of this crisis. What this Parliament will do today by rejecting this deal, which it seems that about half of the Conservative Party's own MPs may end up doing as well, and by rejecting the absolute disaster of a no-deal exit, is to say clearly on behalf of the people of Scotland that there is a better way. There are a number of better ways. Indeed, yesterday, a better way became clearer than ever. The Greens have been clear that Brexit is not inevitable, and yesterday the EU's Attorney General agreed with that position. I was proud to be one of those who brought a case through the Court of Session to the European Court of Justice seeking clarity on whether and how article 50 could be revoked should the UK Parliament or the public so choose. I was proud to do that alongside Green, SNP and Labour colleagues who joined by the Good Law project. Whilst we sought to maximise the options available to the UK Parliament and Government, that same UK Government sought to prevent us at every step of the way and to limit their own options. Responsible Governments do not limit their own options, they maximise them. The Attorney General of the Court of Justice has been absolutely clear that, in his opinion, article 50 can be unilaterally revoked by the UK. The Scottish Greens are absolutely clear that that deal should be rejected by Parliament, that article 50 should be revoked. That will respect Scotland's vote to remain, and it will not just be in our best interest, it will be in the best interest of every nation and region of the UK. Ultimately, the Greens' ambition is to see an independent Scotland as a full member state of the EU with a seat at the table. We want to work towards a people's Europe alongside our friends and neighbours. However, that is not for today. Today we stand alongside those who agree with that constitutional position and those who believe that Scotland is stronger as part of the UK. We stand together to prevent something that none of us are in any doubt will damage Scotland. The Greens hope that the final say on the deal can be put back in the hands of the people and that the deal will be put on the ballot paper up against the option of revoking article 50 and clearly saying that the benefits of staying in the EU are still available to us. As the Prime Minister herself has said, what Mr Tomkins failed to mention during his speech opening this debate was that the Prime Minister laid out three options. She laid out her deal that is dead on arrival, she laid out no deal that is clearly no longer an option and she laid out the option of no Brexit at all. That is on the table. We do this today. We have held this debate today because we are all in no doubt that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland to reject the deal and to reject no deal. As such, I am proud to co-propose the motion before us. I thank the Conservatives for a couple of things at the start of the debate. Firstly, they have reintroduced Alex Neil to the front bench. Secondly, they have made sure that Neil Finlay described Willie Rennie accurately, which cannot be said to have happened in the past. This is a UK Government in contempt of Parliament for the first time in history. A UK Government who have published legal advice again without precedent and all that greatest of ironies, Mr Tomkins, a UK Parliament that have taken back control. Three Government defeats in one day. Last night, 26 Tory MPs backed Dominic Greaves amendment, including former cabinet ministers and male loyalists such as Damien Greene and Michael Fallon. The end cannot be far away, all created by the ructions in the Conservative party over the UK's relationship with Europe. So, why are the Scottish Tories following the last man standing approach to politics? Their unapologetic support for the Prime Minister and her withdrawal agreement is ludicrous. Ludicrous is not because of opposition to Theresa May's deal, not because the UK Government's own analysis now shows our economy will be weaker with the deal, but ludicrous is because the Prime Minister will be defeated by her own side. The Prime Minister is going to lose the vote next Tuesday, yet her last defenders and that of her deal are the Scottish Tories. What don't they understand about what's going on? I can only observe that Adam Tomkins took no interventions today because he doesn't believe a word of what he said in this debate. Next Tuesday, at 7 pm, the House of Commons will not be about socialists, nationalists, Liberal Democrats or even the DUP. Westminster will be about the Fisher in the Tory party, a party who never could agree on Europe. From Churchill to Theresa May, every Tory leader ripped asunder by their own party over Europe. Few are convinced, following yesterday's farce, that Theresa May will still be the Prime Minister by Tuesday night. It's her deal, it will lose and she will go. The rejection of the Prime Minister's deal next week, a rejection triggered by the revolt in her own party, will expose the profoundly flawed nature of the June 2016 referendum. A referendum called not to end the corrosiveness of the European question across the UK, but to end the corrosiveness of the European question within the Tory party. It has not. Britons did vote to leave, narrowly, but no specific version of Brexit was put to the people. Whatever the grievance and there were plenty, voting leave encapsulated every reason to rebel. One recent poll suggested that 75 per cent of the electorates say that the Prime Minister's deal is nothing like that which was promised two years ago. That's why so many take exception to the Prime Minister's assertion that her deal delivers on the referendum, so many Tories. The Prime Minister's deal means that the UK would be transformed from rule makers to rule takers. It enshrines a democratic deficit and a further loss of sovereignty her party will never accept. There is to be a backstop on the border within the Ireland of Ireland and as we know from today's published legal advice there is no obvious way out of this backstop. It means protected and potentially never-ending negotiations with the EU 27. It is, as a Brexitia Dominic Raab stated this morning, a trap. There is one certainty about next week's meaningful vote that the majority of the House of Commons does not want to hard Brexit, one where the UK crashes out of the EU next March with no transitional period, no trading arrangements in place and monumental economic chaos. The UK's own financial assessment says that every citizen will be worse off. Here at Holyrood last Thursday, David Lidington accepted that slower economic growth means less revenues, that means less money for public services, to coin the current language of cuts. Brexit means extending austerity, not reducing it, so much for £350 million a week for the NHS. All this was neatly summed up by Sam Jimmer. He resigned as a Tory minister last Friday, the seventh minister to go since the deal was published, saying that voting for the Prime Minister's deal would mean Britain's surrendering, our voice, our vote and our veto. So what is the alternative to the UK failing to agree crashing out on 29 March next year does not need to happen? It will change if the UK Parliament passes a new law erasing that date. It is now a question of how MPs will act to stop a hard Brexit, not if or when. However, as the UK Parliament cannot agree anything other than opposition to a hard Brexit, it is the people who must determine that future. Many sensible Tories are making exactly that case. Joe Johnson, brother of Boris, but a pro-European resigned saying that the deal represents a failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not a compliment to Mrs May's negotiating skills. Mr Johnson is now calling for the deal to be put to the general public in a people's vote. It is to be hoped that the other Johnson once again campaigns for leave. Boris is no longer box office. Last night in the Commons, he was taken apart by his own side. John MacDonald, Labour's shadow chancellor, rather than dissing a people's vote, describes it as increasingly inevitable. Justin Green, the Prime Minister's former education secretary, said this morning on today that trusting your people may be in the end the only way to break the gridlock in Parliament. Such a vote must test those real alternatives. There may be some consensus in Westminster for a customs union single market Norway option, influential Tories led by Oliver Lethwyne and a dozen more support this. The Norway option is perhaps best described as moving house but staying in the neighbourhood, although that also includes losing one seat on the neighbourhood watch committee. Mark Carney, the Government of the Bank of England, says that there will be implications for the financial industry, including here in Scotland. However, on Tuesday, the UK Parliament will fail to agree. The only real alternative is that the people of the nations and regions of this United Kingdom must determine our future. That is the only way forward. With six days to go, there is one certainty. The Prime Minister's deal is dead, dead at the hands of her own party, but among its few defenders remain the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. They look like lemings rushing headlong for the cliff edge, demanding leadership. I remain staggered that sensible, intelligent Scottish Tories, like Adam Tomkins, are joining the lemons as they plunge into that abyss. Thank you very much. Open debate speeches are six minutes, but there is time in hand for interventions. I call Bruce Crawford to be followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like many in this chamber, the majority of the people of Scotland, and like the 67.7 per cent of my constituents, I voted with my head, my heart and my soul to remain in the European Union. After, frankly, what was a divisive, dishonest and xenophobic campaign, I was pleased that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain and rejected the case to leave. Of course, many, many good people voted to leave and did so in good faith that they would deliver a better future for themselves and their families. I know from canvassing and my own constituency that many of those people are still committed to the leave cause and I, for one, 100 per cent respect their position. It is also true to say that many of those same people feel badly betrayed by the leave campaign. After two and a half years of revelation, after revelation that the promises made by leave did not stand up to scrutiny who can really blame them. Of course, the result being today, many of our citizens, for very understandable reasons, just want to see the end of this sorry mess. They are sick to the back teeth of politicians like the bickering hard-brixeteers without a credible plan who care more for the future of their party than their country. All they are asking for is for politicians to get together, agree a way forward that will not hurt them either economically or just as importantly socially. That is why I am pleased that today here at Holyrood we have a motion for debate agreed by the SNP Government, Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems. Today, only the Conservatives stand alone and isolated. However, I am not angry with them because I know that many on the Tory benches do not believe that the deal currently represents what is the best possible outcome for Scotland. That is clear from their previous statements made from their benches, particularly about the importance of Scotland remaining in the single market. I am not angry with them because, frankly, the time for anger and emotion has gone. It is now time for hard-headed, clear thinking and a focused determination to work together to secure an outcome that will not damage our country. Patrick Harvie, thank you. Thank you. I am grateful to Mr Crawford for giving way. He is right about a lot of that, but does he not find it, as I do, quite baffling that the UK Conservative MPs, who nominally are under the same whip, are splitting in every direction? However, the MSPs in this Parliament are party-line, party-line, party-line. Does he not agree that they need to be willing to say what they really think if we are going to get progress that Mr Crawford is calling for? Bruce Crawford. Let me say again to Patrick Harvie that I am not angry with them. I am just sad that they are not yet in a position to work with others here at Holyrood to achieve such an outcome. That might come after the defeat of Theresa May next Tuesday. It is perhaps understandable that much of the debate over the last two and a half years has been about the damaging impact of leaving the European Union. Economic analysis by the UK Government, by the Scottish Government, by the banks and by respected economic institutions all agree on one thing, leaving the EU will make us poorer. Before we have even left the EU, the Government of Bank of England has told us that Brexit vote alone has cost households £900 a year when the collapse value of the pound is taken into account. As far as the current deal is concerned, that is on the table, the Scottish Government's analysis showed that this would cost each person in Scotland an additional £1,600 a year. Those are real people's lives that we are talking about, real incomes and their ability to be able to afford to live. You can be sure of one thing, it will be the very people who can afford at least who will end up paying the biggest price for this folly. Businesses small and large right across the country are already feeling the strain from the reduced spending power of their customers. I would not be fulfilling my duties as the MSP for Stirling if I did not speak out against the absolute madness from the UK Government who, for the first time in history, are actually planning to make people poorer. I now turn to the important issue in the time that I have got less citizens across the EU. For generations, people from the UK have moved freely about the EU. Where they have lived, where they have worked and where they have loved, but the coming generation risk having that freedom stolen away from them. By politicians obsessed, they are reducing the number of people coming from the EU who simply want to seek and do the same here. People who are our friends use as a bargaining chip to gain some perceived advantage either politically or as part of negotiations. That led EU citizens living in our country to have very real fears and anxieties about their future. Alenca, a Slovenian national electorate at Stirling, said, many of her friends are already leaving. It is like they are jumping ship before they are pushed. Those are heartbreaking words from Alenca and they are shared by many others. Those are the real fears and anxieties of real people and to treat them in this way is an absolute disgrace. In closing, if we have learned anything in the past two and a half years, Brexit flies in the face of those of us who believe in an open, inclusive, compassionate, caring, welcoming, competitive nation. With cool heads, reasoned arguments, made in the interests of all the people who call Scotland their home, we can get ourselves out of this mess of this deal. I call on colleagues of all parties in this chamber and the House of Commons for goodness sake, stand up and be heard. The price of silence is simply too high to pay for too many. I call Donald Cameron to be followed by Joan McAlpine. It is always a pleasure to follow Bruce Crawford, not least given the measured approach in his speech, which I hope to emulate. We are now less than four months away from the point at which the UK will formally leave the European Union. As we near the end, it is worth remembering the beginning. On 23 June 2016, a question was posed to the United Kingdom and was answered by the United Kingdom about our membership of the EU. We know the resulting decision. The Prime Minister's deal seeks to implement the decision of the electorate for the UK to end its membership. For me, the central reason to support this deal is that it respects that decision and delivers an outcome consistent with that decision. I respect the member. I know that he believes that, but would he reflect upon the fact, for example, in the UK of poll today, that now fewer than four in ten people in the UK think that the UK was right to vote for Brexit, while almost half of 49 per cent believe that it was the wrong decision? Surely, times change. I respect the one poll that matters here, and that is the decision of the referendum on 23 June 2016. Not to respect that vote would render us guilty of forgetting that we serve those who elected us. That service includes respecting their decisions freely expressed in a democratic vote. Turning to the withdrawal agreement itself, it is, of course, a complex legal document, a treaty in fact. Unlike most legal documents, it is open to interpretation. It has to make provision for a variety of possible outcomes, some of which may never come to pass. It is not perfect, as with any legal settlement reached at the end of a lengthy negotiation, neither side emerges with all that it demanded at the outset. Concessions have been made, circles have been squared on all sides, but this is the reality of any compromise. The stark purity of ideological positions makes way for something less glamorous but ultimately more practical. We have heard a lot about choices this week. For me, the choice is this. Do we pursue ideology or pragmatism? This deal is pragmatic. It acknowledges the profound divisions inherent in that vote. Alice Rowland I thank the member for giving way. Given that this is perhaps a less hypothetical question today than it was yesterday, can I ask if the member agrees with Ruth Davidson that, if there were another referendum, he would vote to remain? Mr Cameron There will not be another referendum and therefore we have to play the ball as it lies. This is where we are at. This deal is pragmatic. It recognises the closeness of this vote, but beyond that it faces up to the anxieties of the vast majority of people who want this deal to be supported for the very reason that it protects their jobs and their livelihoods. It provides for an orderly withdrawal from the EU. That is why Scottish business has backed it. Scotch whisky, one of the most important industries in my region, the Highlands and Islands, and vital for the Scottish economy, have said this in the name of the Scotch whisky association. If the deal is rejected, this will create considerable uncertainty for the industry. Diageo, who owns many whisky brands across Scotland, says that it is now vital for business confidence that Parliament votes in favour of this deal. Last Friday, I met with a livestock farmer in Lochaber, and I referred to farming in my register of interest. That farmer simply wants to get on with his work. He will have lambs to sell in the spring, and he urged me to support the deal. Farming is, of course, hugely important to the Scottish economy. That is why it is no wonder that the NFUS has said, and I quote, that the deal will ensure that there are no hard barriers on the day we leave the EU and will allow trade and agricultural goods and UK food and drink to continue throughout the transition period, largely as before. That opportunity needs to be taken. I repeat, that opportunity needs to be taken. On taking the withdrawal agreement and the declaration together, we have a deal that provides clarity on our status as an independent coastal nation by 2020. We have a deal that ensures that the environment remains protected. We have a deal that aims to protect trading goods, something that is crucial for our many exporters—I am sorry, I am going to carry on, I have taken a few already. It is crucial for Scotland's exporters who are required to deliver their goods to European markets. Above all, and to answer the question that Mr Russell mentioned about migration, we have a deal that ensures that EU citizens who live and work in the UK can continue to do so. Despite this clear progress, there are still people who want to see this process fail. For the SNP, they have never wanted Brexit to work. Whatever deal Theresa May had negotiated with Brussels, the SNP would have opposed it, and orderly withdrawal is not in their interests. That is why they are rejecting this deal, so we plunge into the uncertainty from which they hope to salvage independence. That is their ambition, and it always has been. It is extraordinary because the deal meets many of the SNP's demands, including in transition period, no hard border, a guarantee for EU citizens' rights and the likelihood of a customs partnership. Better alternatives are not on the table. Jean-Claude Juncker has said that this is the only deal possible, and that those who think that by rejecting the deal that they would have a better deal will be disappointed. That is from the president of the EU commission. That is it. As I have said before, we have to play the ball as it lies. I am content, Presiding Officer, that when I look at my constituents in the eye and explain why I support this deal, given the uncertainty that would result if it falls, I can do so firmly in the knowledge that I have acted in their best interests. The Prime Minister has claimed for two years that no deal was better than a bad deal. Now she is attempting to intimidate the country to back her bad deal by threatening a cliff-edge Brexit. I am therefore delighted that this motion unites all the parties of this Parliament, with the dishonourable exception of the Scottish Conservatives, to oppose a no-deal Brexit. The House of Commons also expressed that view by backing the Dominate Grieve amendment yesterday, and I am confident that the amendment by Hilary Ben, backed by the SNP and others, will also be successful. The opinion of the European Advocate General that article 50 can be rescinded further eliminates the risk of no deal, so there is an alternative. The Scottish Conservatives continue to claim that Mrs May's bad deal is our only option, even saying that that is the view from Europe. However, there is a crucial emission in that narrative. That is the only deal that the EU could give given Mrs May's red lines. That was a strong message from the influential people that the European Committee met during its recent trip to Brussels in the European Parliament. The withdrawal agreement is what it is because Mrs May boxed herself in with those rigid red lines. Her obsessive determination to end freedom of movement. Her full-hardy commitment to take the UK out of a single market of 500 million people. Her obstinate insistence on leaving a customs union that gives the UK preferential trading agreements with 63 countries, as well as real frictionless trade with the EU 27. If Mrs May dropped those red lines, we could reach a far better agreement with the EU, and it is vital that that happens. Others have already outlined evidence provided by the UK Government itself on the economic damage that will ensue from leaving the single market and the customs union. I want therefore to concentrate on another of the deal's red lines, the determination to end freedom of movement and specifically how that will damage Scotland. Figures from the national records of Scotland show that all of Scotland's projected population increase over the next 10 years will be due to migration. Furthermore, an end to EU migration would result in a 3 per cent decline in the working age population over the next 25 years, while the pensionable age population is projected to increase by a quarter. We need the taxes of working people to pay for public services in the future, so that those statistics should be of concern to every single person in this chamber. However, when my colleague Angela Constance MSP put that to David Lidington last week at the joint meeting of the finance and European committees of this Parliament, he was completely unaware. He cited the Migration Advisory Committee, whose report for the Government is supposed to inform the upcoming immigration bill at Westminster. However, the Mac had no Scottish representation and it did no Scottish modelling. As chairman, Professor Manning gave evidence to the Culture, Tourism and European External Affairs Committee in November and what he said shocked us so much that the committee has written to the Home Secretary to share our concerns. The Mac, of course, wants to end nearly all immigration in what it calls low-skilled occupations, and it set a £30,000 salary threshold through other migrants considered high-skilled. Professor Manning, when he came before the committee, dismissed the concerns of businesses who said that this would make it impossible for them to recruit. He shocked the committee when he said that the UK should not focus on the needs of the hospitality or agriculture sectors. The NFUS, when it came before our committee last week, used the words disappointed and shocked in response to Professor Manning's comments. Professor Manning also dismissed the advice from Oxford Economics, which advised the committee and said that tax rises may be needed to compensate for the fallen revenue if immigration is restricted. The Mac itself suggested that the pension age may need to rise again to fill the black hole in tax revenues that those policies will result in. There is a reason why the immigration bill remains unpublished. To do so before the withdrawal agreement vote would terrify business further and increase opposition to this deeply damaging deal. In conclusion, I have outlined how just one of Mrs May's red lines will damage our country, and it is those red lines that have shaped this deal. Yesterday, she described her deal as a compromise, but it is nothing of the kind. However, it has brought us together in opposition to her deal and in opposition critically to a no deal, and that is why I am delighted to support this motion today. I want to concentrate my remarks on rural Scotland. For generations, we have been fighting depopulation, meaning that communities are disappearing and with them the rural economy and subsequent damage to the environment. That is not just an issue for rural communities. Urban dwellers enjoy rural areas for holidays and days out. However, more importantly, they provide an environmental benefit to all of us. Urban areas are big polluters, and our rural areas redress that balance by providing carbon stores. Therefore, vibrant rural communities are important to us all, and we need to protect them. The withdrawal agreement, or indeed a hard Brexit, risks further damage to those communities and puts a very existence in jeopardy. I want to speak about fishing and agriculture, which underpin those economies. However, if I have time, the wider EU understanding of peripherality that needs and the needs of rural communities and understanding that subsequent Governments have sadly lacked. It is a strange phenomenon that the sector in Scottish society that wanted out of the EU are the ones who are likely to come off the worst from the withdrawal agreement, and that is the case with fishing. Those who believe that they had most to gain may end up being those who have most to lose. They will be last to leave, they will lose all their influence and, in the case of the backstop, they will face separate trade arrangements for fish, which could include trade levies or increased bureaucracy. The withdrawal agreement is the worst of both worlds for them. The EU will negotiate on behalf of the UK with other countries external to the EU, such as Norway, and, again, during the Council of Ministers' Negotiations on the common fisheries policy, it will consult with the UK, but there is no requirement to agree consensus. Therefore, quotas could be imposed on the UK that are detrimental to our industry. That will go on until we reach agreement with the European Union as to access and quota arrangements going forward. The European Union is clear that such an agreement builds on to the common fisheries policy, which is unacceptable to our fishing community. As I listened to the debate about the wider transitional arrangements and the backstop, it would appear that this situation could carry on indefinitely. There is a real chance that this will become the new reality because it is difficult to see what arrangements for a barrier-free Ireland could be agreed on, and that is especially the case with those parties currently at the table. Failure to agree a solution for Ireland will mean that the backstop comes into place. Frankly, if we do not get a general election, the fishing community will be rule takers for the foreseeable future. You could hardly believe that it cannot get any worse, but with fishing it can. Under the backstop arrangements, access to EU markets for fish, including firm fish, is dependent on agreement being reached on quota and access to UK waters. Therefore, that deal does not meet the aspirations of our fishing communities. Delays and import charges will have a disproportionate impact on smaller fishing operations who have tighter margins. Any delay getting catch to market can mean that the whole lot is destroyed and few boats can withstand that for any length of time. In addition, the charging of an import levy will eat into already-typed margins for smaller operations. Currently, those boats are enjoying greater profits because of the level of the pound, but if that changes, along with the import levies being imposed, they could face a steep drop in their income. It could be argued that those boats play a greater role in sustaining fragile communities, and their reduction would have a greater impact on population levels. Even a hard Brexit would not make this better, as negotiations would be carried out on the same basis with the European Union, demanding access to our water and quota in return for a barrier-free exit to their markets. While agriculture has been better served, it is not straightforward either. Any extension to the transitional arrangements would leave us outside the common agricultural policy and subject to world trade organisation terms. Added to that, there is a stipulation in the agreement that any support given to agriculture during the extended transition period cannot be higher than the common agriculture policy support levels that have been given in the previous year. That could mean that an extended transition would mean that support levels would drop in real terms. If so, we cannot rebalance support payments, which we must do to ensure that those areas dependent on those payments enjoy a greater share of that support. It is currently wrong that those farming in the most difficult areas receive less, while those despite their greater disadvantage and higher operational costs. The withdrawal agreement also states that there will be a joint committee setup between the EU and the UK to set a minimum amount of payments made to schemes such as agri-environmental support and basic payments. Therefore, we will not have control over our agricultural support payments but be subject to agreement with the EU, again taking the rules with none of the benefits. I mentioned fishing and agriculture specifically, as the rural economy is dependent on those industries. In many parts of rural Scotland, those are fragile industries, and any detriment to them will have an impact on the communities that are already under pressure. I am not sure if I have more time just to touch and put it off. You can just begin to wind up, please, to give you another little bit. The Labour Party's six tests say that we should protect the benefits that we enjoy as part of the EU, and we should have a close collaborative relationship. The deal, nor the transition agreement, would do that. A hard break exit would be even worse for every sector. We need a deal that we can coalesce around. I told the Conservative Government to start listening, but that will be impossible. Thank you very much. I call Alex Neil to be followed by Liz Smith. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. The one thing about Theresa May's draft withdrawal agreement is that it has brought about a level of unity between Remainers and Brexiteers, even in the SNP, that I never thought I would see for a long time. Can I say that, as someone who voted for Brexit, I am totally opposed to this proposed deal? In my view, it is the worst of all possible worlds and the best of none. It is neither fish nor fowl. One of the main issues for me is the impact of the backstop proposal, and I will explain that in some detail in a minute. I accept that the backstop proposal is well-intentioned, but the way that it is drafted is utterly foolhardy. To quote Lord Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England in today's daily telegraph—I must get him to write for a better paper—he says, leaving the EU is not the end of the world any more than it will deliver the promised land. Nonetheless, the UK is entitled to expect something better than a muddled commitment to perpetual subordination from which Britain cannot withdraw without the agreement of the EU. The purpose of the backstop is absolutely the right thing to try to do, and that is to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, an objective with which I think everybody in this chamber will agree. What many people in the chamber might not realise is that, in actual fact, it is already the law of the land of the United Kingdom as a result of an amendment made by Lord Patton during the passage of the withdrawal act. It is illegal for us to create a hard border in Ireland. That is already the law of our land as it should be. However, under the current draft of the backstop agreement, which was confirmed by the Attorney General Jeffrey Cox two days ago, that could tie us permanently into a particular type of customs deal that would be detrimental to our economy but with no prospect of a get-out option. We could only exit the backstop with the permission of the EU. That would be like a tenant, since I am sitting next to the housing minister. That would be like a tenant needing the permission of their landlord to give up their lease while the landlord retains the right to increase the rent annually and impose ridiculous new conditions on the tenant. Similarly, to exit, the backstop would read the permission of 27 other nation states, any one of which could use their veto to keep the UK in the backstop against our wishes unless and until we agree to all of their individual demands. Thus, the EU would have the UK over a barrel, not just in relation to the backstop itself. That is extremely important, but in relation to all aspects of the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU, which is still to be negotiated. This is not a calculated risk, as is claimed by the Attorney General. It is utter falling, which no self-respecting legislator could ever vote for and talking of self-respecting legislators are letting Mr Finlay. I agree with a great deal with what Mr Neil has said. I wonder if I could invite him to lay into the Scottish Tories here by using his housing analogy, Northern Ireland would have rents much cheaper than Scotland would under the provisions of the backstop. Mr Neil. I point that I do not know if it was worthwhile to take the intervention right enough. However, let us look at the implications of the backstop and particularly the implications for our fishing industry. Already, President Macron is on record as saying that he could refuse to end the backstop unless the EU retains control, as it does at the present time, of 60 per cent of the UK's fishing waters, as happens under the common fisheries policy. In that circumstance, we would be out of the CFP in name only, but in reality our fishermen would be no better off than they are today. If I may say so to the leadership of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, I am amazed that they are recommending approval of this particular agreement. I think that it is high time that they woke up and smelt the coffee. By recommending approval of this withdrawal deal, they are endangering the whole future of the Scottish fishing industry. They need to rethink their position and do so quickly. However, it is not just France. Spain could say that we are not going to let you out of the backstop without another deal on Gibraltar. Other countries could say that you are not getting it without dipping into our financial services sector in Edinburgh and London. They can demand anything that they like and they will keep demanding and demanding and demanding great economic and social costs to us if we sign this deal. They have got us over the proverbial barrel. It would be an economic disaster to sign this deal with that backstop provision in it. Returning again to Lord Mervyn King, he said that having this deal is the result of incompetence on a monumental scale. This is from the people in London who tell us that we cannot run our own country. Presiding officer, when you look at this deal, not only can we run our country better than them, we can run England better than them. I call Liz Smith, to be followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When I made my decision to vote to remain, I did not need much persuasion, because I did so mainly for economic reasons. I felt that both British and Scottish trade would be fair much better in a European market, where there was free movement of goods and services, where the scope for economies of scale were strengthened, and I felt that key sectors such as energy, oil, technology, medical science and our universities would flourish better and that our new emerging markets would also fare better with the opportunities that the EU presented. I still believe these things today, but I had to recognise that, for all those economic advantages, 52 per cent of UK voters, including many Scots, including the daily telegraph reading Alex Neil, felt otherwise. They felt that they were convinced that those economic advantages were outweighed by the political problems that were presented by an EU that was increasingly seen as bureaucratic, insufficiently democratic because it was increasingly unresponsive to the needs of the sovereign state and profligate with and not sufficiently accountable for taxpayers' money. As with all political debate, there was truth on both sides. I found it very hard to conceal my disappointment in June 2016, and I have found it very hard ever since, especially when I see the rancor and division and bitterness that has swept aside decency and tolerance in many quarters of political life. The Brexit debate has for the whole country raised questions about the meaning of democracy, and I want to dwell on that for just a moment. We have heard much in recent days about the overriding need of the sovereign Parliament at Westminster to reflect the views of the country. Just as we heard at the time of the Scottish independence referendum about how well this Parliament, in which we all sit now, reflects the will of the people in Scotland, there is a common thread. Before 2014, we were rightly told that the will of the people is paramount and that whatever decision is made, we should abide by it, exactly what we were told prior to the EU referendum. I, for one, believe strongly that we should accept that democracy is the important side of that, even if we happen to be on the wrong side of the outcome. I am interested in the member's view. Does she therefore think that democracy is just an act of one cross in a box every four years, or does she genuinely believe that when the facts change, people should be entitled to change their minds as well? Liz Smith. What I believe very strongly, Ms Dugdale, is that if we continue to reject the voters' decisions and tell them that they were wrong by seeking to have more referendums until we get the vote that we want, then we enter very dangerous territory when the political classes become dislocated from the public who elect them. That, Presiding Officer, would, in my view, undermine the whole concept of democracy as we know it. Now, I respect the views of all members in this chamber, even if I cannot agree with them all the time. I respect other parties' decisions to have this debate this afternoon, but I ask the other parties to consider when the motion that they have put forward is not able to give us what they actually want. It is very clear what they do not want, but it is not clear—how could it be clear, given the situation in which all those four parties have found themselves—that they are adamant that the Prime Minister's deal is a badman, but they will not spill out in their eyes what is a good one. All they will tell us is that they want to stay in the EU, so do I. However, that is not what the people decided, and as Democrats we must live with that, whether we like it or not. Kate Rumbles, a member familiar with a philosopher such as Edmund Burke, who said that Parliamentarians need to use their own judgment and not be reliant on the power of public opinion. I see that the Tories do not like that. He is often promoted by the Tories, as Edmund Burke. Do not Parliamentarians own—the people are duty to use their own judgment? Mr Rumbles, I remind you that we are here at the behest of the public who elect us to any Parliament, and that is the point about this particular issue. If we keep telling the public that they are wrong in their decision making, I think that we are telling them that they are wrong at the moment, because that is exactly what— Excuse me, I do not want a discussion. I understand why you have responded. Just do not respond. I do not want discussions across the floor. Well, Deputy Presiding Officer, I quite like to respond because it is important to the debate. With respect, Mr Rumbles has to get to his feet and intervene, so we all hear it and it is on the record. Just to deal with what you are dealing with, thank you. The other parties are very adamant that the Prime Minister's deal is a bad one, but I do believe very strongly—I will make some progress, if you do not mind, Dr Allan—that they have to spell out what it is that they want. We have seen that this afternoon, that it is not clear what they want. Can I come back to the point that this deal is not perfect? We know that, and it is not surprising, given the extent of the complexities and the lengthy negotiations that have had to be undertaken, that the central tenants deliver on what the people of the UK voted for. I might not like that, but that is what they voted for. It ends British membership of the CAP and the CFP, both of which have failed to deliver what the sectors are actually wanting. We should listen to what the sectors are saying. Adam Tomkins said that there has been a joint statement from the heads of the UK's four national farmers unions backing the deal. Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has backed the deal, Mr Neil. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce backed the deal. Sir Ian Wood backed the deal. The Scottish Whiskey Association backed the deal. Those are not people who are arguing about the abstract and finer points of the constitution, but about what is best for their sectors in terms of the stability and the future of securing jobs and investment. I think that, Deputy Presiding Officer, we should listen to them. To remind members, intervene if you wish to take part in a debate. Do not have it across the floor of the chamber. I now call on Tom Arthur to be followed by Pauline McNeill. It is a matter of profound regret that this debate is required. Along with the overwhelming majority of my Renfrewshire South constituents and the people of Scotland, I voted to remain a member of the European Union. Following the referendum in September 2016, I stated in the chamber that, while I regretted the result, I accepted it. However, I made clear that I did not accept that a vote to leave the European Union was a vote to leave a single market. I maintain that membership of the single market and the customs union is the only workable alternative to remaining a full member of the European Union. Unless economic vandalism and social dislocation is the objective, that is the genuine choice. It is the only choice. Any politician or pundit who suggests otherwise is little more than a con artist. The case put forward by the UK Government, shamelessly and sadly supported by Tory MSPs in this place, many of whom I respect and who have debased themselves to the status of underlings and shills. The case put forward is a packet full of falsehoods, it is a fraud and it is perhaps symptomatic of where we have got to with the Tories, because having witnessed their previous arguments collapse under the weight of their inherent falsehoods, the Tories have been reduced to advocating for the Prime Minister's deal as a means to end the ordeal that they have inflicted upon the country. Back the deal and it will all be over by Christmas. No self-respecting politician should count in such a feeble and fraudulent argument. I know that many people are scunnered with Brexit and I resent the way that this whole dismal debate over the past two years has sucked the oxygen out of so much of our wider public and political conversation. I genuinely empathise with those who just want this whole sorry saga to be over with. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I also understand the desire of many people to have this over but there is no such thing as just getting on with it. Those who just say, can't we just get it done, there is only a specific path ahead, there is not a general path ahead. Whether we have this deal from Theresa May or a no-deal scenario, in either case, what comes after that is year after year, possibly even decades, of constant revisionist approach to these debates on environmental protections. What does the UK Government want to do in relation to the European Emission Trading Scheme? They say that they want a separate UK trading scheme but they are unable to answer any questions on those matters. Please sit down. I remind people intervention should be short, sharp and interesting. I was not reflecting, Mr Harvey. Before you looked piqued, I was not referring to your particular intervention. It was a general comment. Mr Arthur. I want to think about the points that Patrick Harvie made that were very well made and very important. Fundamentally, it gets to the heart of what is occurring here because the argument put forward by the UK Government is based on three fundamental deceptions. Firstly, that the Prime Minister's deal is a good deal. Secondly, that it is the only deal. And thirdly, that it ends uncertainty. At the heart of the withdrawal agreement are a trio of key flaws, ending freedom of movement, leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. The arguments for why each of those objectives would represent a mistake of historic proportions have been well rehearsed and the evidence is overwhelming. There is no public service, no sector of the Scottish economy or area of our civil society that will be enhanced by this isolationist approach. And xenophobic undertones coupled with the jingoistic British exceptionalism that have been a dark presence throughout this whole Brexit process have already led to settled EU citizens packing their bags and others choosing not to come to the UK in the first place. That abhorrent approach is celebrated by the UK Government as ending freedom of movement once and for all ensures that whatever the outcome of the ensuing weeks, this period will be seen by current and future generations as one of the most shameful episodes of recent UK history. However, the most cynical deception that the Tories are seeking to perpetrate is that the withdrawal agreement brings an end to uncertainty, as Patrick Harvie said. I wish that it did. I wish that it could tell my constituents after March 29 next year that they would never hear another mention of the word Brexit. However, if I did that, I would be a liar. That deal does not represent the end or even the beginning of the end. Given the arithmetic of the House of Commons, it is unlikely to even be the end of the beginning. Were that deal to be ratified, I would not represent only the conclusion of the easiest phase of Brexit—years of detailed negotiations on a future agreement or what would await. It would be between the EU, a trading and regulatory superpower and the UK, a politically fractured state that has not conducted negotiations on this scale in almost half a century. In conclusion, this evening, we and our national Parliament will make our voice heard. We will overwhelmingly support this joint motion, reject the withdrawal agreement and put the interests of Scotland and the UK first. If the Tories genuinely care about the national interest, Scottish or British, and if they genuinely care about their country more than their party, they will join us. I say to Mr Arthur that there were a couple of terms that he used at the beginning of his speech. We were uncomfortable with them. They were colourful, but I think that they verged on close to unparliamentary. Just a little cautionary tale to everybody in here to make sure that they speak with respect to members. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. I will be supporting the motion tonight, as I think that it is an important signal from the Scottish Parliament that this deal is not acceptable to those parties. It does not protect Scotland's interests and will damage the UK economy. The road out of Europe must be based on what is best for our country and not what is best for saving political face. We are leaving after 40 years without a credible plan. I respect the contribution that Liz Smith made in just a few minutes ago, but I say this to Liz Smith. Democracy does not mean accepting any deal. Democracy does not mean ignoring the 48 per cent of people who voted, and it does not mean flouting the views of our Parliament. That is not democracy either. The UK has never been so divided as it currently is in the wake of the Brexit vote, and our future has never been so uncertain. The magnitude of Brexit is the largest shock of our economy in our lifetime. David Cameron, I believe, made one of the poorest judgment calls of any Prime Minister in history and has stressed the future of the United Kingdom and all that contains and the economy. However, it is up to us, as elected members and those who partake in this debate, to manage the deep divisions and find a way through that does not make families poorer. We are always hearing about how we have to respect the outcome of the vote and I have, and that we do not want to be real takers and I do not want to be and about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. However, seldom have I heard this Prime Minister also address the prospect of a deal that makes people poorer, that addresses the question of the poverty that may ensue if families do not get a deal, and families that have spent the last 10 years trying to struggle through austerity. However, the Brexit MPs who laid down their careers did not care much about the economy and were prepared to sacrifice the living standards of their country to get the outcome that they wanted. You can be sure—I think that Neil Findlay said earlier—that it will be Jacob Rees-Mogg or Andrea Leadsam or Liam Fox who will be the ones at the sharp edge of the economy if we do not get a deal that suits everyone. At least one good thing has come out of it, I think, and I do not think that there is any prospect that Boris Johnson will ever be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The withdrawal agreement—unless you remember what we are discussing here is the withdrawal agreement and its 500 or so pages does not provide any clarity on the future arrangements of the deal in the future. That alone makes it a deal that I cannot support. I will deal with what Alex Neil has spoken about. Paragah 20 of the legal advice, which was published today, clearly states that it affords Northern Ireland access to the single market without any corresponding obligations of membership and splitting the four freedoms. It introduces uncertainty as to what the extent of EU territory customs are for the purposes of trade negotiations. It is obvious that the legal advice needed to be in the public domain, given the magnitude of Brexit, a scenario that we have never faced before. At a time when the Government is asking to be trusted, it has withheld that important information and had to be held in contempt of Parliament for that to be published. That deal seems to have some support. What would you not expect a deal of this importance to command a much wider level of support if it is the deal in which we are expected to withdraw from the European Union? The Tories are now calling on us to support a deal that is going to be voted down. I would have expected the list of supporters to be much bigger than the list that has been outlined. The deal rules out a permanent customs union with Britain, having a say. It does not deliver a good deal in services. It would limit access for British businesses to vital EU markets. It would weaken workers' rights, consumer protection and environmental standards. As I have said in many debates, Scotland needs greater immigration. We need that to support our economy. We need some new arrangements. There has been no concession to that either. We need a deal that keeps us in the customs union, and it gives us a relationship with a single market that allows us to have access to those key markets. It is the only way that I can see through this is the election of a Labour Government committed to this. The backstop arrangement has become controversial on all sides of the political divide and no one can say whether it will be implemented. It was Theresa May herself that once said that no deal is better than any deal, and now she is asking us to accept this disastrous deal on the table. The Scottish Government analysis indicates that, under a free-stage arrangement, business investments could fall up to 7.7 per cent effect on our overall GDP. It is the equivalent of losing £1,000 per year per person. I have not supported the people's vote campaign. It is not what I would start from. I would not start from the position of trying to reverse a referendum result. In fact, I have argued in every single debate that we should protect the outcome. However, I have to say that my patience is wearing thin, trying to respect the outcome of a referendum. I never ask for it. Ordinary people are fed up with Brexit, and they are switching off because of a lack of clarity and constant infighting within the Tory party. It concerns me that at a critical stage where people need to be switched on to what is going to happen in their country, sadly, they are fed up with it all. I want to see a deal that actually protects ordinary people's lives. This is not the deal that does it, and we need to argue and fight for a deal for our country. That is what I will be doing in the coming months, thank you very much. After the election on May 5, 2016, a third of our parliamentary intake was brand new. We were all, I think, optimistic about the propensity of this institution to be a force for good. 49 days after the Scottish Parliament election, the Brexit referendum took place. For 40 per cent of today's membership, our entire parliamentary life thus far has been, in a large part, defined by the subject of today's debate. In our committee meetings, at our surgeries, on the streets in our constituencies, we are, in short, the class of Brexit. What a depressing thought. You can choose, and clearly it suits the agenda of some, to make Brexit about Scotland's constitution. For the Scottish Labour Party to join forces with the SNP and us in turn with the Liberals and the Greens, it has to tell you something. This is more than just cross-party working. This is solidarity with Scotland and our people who voted to remain. We need a better deal for Scotland, but as today's motion also makes clear, for the regions and nations of the United Kingdom too. How dare Adam Tomkins come to this chamber and say that this debate is just noise? This debate is about the people that we all represent. Last year, Fife Centre for Equalities conducted research on the concerns of EU nationals resident across the Kingdom of Fife. The report identified common themes, including education and the lessening of educational and career outcomes for future generations. Indeed, roughly 20 per cent of St Andrew's University's research funding comes from EU sources, just under a third of staff or EU nationals. The university contributes just under £500 million to the Fife and the wider Scottish economy, and about 13 per cent of St Andrew's students are EU nationals. Secondly, the report highlighted the economy and negative impacts associated with losing EU workers. Take Balburni House in Markinch as an example. Twelfth time winner of Scotland's wedding hotel of the year and recently voted number one in Europe at the Hote Grandeur awards. The hotel has always employed around about 20 per cent of its workforce from EU countries. Who will take those jobs now? Thirdly, the FCE report flagged concerns about hate or racist speech content becoming more prevalent since the Brexit vote. Channel 4 recently documented the fears of children of EU nationals. Kitty, who was nine when she came to Scotland, reminds me of a former pupil, Bright Chatty Smiley, full of optimism. She said, I was on the phone and this woman started shouting at me, saying, you're in an English-speaking country. Why don't you just learn the language? I just felt really angry, like why would you say stuff like that? You don't know me, and I can speak English. I speak English perfectly fine, but just because I'm on the phone to my mother, who speaks Hungarian and speaks English as well, and I'm talking to it in my mother tongue, which I don't want to lose because that is part of who I am. What gives you the right? I say to Kitty from the Scottish Parliament chamber, no one has the right to speak to you like that. You can speak Hungarian or any other language you want to. You will always be welcome in Scotland. Strathclyde university recently conducted research of over 1,000 Eastern European children's experiences of living in the United Kingdom. More than three quarters had encountered some form of racist abuse since the Brexit vote. What a painful irony that 2018 is our year of young people when these voices have been so absent from any meaningful debate on Brexit. In standard grade modern studies, the European Union topic featured in the international relations unit. I used to teach in a classroom just five miles from this building about the benefits of the European Union and its membership. That was part of our curriculum, teaching about human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, human rights, the values of the European Union. Spare a thought for those poor modern studies? Yes, I will. Willie Rennie That is right. Partly we are in this situation because we have failed to make the case for the European Union over many, many decades. We should learn that lesson. We should value the institutions that we have. The member is probably right that it is a pretty desperate situation if she and I are on the same side of the argument. The member will know that the Liberal Democrats support a people's vote. As it is pretty clear, we cannot trust the Prime Minister or, indeed, the members of the Conservative benches here to make the right decision about what is right for our country. Does she support that proposal, too? Jenny Gilruth I marched in London in support of that proposal. Spare a thought for those poor modern studies teachers are still out there, because I do not know how I would even begin to start teaching the next generation about our current political predicament. It is a complete and utter From removing educational opportunities to losing valuable people with skills and expertise to increasing hate speech, Brexit is bad news for Fife, Scotland, Britain and the Prime Minister knows it. I remember marching in London in 2002 against the war in Iraq. That war politicised a generation of people like me. My school friends and I jumped on a bus from St Andrews to London to March to show our opposition to the Government of the Day. Fast forward 16 years. It is 2018 and the masses are again stacking the streets around Hyde Park. From miles and miles and miles, people from all over the UK are being mobilised again. I marched with them. The Prime Minister's plan is not fit for purpose. Yesterday, the ACJ Advocate General provided the opinion that the UK can revoke article 50. Last night, the House of Commons found the Government to be in contempt. Just four hours ago, the UK Government was forced to release the Attorney General's legal advice, telling us that Northern Ireland would be in the EU single market for goods and in the EU customs regime. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, then it is good enough for Scotland. This Parliament should not accept a deal that puts Scotland at a competitive disadvantage. This is a UK Government in its desperate dying days attempting to grasp on to power. We all, as members of this Parliament, have a duty to represent the best interests of our constituents, from the business owners to the universities to the voices of EU nationals and their children. None of us should accept a deal that applies a detriment to Scotland. 62 per cent of our population voted to remain. It is about time that their voices were heard. It is about time that they took back control. Today's debate has already been played out in the national media, to be honest. I think that some are seeing it as an opportunity to rerun the debate on whether we should or should not leave the EU, but that is a debate that we have already had. What a sorry debate it has been at times, but opposing this deal is not the same as opposing Brexit. Opposing Brexit is not the same as dealing with the reality that is happening. I think that the pre-empted and automatic denouncing of the deal that we have heard from so many corners pays a huge disservice to those on both sides of the channel who have worked tirelessly on what I think was a difficult compromise on both sides. I was not over the moon with this deal, I will be honest, but I accept that it was a compromise, in some cases trying to deliver the undeliverable. I think that some people in this room perhaps believe that they would get a better deal, but I would ask who in this room has met, who has met with the European Council and agreed an alternative. Thinking that you can get a better deal and realistically achieving a better deal are two entirely different things. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if the member is aware that currently civil servants are collecting emails involved in the process around negotiation, fully in the expectation of a chill-cott-style inquiry around the Brexit negotiations. Is he absolutely satisfied that this is the best culmination of two years of work on behalf of Her Majesty's civil servants? I met with some of those civil servants on a recent trip to Brussels and I was impressed by their dedication and service to what they are trying to achieve. I in no way want to undermine that today. If I could make some progress, I have quite a lot to get through. I want to look at some of the confusing motivations behind the motion today. Let me start with the Labour Party, because this, as far as I can tell, is their view on what should happen next. Let's have a general election, they say. If they can't have that, let's have another referendum, they say. If they can't have another referendum, let's vote down the Prime Minister, they say. If we can't vote down the Prime Minister, then let's vote down the Government. Call me cynical, Presiding Officer, but it reaks of nothing but opportunism at every stage of the way, and they are participating in it as well. All of that comes with no alternative. Mr Findlay was given the opportunity. What is your alternative? Nothing was offered. Jeremy Corbyn is the only person on Twitter who never posts about Brexit, and why is that? Because nobody knows whether he really wants to leave the EU or not. Let's look at the SNP position, and I respect that they believe in their position. Scotland should stay in Europe, and if we can't stay in Europe, let's stay in the single market. That has been consistently their position throughout all of this. The problem is, Presiding Officer, that this was a UK-wide referendum. By its nature, every vote is as valid as the next. That includes the votes of the 1 million Scots who voted to leave too. It includes the 43 per cent of voters in North Ayrshire who voted to leave too. Every vote counted. That is how we thought the independence referendum, and this was no different. The ramifications of not respecting the outcome of that vote sets a very difficult precedent in my view, no least for the SNP. That is why I do not support another vote, and that is why I am surprised that the centre benches do. Let me talk about their second option, which is that Scotland should stay in the single market. We have all heard that you cannot have the perks of club membership without accepting the rules of that club, and the rules of that club mean accepting the four freedoms that the EU holds so dear to its chest. If it is a viable option, no-one who wants to be a member of the single market is yet to explain to the chamber how they will achieve that, but we can still come out of the common fisheries or agricultural policy. No-one has provided any credible solution to the conundrum of how Scotland—let me make my point. No-one has provided any solution of how Scotland, within a single market and England out of it, will not have to deal with the very same difficult issues that are facing the island of Ireland. It is implosible, in my view. I will give way to the— I can now give you two answers, the first of which is the situation in Ireland, which is precise to the situation that you are describing. However, the second one, of course, in terms of membership of the single market, applies to Norway. Indeed, that is the Norway option that you have outlined, which would work very effectively as the Scottish Government put forward in December 2016. Jamie Greene If the Scottish Government put forward, what did the EU say to you in response? What was their view on that option? I sit on this Parliament's European Committee, and that is represented by every party in this chamber. Recently, we went to Brussels. Meeting after meeting, expert after expert, civil servants, diplomats, lawyers, politicians, they all had the same frank message for us. Time is running out. The deal that we negotiated is as good as it gets. Those were their words, not mine. Does that disappoint me? Yes, it does, but that is what we heard. That is the reality of the message that we were given. It has been said by previous members that we are blindly supporting the deal, far from it. Let me tell you why, because I was intent on being suspicious of things such as the backstop. I hear what Alex Neil is saying, but anyone who understands the uniqueness of Northern Ireland will understand why it exists and why it should never be used. Neither party in this game has anything to gain from endless transition. I went to Europe and listened to Europe. The EU has enough on its plate. France has much more in its mind. Italy has much more in its mind. We are fooling ourselves. We think that Europe is willing to renegotiate. The reason why I will be voting against the motion today is not because I think that Theresa May's deal is unconditionally perfect. I am happy to put that on the record. However, in the real world, we are facing the reality of crashing out of Europe with no deal at all. You might win your vote, but what will you have achieved? If any politician succeeds in thwarting the democratic will of the UK, good luck with that. You will have won your political battle, but you will have undermined democracy for a very long time to come, and that is something that we should all reflect on. Stuart Stevenson Thank you very much. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate today. I usually try to be reasonable in debates, but today is not a day to be reasonable. With the Tory Government on the ropes and on the brink of collapse, why should anyone try to show any civility to a Tory Government who has absolutely no sense of what it means to be reasonable? Why should any MSP in this chamber show any consideration to a Tory UK Government who has treated this Parliament and its politicians with contempt for the past two years? It is clear that the Tories want to deliver the Theresa May Brexit deal at any cost, and we have been told that it is this deal or no deal. That is not a game show. It is real life, and no matter which way anyone is looking at it, the deal on the table will only bring more pain, more suffering and more tragedy. Yesterday, we learned that there is a potential for another way to stop Brexit in its tracks. However, as the First Minister stated on Monday, she is working with others to build consensus around alternative proposals that would deliver on the vote of the people of Scotland to remain. We have already heard about the economic disaster that will happen if Brexit were to happen. Certainly, some of the figures that have been published over the course of the last couple of weeks, if it is a no deal, a 7.3 per cent hit to the GDP, for an FTA, a 4.9 per cent hit, or the EEA model, a 1.4 per cent hit to the GDP. Those are forecasts to hit the economy, but in real terms, my constituents and many others will suffer. Only last week, the Chancellor said on Radio 4, if you look at this purely from the economic point of view, there will be the cost to leaving the EU because there will be impediments to our trade. Today, the Attorney General's advice was published, and part of that states that an international law of the protocol would endure indefinitely. That would make Northern Ireland more competitively and superior, as compared to Scotland. Last week, the Scottish Government's paper was published, indicating that our GDP will be £9 billion lower than if we stayed in EU. That is the equivalent of £1,600 per person in Scotland. Joan McAlpine, I am very grateful to the member for taking an intervention from me. The member accompanied me and Jamie Greene with the European Committee to Brussels two weeks ago. Can he confirm that the point that Jamie Greene made earlier in the debate was incorrect when he said that the people we spoke to said that this was the only deal possible? What he also said was that, as Mr Barney was quoted as saying the other day, it was the only deal possible, given the red lines that Theresa May had said. I absolutely agree with Joan McAlpine. Joan McAlpine is correct in what she just said, that she is on the record. Earlier on today, we had the comments from Murdo Fraser and Liz Smith highlighting and quoting business interests in the debate. I am going to talk about people. Many of my constituents cannot take a £1,600 cut to their income. Many of them just would not survive. Here are some of the effects of the Tories' power within the current EU. Those are the results of policies from not only the EU commission or unelected bureaucrats in Brussels but from elected Tory MPs in Westminster. There are 200,000 children to be pulled into poverty by the two-child limit. 71,000 families have lost their entitlement to child allowance in tax credits or universal credit in the first year. 190 women have been forced to disclose that their child was a result of non-consensual conception. Couples with children will be £960 per year worse off. One parent families will be £2,380 per year worse off. Families with two children will be £1,100 per year worse off. Families with three children will be £2,540 per year worse off. There is the introduction of the bedroom tax, which, thankfully, the SNP Government managed to mitigate. There was also the EMA cut in England, but that did not happen in Scotland because the SNP Government actually mitigated and kept it, and then we come to the roll-out of universal credit. This policy is nothing short of contentious for human life, forcing people to wait five weeks formally six to get money to live. It is all right for the members of the House of Lords turning up, clocking in and getting their £300 tax-free. Universal credit has been the largest welfare reform in the generation, but it is driving people into poverty at an alarming rate. When universal credit is introduced in an area, there is an increase in demand in food banks, and 42 per cent of people who need emergency food supplies are, as a result of benefit delays and changes on an average, 12 months after roll-out. Food banks see a 52 per cent increase in demand. The reason why I am highlighting those figures is that it is very simple, because when Brexit happens, whether it is Theresa May's deal or it is any other deal, my constituents and the constituents of every single member in this chamber will have an adverse effect upon their lives. It is a utter disgrace and the Brexit will only make the situation worse. When I see Tory MPs smiling for the camera and the hand-over food bank donations, I was nearly sick when we discussed its political patronising of the worst kind and showed utter contempt for those who need to go to our food bank. How dare they be so patronising about the less well-off? I have got so much respect for people who run the food banks, as well as every volunteer, but it is a perverted political class that thinks poverty porn is something to smile at. Britain is broken, and Brexit will shatter it forever. I welcome independence, but I do not welcome the shattered and destroyed lives that are going to take place and continue to increase with roll-out of universal credit. That is the result of a heartless, uncaring and frankly out-of-touch and arrogant Prime Minister and her party. The handling of Brexit has been a disaster from the start, and I have absolutely no sympathy at all for the Prime Minister. She has brought the chaos on herself and will be tied to any Tory MP at the next election and MSP at the next election that attempts to defend it indefensible to the electorate. I absolutely appreciate that there is a better alternative, and that is why I support this motion. Thank you very much. There was nothing unreasonable when fishermen voted to leave the common fisheries policy in 2016. When I came here in 2001, the EU was halving the number of Scottish fishing boats, while simultaneously funding Spaniards with our money to expand their fleet. We now see a rise in foreign vessels' catches in our waters, a huge proportion more than half. There is one of many reasons to be outwith the common fisheries policy. Arrangement, of course, is that the SNP has opposed from the very outset to the present day. In the 17 January 2017, Theresa May spoke about her plan for Britain, addressing what she thought should now happen after the referendum. It had a single mention of fishing, a mention of Spanish fishermen, no mentions of English fishermen, Irish fishermen, Welsh fishermen or Scottish fishermen, only a mention of Spanish fishermen, tucked away right at the end immediately before the conclusion of her speech. That continues a line from the Tory sell-out of fishermen on entry to the EC to today and to section 75 in the political declaration, which reads, and I quote, Within the context of the overall economic partnership, the parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on inter alia access to waters and quotas shares. We know from that quote, encapsulated in section 75 of the political declaration, that a fishing agreement is contingent on an economic partnership. There is a trade-off going to be made against fishing rights. Optimists believe, against all the evidence so far, that UK Tories will abandon an economic partnership in favour of fishing or will show some miraculous adoption of a negotiating strategy far superior than anything that we have seen to date. They simply do not encourage me, and if you track what has been happening on social media, you will know that many fishermen are not buying it either. The history also gives us much to say about what has happened. Mike Rumbles quoted Edmund Burke and he did so appropriately. The Gettysburg address that Abraham Lincoln gave in 1863 made clear what happens when a country fights itself. The same is true when a political party fights itself as the Conservatives are now doing. It is not a war that can be won without casualties, it is probably not a war that can be won at all. Ross Greer talked about the dying days of a Tory Government. I think that he was wrong. We are actually facing something more serious. For democracy and for my many friends on the Conservative benches here and elsewhere, we are potentially witnessing the death of the Conservative party. That is a party that went through huge trauma in 1846, when Robert Peel addressed the issues of the Cornwall laws and the Tory party. It took many decades, lives, before the Tory party came together. This time, one cannot be certain in any way, shape or form, that the Tory party will survive at all. Politics is diminished if we do not have a diversity of voices. One of the losers in this whole sorry pharagio is the democratic system itself. Let me address the issue of why I think that the Tories are dying as a party. I have before me advice that is given to people who work in a hospice on how to recognise death. Someone who is dying usually begins to withdraw more and more into his own world, sounds like the Tories. She or he is still conscious and able to communicate, but various behaviours may appear—restlessness, disinterested in people or activities previously enjoyed. There is a decreased ability to grasp ideas that sounds like the Tories, all the senses decline, even hearing. If there is one sense that the Tories are losing, it is an ability to hear what the public domain is saying, what the political domain is saying, and ultimately we hear the death rattle of a party on its last legs. Heading for the grave, if I am allowed? Before he gets any more morose, I will bring him back to the present day. How will he think that we are going to get out of this situation? Does he think that a people's vote is gaining traction? Does he think that it could happen? Does he think that he will really get behind this proposal so that we can win it? We have heard that subject already. For my part, I would prefer to see us have a relationship with the EU that is of Norway. That is economically valuable and it gets us out of the CFP. I am very obliged for the opportunity to speak. Fishing will remain a dominant issue for me, as for many of my constituents, and we will continue to hold the Tories to account that we cannot trust them on fishing. We will move to closing speeches now. I call on James Kelly to be followed by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Mike Russell said at the beginning of this debate, it is indeed a unique circumstance when you have Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens uniting around the one motion to send a powerful signal tonight that this Parliament rejects the deal that is being put forward by Theresa May and the prospect of a no deal. Adam Tomkins told us that the Theresa May deal was something that had been carefully negotiated. If it has been carefully negotiated, it has been carefully negotiated without good mind to the communities of Scotland and the communities of the United Kingdom. Last week, when we listened to Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he told us that the impact of that deal was that the economy was going to be smaller. What that means is that if you have a smaller economy, you are going to have less businesses, you are going to have less money generated in taxation and budgets are going to be reduced, including future Scottish budgets. That will do nothing for the 230,000 kids who are in poverty in Scotland. It will do nothing for the 470,000 people who have not been paid a real living wage. For that reason alone, the deal should be rejected out of hand, not just by this Parliament but by the UK Parliament when it comes to be voted on next Tuesday. The other prospect being put across by some Tory MPs is that of a no deal. I think that they really are living in a fantasy land and believing that, in some way, they can come to the 29th of March and leave the European Union. All the trading arrangements and all the rules that support that infrastructure will collapse and it will have no economic impact. As a Bank of England told us, that could result in an 8 per cent reduction in economic growth in the loss of 100,000 jobs. That would be an absolute catastrophe. Both of the options that the Tory party and its different wings are putting across would have no prospect of helping the people of this country. Ross Greer was right when he pointed out that the crisis that we face is one that has been created by the Tory party. It has been a long afternoon on the Conservative party benches. There has been a lot of work done on the laptops, on the phones and on the tablets as people look down for distractions away from the real criticisms that have been made from the crisis that you have created. There is no doubt that it has been driven by trying to deal with the internal problems in the Tory party. When you go back to before 2016, David Cameron brought the referendum forward in order to try to put those on the right wing of the party. That disastrous referendum and the outcome are what we are living with now. During the course of the last two and a half years, Theresa May has been focused purely on trying to get a deal that brings the Tory party together. You saw how that had completely failed last night in the House of Commons, when, in the space of 63 minutes, the Government lost three votes with the opposition parties uniting against the deal. We heard much. I am grateful to Mr Kelly for giving way. He has talked a lot about what the Conservatives are doing. When is he or somebody else on the Labour benches going to tell us what exactly is the Labour position on Brexit? What the Labour party wants, what the people in this country want, is that it wants the Tory party and Theresa May out of Downing Street. We will stand against a Government that has piled agony on to the communities of Scotland and the United Kingdom. We want a Government that will stop the cuts that will lift people out of poverty, and it will grow the economy. You will not get that from the Tory party. We heard much from the Tory party of their red lines, David Mundell and Ruth Davidson, how they would resign if there was any threat to the union. When we saw the backstop being created and the legal advice that has been published by the advocate general, you saw the impact of those red lines. The Tory red lines have disappeared. They have melted like chocolate santas in front of the Christmas fire. Totally ineffectual, that is the impact of the Tory party. The reality is that Theresa May's deal is dead in the water. It is time up for the Tories. It is time for the general election, and it is time for a different approach that will lift the United Kingdom and Scotland out of this crisis. Thank you, and I call on Murdo Fraser to be followed by the cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The debate was called by the Scottish Government in an attempt to demonstrate that there is a view across this Parliament on the EU withdrawal agreement. They have managed to form an unholy alliance with the Greens and the Liberal Democrats and Labour in opposition to the Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement. However, what has been revealed in the debate is that those parties have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to proposing an alternative to what the Prime Minister is suggesting. They might not like what is on offer, but we are utterly unclear what they think should be done. Instead, the motion in the name of Mr Russell refers to a better alternative being taken forward. We have no idea what that better alternative is, because there is no consensus amongst those parties as to what it should be. Let me try to understand, if I can—not at the moment, Mr Finlay. Let me try to understand from the various parties what we have learned about what their positions are on the withdrawal agreement. Let us start, because I am feeling generous with the Liberal Democrats. Tavish Scott told us that he supports a people's vote. If there is a referendum held where they do not like the result, we should just re-run it until they get the result that they want. That does not sound either liberal or democratic. Liz Smith, in her contribution, made an important point. It is very dangerous for democracy if the political establishment decides that people have made the wrong decision in a referendum. We are then going to re-run that referendum until we get the right result. That is going to undermine democracy, not just now. We are absolutely no clearer on what that people's vote would involve, because there are at least four options now on the table. There is the Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement, there is a no-deal Brexit, there is some other deal, or cancelling Brexit altogether. How can you run a referendum—here, Mr Rumbles, how can you run a referendum with four different options on the ballot paper and try to get a clear result is utterly beyond me? Rather than answering those serious questions, the pseudo-unionists in the Liberal Democrats would rather ally themselves with the SNP in an exercise in constitutional grand sanding. Shame on them, Presiding Officer. Of course. Is it another case that, when it comes to constitutional chaos, the Conservatives do not need help from anybody at all? Mr Rennie can ally himself with the SNP if he wants. We will take no lessons from him on supporting the United Kingdom. However, let me turn to a Labour who equally is happy to help as act as Nicola Sturgeon's little helpers. And yet, we have absolutely no clarity on what the Labour position is. I listened to Neil Findlay, to Rhoda Grant, to Pauline McNeill, to James Kelly. Not a single one could tell us what the Labour stance on Brexit is. I will give way to Mr Findlay if he will tell us what the Labour Party stance on Brexit is, because neither he or any of his colleagues could tell us in the course of this debate. Absolutely. We would renegotiate on the basis of a permanent customs union, single market access, rights respected, we would have equivalent EU programmes and agencies, maintained security and cooperation, no hard border on Ireland in a fair immigration system. Is that enough for you, Mr Fraser? The European Union 27 have made it clear that it would have no truck with a deal such as that. Why can't you listen to what the EU 27 are saying? No, they would rather stir up grievance politics against the Conservative Government rather than get forward and do anything positive for the future of the United Kingdom. However, let's turn, if we can, to the SNP, whose entire approach to this has been driven by political opportunism, personified in the constitution secretary himself. He's been all over the place in the last two weeks in terms of the SNP position on this. He denounced the Prime Minister's deal before he had even a chance to read it, within 23 minutes of the withdrawal agreement's publication. Michael Russell was telling us what a bad deal it was. 12 days ago, he was tweeting about how the withdrawal bill was a betrayal of Scotland's fishermen. At that very point, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation were making clear that they had a different view. They said, and this is a quote from them, the facts are these. Under the Brexit deal, as it stands, we will be out of the CFP, we will become an independent coastal state, but Mr Russell thinks that he knows more about Scottish fishing than the Scottish fishermen themselves. It doesn't stop there, no, I need to make some progress. It doesn't stop there, because he was also denouncing the withdrawal agreement as a betrayal of the people of Gibraltar, tweeting lines about Gibraltar at exactly the same point. As the First Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, was putting out a statement welcoming the Prime Minister's defence of that territory, but the constitution secretary thinks that he knows better what is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar than the elected First Minister of Gibraltar. The fact is that the SNP stance is all about stirring up constitutional grievance and trying to shift public opinion towards the second independence referendum and shame on the Liberal Democrats and shame on Labour for standing with them. We will know down here after the debate tonight, and there is a vote as we expected to go. We will hear from those in the SNP and the other benches how the UK Government should respect the result of the vote in this Parliament. That is a bit rich coming from a party in government that doesn't itself respect the votes of this Parliament, as we have seen on primary 1 testing and a whole range of other issues. When it comes to the vote tonight, there is a clear choice to be made, both here and in the House of Commons next week. We can listen to all those calling for support for this withdrawal agreement, listen to the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, listen to the CBI in Scotland, listen to the leading business figures like Sir Ian Wood, listen to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Whiskey Association and back the Prime Minister, or we can take our lead from the SNP and vote it down, leading us towards a no-deal Brexit with the catastrophe that might well turn out to be. Let us be clear—that is the consequence of voting down this deal. That is why industry and business are so concerned about what happens if this deal is lost, and that is what the SNP is leading us to, backed up by other parties in this chamber. If we end up with a no-deal Brexit, it will be entirely clear to the people of Scotland who is to blame for that. It will not be those who tried to find a solution in our party. It will be those on the Labour benches, on the Liberal Democrat benches and on the SNP benches. They will be the ones who have voted this down the route of a no-deal Brexit, and we will take every opportunity between now and 2021 to remind the voters of Scotland who delivered that to them. To conclude our debate, Cabinet Secretary Michael Russell. I noted during the debate that Philip Sim of the BBC had noted that this is a unique event, not just because there is a motion supported by four parties, but because four parliaments will be considering this matter, three simultaneously, the House of Commons, the House of Lords and ourselves are doing it today, and last night the Welsh Assembly did so. You can take that point a little further and reflect on that, which I think is pretty certain. We know what the outcome was in Wales last night. It was to refuse both the idea of the Prime Minister's deal and the no-deal. I do not want to count chickens, but I suspect that the same thing will happen here tonight. We know that the House of Lords will reject this deal, and it is likely that the House of Commons will. I would say to the Tories, apparently, according to Murdo Fraser, we do not respect the result of this Parliament. I think that the Tories should respect the result of four parliaments and think very carefully again. Let me, however, indicate what desperate times these are. I noticed that Willie Rennie, in agreeing with Jenny Gilruth, made the point that there must be exceptionally desperate to bring two people together across the kingdom of five. I am even more desperate than that because I am about to quote with enormous approval and, at some length, Mike Rumbles, something that I have never ever done in here before. I never expect to do so again. I am almost as embarrassed about that as Mike Rumbles appears to be. Mike Rumbles referred to the Edmund Burke's address to the electors of Bristol of 1774. I happen to carry around a quotation from that with me all the time. Edmund Burke, of course, was—as indeed you do—as Mr Sweeney knows, that is the type of thing that I would do. Edmund Burke was the founder of modern conservatism, as well as the founder, essentially greatly influenced the development of political parties. I have to say that the primary work on him in recent times has been done by Tory minister. Jesse Norman's book on Edmund Burke thought that I would commend to the Tories. I commend the issue particularly in the quote that Mr Rumbles used. I am going to use the quote in its entirety because it gives the complete lie to the argument that the Tories have used this afternoon, and in particular it utterly contradicts the point that both Donald Cameron and Liz Smith made, who I admire both of them, but it actually completely contradicts it. That is what it says. It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. It is duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures to theirs and, above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their own interests to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man or to any set of men living. These he does not obtain from your pleasure, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from providence for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable, and this is the key line. Your representative is you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion in one moment, please. That is the key issue. You cannot argue in this chamber that you were told what to do by the electors and that your judgment has nothing to do with it. You are elected to bring that judgment to bear. Mr Cameron and Liz Smith should know that it is regrettable that they do not. Liz Smith, would the cabinet secretary accept that when parliamentarians in Westminster and Holyrood any other chamber take a decision to have a referendum, then we have to listen to the people? Is he really arguing that we shouldn't be doing that? I am arguing in the words of Edmund Burke, that it is the judgment of politicians that also counts. Both Donald Cameron and Liz Smith indicated that their judgment was that Brexit was wrong. That was their judgment, but they have subordinated their judgment to that issue. That strikes me as at best an excuse. Let me now just turn to some of the other contributions in the debate. I want to talk about, of course, Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie is right to the cabinet secretary for giving way. It seems to me that the Conservative contributions have been more interested in the politics than in even trying to persuade us that the contents of this agreement and political declaration have any merit. Given that so many of them found it hilarious that anyone would raise an issue so trivial as climate change, can the cabinet secretary tell us, has the UK Government given him any indication of how its supposed UK emissions trading scheme will work, when it will be set up, how it will be connected to the UK scheme or why we should trust the Government that it has already pulled the rug from under the renewables industry to make these decisions in the first place? The cabinet secretary advises me that the best we can hope for is that there might be a meeting in the new year. The answer is that we have not been given that indication. I haven't got the time to go through all the contributions, but it is important in the light of what Patrick Harvie has just said. Remember that the primary contribution of the Tory benches today was that we must just make the best of a bad job. There is not much that we can do about that, but might as well just get on with it, so let's make the best of a bad job. There are people sitting on the Tory benches who are in favour of leaving. They have an honourable position, but it is now all reduced to the fact that this is a complete burrach. It is in actual fact to use a word coined by my friend Hugh Dan McLennan, a cluster burrach, but what has happened is that we are just going to abandon our principles, hold our noses and vote for it. That is no recommendation for any action to be taken, and for a party of government to make that recommendation, it shows that they are unfit for government. Let me conclude, Presiding Officer, with two contributions that I want to disagree with. As I have said, I have some time for Donald Cameron, but he was wrong in his definition of what freedom of movement actually was. He defended the citizens' rights provisions within that, and he compared them to freedom of movement. I made the point in my opening speech that the removal of freedom of movement will cause absolute economic mayhem within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. There is no doubt about that. Almost all sectors will suffer huge dislocation because there simply are no replacement workers available. That is the fact. The Prime Minister in Argentina said that it was a job of companies to train up homegrown workforce. There is no homegrown workforce that is available, so if he is seriously supporting the end of freedom of movement, he is inevitably condemning the area that he represents, the area that he has contested against me to represent, to economic decline. There is no if and no but about that. Finally, Presiding Officer, I want to turn to the contribution from Adam Tomkins. I did agree in actual fact with Tavish Scott that the discomfort that Mr Tomkins showed is the fact that he does not believe a word of that. He is not a single word. He knows how harmful that is. He knows that this is a disaster for Scotland. To come to this chamber and argue for it, I have to say that he is regrettable, and I hope that he will, in time, have the opportunity to regret it. Let me make this point about it. You have to look at his contribution and say what is the track record of being involved in those issues? What is the track record in terms of the advice that he has given people about the issue of the EU and Scotland? You could judge, then, what the veracity and the strength of his recommendations on that track record. I can do no better than quote from a blog that he wrote in August 29, 2014. A blog entitled, Would an Independent Scotland Remain in the EU. At the end of that blog, he said that these are his words, but there is little real danger of the UK leaving the EU. Any yes campaigner arguing in 2014 that the only way of securing Scotland's membership of the EU is to vote yes is scaremongering, plain and simple. There is the track record of contribution. There is a man who said that it would not happen and then said that those people who said that it would happen, who knew that it was a false argument, were simply to be dismissed. How could you trust that? The reality of the situation is this. We have a motion from four parties in front of us. It is the motion that I think speaks for Scotland. I ask every member to support it. That concludes our debate on the EU withdrawal agreement. We are going to move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 15045 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on Graham Day to move the motion. Thank you very much. No one appears to wish to speak against the motion or on the motion. The question is that motion 15045 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motions 15046 and 1507 on stage 1 timetables for two bills. I call on Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau to move the motions. Thank you. No one appears to wish to speak against the motions. The question is therefore that motions 15046 and 1507 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of primary bureau motion 15048 on approval of an SSI. I ask Graham Day to move the motion. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. We turn now to decision time. There are two questions today. The first question is that motion 15032 in the name of Michael Russell on protecting our interests, Scotland's response to the UK Government and EU's withdrawal agreement and political declaration be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to vote. Members make press their vote buttons now. The result of the vote on motion 15032 in the name of Michael Russell is yes, 92, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. Final question is that motion 15048 in the name of Graham Day on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move now to members' business in the name of Alison Johnson on remembering conscientious objectors, but we will just take a few moments for the members, the minister and the public gallery to change seats.