 I thank the First Minister for her statement. Rather than take questions, we are now going to move to a full debate on the European referendum. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Culture to move the motion in the name of the First Minister? Formally moved. I can ask members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons first. Can I also suggest that we allow the opening speakers for each party not to be interrupted or any interventions for the opening speakers only? I call on Ruth Davidson. I thank the First Minister for her advance notice of her statement. Too often, political events are described as seismic or earth-shattering when, in truth, the tremors are more for politicians than working people. Last week's referendum was not one of them. It is a defining moment in our country's story. It is deeply significant for all of us. I find myself reflecting that this time, just seven days ago, I was in final preparations for the BBC debate, arguing in favour of the European Union, where I was told that we were overplaying the impact of Brexit. A week is indeed a long time in politics, and it turns out, after all, that major constitutional decisions, such as those on the EU or on Scottish independence, do indeed have major economic consequences. Last week's decision was not the one that I supported. It was not the one that I campaigned for, and I am deeply disappointed by the result. However, the first message that I want to send today is that my belief in our capacity to meet the challenges that we face as Scots and as members of the United Kingdom has not diminished one inch. Those challenges are great indeed. They are complex. There are questions upon questions with more that have not yet been formulated, never mind answered. We are a nation with a fundamentally strong economy, an educated workforce, a developed diplomatic network and a capacity to overcome the challenges that we face. We are seeking to amend the Government's motion today, but let me begin by setting out where we wish to support it. First and foremost, let us unite in this Parliament in saying to people from across the European Union, you are welcome, you are wanted, your contribution is recognised and this is your home. Too often I fear the referendum debate was guilty of discussing the contribution of EU migrants to this country as some sort of necessary evil to fill in the gaps in our labour market. Let us say it loud and let us say it clear that we do not just need your labour, we want your values, your brains, your culture and we want you. Let us also unite in expressing our disgust at the racist insults and attacks that EU citizens have faced in the days since the referendum. It is shaming to our country and it is not in our name. Second, the Scottish Conservatives today wish to pledge our support for the Scottish Government's full engagement with the UK Government and other devolved administrations in the coming weeks and months as Britain's renegotiations are taken forward. It cannot be overstated how important this new settlement will be for all of us. It will define our new relationship with the European Union for coming generations. It is vital that we get it right and it is vital that all the voices are heard in putting that deal together. I want the First Minister of Scotland involved. I want the First Ministers of Wales and Northern Ireland involved. Having stood alongside him last week and seen him take on my Conservative colleagues and argue for his city, I can absolutely say that I want the mayor of London at the table too. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that he wants the devolved administrations integrally involved. This is the correct way to progress. Even though the vote was to leave the EU, our motion makes it clear that we want to protect and maximise Scotland's place in Europe, the continent and in the European single market. I am not going to try and pretend today that this will be easy. My scepticism is on record, but we all now have a duty to those many people whose jobs rely on trade with EU member states to put our scepticism to one side and to push for the best possible deal. In so doing, we need to ask ourselves some practical questions. Do we want Scotland to remain subject to EU law? Do we want powers that were issues such as farming, fishing and the environment held at Brussels or devolved to this chamber? How do we protect the passporting rights of Scotland's financial services industry? These are just some of the practical tasks that will lie ahead in the short and medium term. In saying that, I do not try today to brush aside the more fundamental consequences of last week's result—consequences that, for those of us who are here in Scotland, have a wider and deeper significance. As our amendment makes clear, Scotland and Northern Ireland are to leave the European Union even though a majority did not want it. In response, the First Minister has made it clear in the day since the vote that she wants to explore what options are available to Scotland. Again, let me say where we agree with the First Minister. We welcome the formation of a standing council of experts on this issue. We are indeed in unprecedented territory, so the more expertise we have on this, the better. If the Scottish Government wants to explore Scotland's options from within the United Kingdom, we can support her in that. However, it is after this stage that we have concerns with the Scottish Government's approach in the day since the result. I cannot ignore the fact that, within hours of the vote becoming clear on Friday morning, the Scottish Government had pushed questions of independence front and centre. I cannot ignore the First Minister's Dover House announcement that she had already instructed Government officials to start drawing up the necessary legislation for a second referendum on independence. Nor can I ignore it when I hear the First Minister justifying this on the basis that the UK has constituted in 2013, quote-unquote, no longer exists. I cannot ignore the SNP Westminster leader telling the House of Commons that in order to remain a European country, an independence referendum may have to happen. I have heard the First Minister telling us here that this motion today is nothing to do with independence. Yet, in the days since the result last week, it feels to many people across Scotland that the SNP is talking about nothing but independence and has done so again today. The First Minister speaks of people in Scotland who are worried and outraged at the EU result. I feel duty bound today also to speak up for the many people of Scotland who have contacted myself and my colleagues in the last few days to say that they too are deeply worried about the prospect of another referendum on independence. That is why we have included our opposition to this prospect in our amendment today. You do not dampen the shockwaves caused by one referendum by lighting the fuse for another, nor by saying that the economic impact of leaving one union means that you should sever ties with a greater union whose value in trade eclipses the former many times over. My view is this. The arguments in favour of the UK in 2014 were not just based on the economic risk of independence as convincing as they were. It was also because I believe that we in Britain had more in common than that which divides us. Does last week's vote test that notion? Yes, it does. There is little point in pretending otherwise. It tests it, but it does not break it. It does not break the continuing logic of our sharing power with the United Kingdom, not splitting from it. It does not break the arguments in favour of our own single market, a market that is more important to Scotland's prosperity than the EU, not less. It does not break our shared story, which, despite the shockwaves of the last few days, will endure. The referendum result last week does not overturn the vote that we had a mere 21 months ago to remain part of the United Kingdom. I know many people who were hurt by last week's result, including some who voted no in 2014. I am one of them. The lessons of last week's referendum are not as simple as them and us, not when a million of our countrymen voted to leave too. The lessons are far more profound. Do we have more in common across the UK than that which divides us? Yes, we have way, way too much in common. We all have people who feel disempowered and voiceless, anger at the way power has been abused in politics and finance in the media, a frustration, a lack of access and of barriers to social mobility and a growing sense of insecurity among families who feel that the world is passing them by. These are the questions that we must face up to as a country, as we reflect on this debate and the effect all of us, no matter which part of the United Kingdom we are from. These are the questions that we should be answering, not repeating the same old arguments of the past. I think that we can all now agree that referendums are bruising, and not just bruising, but on matters of such significance, they are wounding too. From now on, I hope that we still find time to learn the right lessons, not the wrong ones, to emerge as a stronger society, a better nation and a still United Kingdom. I move the amendment in my name. Kezia Dugdale We live in uncertain times. The social, political and economic order has been turned upside down. It will take many months and years for us to fully grasp the consequences. We have already seen the collapse in the pound, the fall in the value of companies, businesses uncertain about future investment. Those whose jobs rely on our access to the EU single market worry what the future holds. Let me echo what others have said in their message to EU migrants living and working in Scotland. They contribute not just to our economy but to the society and the culture that we have built together. Let me say to the 180,000 EU migrants that live in Scotland on behalf of those benches, you are welcome. 20 per cent of them live here in Edinburgh, a city that I have the great honour of representing in this Parliament. 74 per cent here voted to remain, one of the highest results in the whole of the United Kingdom. I know that there are people in this great city who, despite the support from their neighbours, now feel ill at ease. People who have built their lives here now feel unsettled and anxious, so whilst we fight for their rights and against a rise in racism, we must also continue to show them love and understanding. We must also understand, however, that there were a million Scots who voted to leave the European Union. The leave campaign contains some of the worst dog whistle racism and xenophobia I have heard in my life. Dog whistles that turned to foghorns whenever Nigel Farage spoke or unveiled a poster. However, that does not make every leave voter a xenophobe or a right winger. There are working class communities here in Edinburgh and Glasgow, just as there are in Sunderland and Sheffield, who feel powerless and are angry at the establishment. I was at the Glasgow count. I saw boxes in the First Minister's constituency split 50-50. Here in Edinburgh, in the seat that I sought to represent, the poorest communities in Nidry wanted out, as they did in Sighthill and elsewhere in the city. That result, even in Scotland, is not as straightforward as some have sought to pretend, and all of us in this chamber have a duty to better understand that and to listen and to act upon what we hear. However, we did not vote in communities, constituency, towns or even as nations. We voted as one country, the United Kingdom, a country that we as Scots reaffirmed our commitment to just 18 months ago. Millions of Scots want to be part of both unions, and that is why it is so important that we give the First Minister our support to do everything that she can to secure Scotland's place in the European Union. The Labour Party will support the Government's efforts to do the best that it can to mitigate the worst of Brexit, but to strengthen Scotland's ties with our European neighbours and allies. The priority must be securing jobs and the rights of workers. All options for protecting Scotland's place in the single market must be explored, including a federalised United Kingdom which could see those nations of the UK who voted to remain, retain their membership or achieve associated status. The Labour Party stands ready to offer assistance where we can to the Government, but that support is not unconditional. This Parliament will soon go into recess and not return for two months. It used to be said that a week was a long time in politics. A day in British politics just now feels like a lifetime. In that context, two months is an eternity, and a recall of Parliament cannot be ruled out. The First Minister may leave the chamber with the faith of those benches to speak to Europe in the best interests of securing Scotland's future in both the EU and the UK, but that faith can only be maintained by regular communication, involvement and briefings from Government to Opposition parties. A faith maintained by a continued understanding that, as First Minister, she travels to Europe with a duty to represent Scots that voted both yes and no, Scots that voted both from main and leave. That faith would be betrayed if, at any point, the First Minister tries to present our support for that motion and support for a second independence referendum. On that basis, we cannot support the Tory amendment because it removes support for the Government to speak to EU institutions and member states regarding Scotland's future. The last line of the Tory motion also says this. Believes that the challenges of leaving the EU are not addressed by leaving the UK, Scotland's own union of nations, biggest market and closest friends. Let me warn Ruth Davidson that she had better not dare to suggest that Labour's failure to back her motion is somehow a failure to back the United Kingdom. I struggle to put into words the anger that I feel towards her party at the moment—an anger that has been building since David Cameron announced English votes for English laws within minutes of the Scottish independence referendum result. An anger that grew when her party set Scottish voters against English voters in a hugely divisive and disingenuous 2015 campaign. Anger at a party that forced this EU referendum on a country that did not want it only to resolve an eco-contest in the Tory party and a Tory campaign in last month's election that told the nation that all that mattered was whether you were a unionist or a nationalist, a campaign that had no vision whatsoever for Scotland and boiled down to just two key messages. One, you can only trust the Tories to protect the union. Well, how is that going now, Ruth? And two, that the Tories would offer a strong opposition. And all that they stand opposed to today is giving the First Minister some support to speak to EU institutions about our future. The Tories have put their future of the United Kingdom in danger at every turn, and it's high time they shouldered responsibility for that. The priority of those benches is to focus on jobs and the economy, and to make the best of a very bad situation. We will support the Government tonight to do just that. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to contribute to a debate that, like others, I wish we weren't having to have. I'd like to thank the First Minister for the advance copy of her statement and agree with the substance of it, and I appreciate the tone in which it was made. I also thank my own colleagues in the Scottish Green Party who went out and campaigned. They were tired. They put their energy, like all of our party activists and campaigners, their energy, their time and their money into an election campaign for our national elections just weeks previously, but they went out and they campaigned and, along with colleagues across the political spectrum, they secured a strong democratic mandate from the people of Scotland. We are European and we're staying European. I want to endorse the First Minister's comments about immigration in particular and the respect for migrants who've come here, who've chosen to be part of our society, whether from the EU or from other parts of the world, who are feeling excluded, feeling divided from our society, as we speak, as Annie Pews, a German citizen who spoke at a rally outside Parliament just an hour ago, made clear the feeling of isolation many people have been forced to endure over the recent weeks and months are unacceptable. There is a legitimate anger at the years of political and media pandering to racism and xenophobia, which has taken place in this country, and those who are responsible for that, those in politics and in the media who've taken part in that, bear a heavy responsibility for the scenes that we've now seen, the far-right and racist tendencies which have been cultivated during this campaign and given disturbing expression since the result must be opposed. The failure of the political mainstream, and I think that Doug Dale had a very sound point on that point, the failure of the political mainstream to build an economy which works for the common good, has left huge numbers of people feeling angry and alienated. Those feelings are justified, but the Brexit debate has channeled them into the politics of division and hatred, both at home and risks giving momentum to far-right and anti-European movements elsewhere across Europe. The leave campaigns, both of them, were of course guilty of far more explicitly cultivating that reaction, but even the remain side, in my view, failed significantly to give a robust challenge to the notion that people's right to free movement is somehow a burden. In truth, it is a principle of huge importance and it's one that the Greens will continue to defend. We will certainly be supporting the Government's motion tonight and I want to make it clear that we will continue to advocate for the clear mandate that's been given by the people of Scotland, as advocated also by many of our European colleagues in a number of different political parties. I'd like to thank those in the European Greens today who've helped to soften the language around an immediate triggering of article 50, which would give no time for the serious consideration that is necessary or for the contribution that the Scottish Government is expected to make on all our behalf to the negotiation process. That process must be allowed time. All options as well must remain on the table for achieving that. This is clearly a unique situation that we're facing. Our path toward EU membership, if it takes place, will also be unique compared with any other path to EU membership that our country has taken. It may be that, after exploring all options, far more people than voted yes in 2014 may conclude that independence is the only way to achieve it. We also have to contrast the clear assertion of Scotland's mandate with the utter chaos that we see in the leave camp and the fundamental dishonesty in their campaign. How many times were we told that their campaign was intended to take back control, take back control of borders, take back control of money—however spurious their figures were about money—and now they're all claiming that we can stay in the single market? There is no such thing as a single market if you don't have free movement of labour. It's a fundamental aspect of the free market. It's also abundantly clear that access to that free market, to that single market, will also include a financial contribution if it can even be negotiated. The fundamental dishonesty of their claim that we can have the best of both worlds, taking only what we want and giving nothing back to a community of nations across Europe is something that needs to be challenged. I'm not in any surprise that we've heard shameless dishonesty, racism and self-interest from the likes of Boris Johnson, UKIP or from the right wing media. We cannot allow that kind of rhetoric and that kind of language to become part of the Scottish political landscape. I'd like to remind the chamber of something that Ruth Davison once said when we were debating a different constitutional transition not so very long ago. She said that those who are proposing transition must have the trust of the people to safeguard national security, to safeguard the nation-state's economic security and to safeguard the nation-state's political security by establishing its place in the world through membership of international organisations such as the European Union. Well, how's that going right now? I think that the UK Government has demonstrated an historic failure on all three counts and an historic failure across people of this country, Scotland and to the wider United Kingdom. Ruth Davison also argues that the 2014 result must be respected just as much as this year's referendum result. However, the 2014 result is now fundamentally superseded. I would remind the chamber of a comment from the Better Together campaign, the words of the Better Together campaign, on just the second of September 2014, just weeks before that referendum. What is the process for removing our EU citizenship? They asked, voting yes. People who voted in 2014 did so on a false prospectus, a false promise that their membership to the European Union would be protected in those circumstances and it has not been. I've personally spoken to people, strangers and friends across the political spectrum and yes, I even do have friends who vote Tory, who have told me that they are ready to re-evaluate the no vote that they cast in 2014 and no one has the right to close that position down for people in Scotland. Greens will continue to respect the mandate of voters in Scotland, given so clearly. It must ensure that all options remain on the table and, on that basis, we will certainly support the actions that the First Minister has set out in preparing the ground for a further independence referendum should it prove necessary and should it be the will of the people of Scotland. We will certainly support the right of the Scottish Government to enter into the negotiations while respecting the need for them to return and secure a parliamentary majority here at every step of the way. We will certainly continue to express respect for the people who have moved to Scotland and contributed to our society and continue to advocate that, in whatever solution Scotland and the rest of the UK sees forward, free movement of people remains a fundamental principle. We will advocate for the human rights, the social protection, the equality, the strong environmental protection, the achievements, hard one, which the European Union has helped to achieve, which are worth defending and which are so directly under threat by the decisions that were so recklessly taken a week ago. I call Willie Rennie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have lost elections. I took my loss in Dunferlin 2010 very hard and very personally, but no election defeat has made me feel like I felt in the early hours of last Friday. It was a deep sense of loss, loss of part of my soul and what I believe to be the soul of this country, outward looking, compassionate, tolerant, open, generous. Those are the attributes that I associate with my country, a country that does not walk on the other side of the road, but that is exactly what our country did last Thursday. And there are the practical benefits too. Tackling crime with the European arrest warrant, that's gone. Co-operation on climate change, gone. A single market, gone. Improved social conditions, gone. All of these and so many others are just gone. We are already seeing the effect on the value of the pound, company shares and credit ratings. I am angry that we have been recklessly led down this path, angry that prices and shops will rise because of the higher cost of imports, that people's savings are falling in value, that job losses are on the cards, yet it is not Boris Johnson who will suffer. Michael Gove may lose some money, but he has stacks more to get him by and Nigel Farage, he simply does not care. It is ordinary people on low and modest incomes who will lose. These are the victims of this crisis. I hope that David Cameron is feeling guilty. He should feel guilty for imposing the divisions of his party on the country, and that responsibility applies to every single Conservative in this Parliament, including Ruth Davidson. The economic chaos means that the Tories can never again claim to be the defenders of the economy. After the surge in the support for independence at the weekend, nor can the Tories claim to be the defenders of the union, they spark this economic and constitutional crisis. Ruth Davidson is not defending the union, she is undermining it, and no Tory amendment today can hide that truth. With every election loss, I have lived to fight another day. I am here today because I got off my knees to fight and win again. The United Kingdom's place in Europe will live to fight another day, and I am determined to fight for it. My party will contest the next generation on a clear platform of supporting the United Kingdom's place in Europe. Seven thousand new members have joined our party to campaign with us to win that case. I want Scotland in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom in Europe. That is the best possible option. I will not settle for anything less. We need to understand, however, why one million people in Scotland voted to leave the European Union. It is of little surprise that, if you have a minimum wage job, a zero-hours contract with a damp house and a car that has failed at its MOT, you might think that you have nothing to lose, and you probably would not believe a well-healed Conservative Prime Minister who tells you that the status quo is best for you. The European Union was not responsible for all those problems, but the levers that provided that easy target and David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn were incapable of making a compelling case for the European Union. The First Minister knows that I oppose another independence referendum. I made that commitment during the election only last month. Today's motion does not endorse independence. The First Minister has made that clear. In additional words, beyond her statement that was provided to us earlier, she said that that was emphatically so. I welcome that. I think that that is a welcome remark. I welcome the First Minister also reaching out to other parties to engage in the negotiation process. I immediately agreed on Friday to participate as long as it was not a cunning plan to deliver independence. I want to explore options, whether it is the bizarrely named reverse Greenland working with London, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar or some other arrangement, but we need to fully understand before we move ahead. Rushing headlong to independence will undermine those efforts. There is so much that we simply do not know. Making decisions we do not know should be one of the lessons from last week. In my constituency of North East Fife, I have many thriving businesses. They are thriving, in part, through the hard graft of workers from across the continent, as well as those closer to home, working together in harmony. Fisher's laundry services, kettle produce, many farms, the hotel and restaurants in St Andrews and beyond. They work hard. They make those businesses successful. They have married here, settled here, pay their taxes here. They are one of us and they will never stop being one of us. I know many who will be offended by the decision last week, but I want them to know that we are standing with them today. We are determined to recapture the soul of this country, so it is once again outward looking, compassionate, tolerant, open and generous. I thank members for not intervening on any of the opening statements. We now move to the open debate. The decision last Thursday has huge consequences for all our constituents in this country. By Friday, the Parliament will have had a grand total of three hours and a very limited number of speakers called to debate this issue. We will have had no opportunity to question the First Minister of the Government or, indeed, for other parties to question leaders of my party and the other parties. Such is the importance of this. I think that this is an issue for Parliament, not a particular political issue. We must be given more time for other people to engage in this debate, because this is of huge consequence. Thank you, Mr Finlay. That is not a point of order, but it was a matter for consideration at the business bureau this morning. We gave it a lot. The business managers of each of the parties gave this a great deal of thought. There is a huge demand to speak and to discuss this matter. However, it is not the end of the matter today. There will be an opportunity to put questions to the First Minister at FMQs on Thursday. In the meantime, we have agreed that today's debate gives many members a chance to contribute. We now move to the open debate. I will call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Adam Tompkins. I am sure that many members from across the chamber will have been as shocked as I was this morning to hear Lord Forsythe, who was on the board of the Leave campaign, bullishly tell BBC Radio Scotland that there was absolutely no need for a blueprint for Brexit. It was not for Leave to have a blueprint, he said. It was for the Government. It betrays the arrogance and the recklessness of the Brexiteers, but it is almost as disturbing that the UK Government, who called this referendum in the first place, did not have a blueprint either, and that our future would now appear to rest in the hands of Oliver Letwin. The last European Committee of this Parliament saw this coming. It had an inquiry into the consequences of Brexit that was reported earlier this year, and reading through the report is a common theme. The failure of the UK Government to provide answers, indeed the failure of the UK Government even to send a minister to listen to the committee's concerns. It was not just the committee's concerns, it was the concerns of the witnesses that came to that committee, our universities, our businesses, our agricultural sector, asking what would replace the money that comes directly to Scotland from Brussels if there was indeed a Leave vote. It is worth recapping on some of those sums. EU students at Scottish universities pump £174 million into the Scottish economy a year and £88 million of EU money goes to fund research at Scottish universities. Scottish farmers got £824 million from the EU in 2014, and the National Farmers Union in Scotland says, for every £1 of EU cap payment paid out to Scotland, that puts £4 million into the rural economy. European structural funds in Scotland from 2014 to 2020 are worth €985 million and we all know that that pays for everything from roads to employability, and rural development funding supports things as diverse as broadband to farm diversification. This is all money that comes directly from Europe, as I said, but time and time the report from the last Europe committee pointed out that it was not clear that the block grant would be adjusted to compensate for the loss of those funds. That is before you consider the losses incurred from losing our access to the European market or, indeed, our loss of European citizenship or, more fundamentally, the kind of country that we wish to live in, the kind of country that we want to live in, is open and welcoming to people from across Europe and other countries and quite the opposite of the terrible racism that others have mentioned that we saw characterising the Leave campaign. Although I do not speak today as the new convener of the Parliament's Europe committee, I do not think that I am saying anything controversial when I state that the committee will examine the consequences of last Thursday's vote in forensic detail and seek to assist in pointing a consensual way forward. I very much welcome the First Minister's offer today to meet the committee at the first opportunity. The Government is now exploring how we can work with others, including the UK and the EU institutions, to find a way in which Scotland can stay within the EU, even if the other parts of the UK—notably England Leves—already several senior political figures in Europe have responded very warmly. I was very pleased to hear some of the comments from the debate in the Irish Parliament yesterday praising Scotland as an ancient European nation, one with its own jurisdiction and one that was a very strong member or supporter of the European ideal. I was also pleased to hear Scotland's farming cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, say that his EU counterpart yesterday had been very positive and sympathetic towards the predicament in which Scotland finds itself. It is not impossible that such a compromise could be reached. We have heard about the Denmark and Greenland situation in the past. European leaders are pragmatic when circumstances demand. They, for example, rapidly absorbed East Germany into the community after the Berlin Wall. The committee of experts clearly has a vital role to play here, but we also need to be practical. It is also likely that such an arrangement may prove impossible to negotiate. I noted that Sir David Edwards, who is going to be a member of the Standing Committee, has expressed scepticism about achieving just this compromise. I know that he is going to be a witness to the committee on Thursday, and I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say. I am concerned about the chances of negotiating a compromise, because much of it will require the co-operation of a Westminster Government, which might soon be in the grip of leadership, even more right-wing than those that we currently endure. If we fail to reach that compromise, time is not on our side. Once the UK triggers the Brexit process with a section 50, it has just two years to do a deal. Unless the Council of Europe agrees to extend the time, which appears unlikely, given recent statements coming out of the EU, a guilleting will fall under section 50, and the UK will be cut off with whatever deal the EU decides to give it. We cannot have Scotland similarly marooned. If independence is the only option remaining, we have to have that independence referendum before the guilleting falls. If we have the referendum after the guilleting falls and we vote yes, we will have to renegotiate our entry into the EU from outside, which I am sure is something that nobody wants. It is something that Kirsty Hughes, who is also going to be a witness at the committee on Thursday, and who is a member of Friends of Europe and a very distinguished academician on the subject, has written extensively on it, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. That is not a headlong rush towards independence, as Willie Rennie suggested. It is a contingency measure in Scotland's best interest to put this legislation in place. It is an important contingency measure. The priority now is to act in the best interests of all the people of Scotland, whatever their views are, on independence. I, for one, very much welcome the support of other parties across this chamber, because it is really important that we act together as one for all the people in Scotland, and we will always be led by the people of Scotland and their interests first and foremost. I said in my maiden speech in this Parliament that I wanted the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union, and as such, like most Members on these and all other benches, I am to say that I am disappointed in last week's result is something of an understatement. Indeed, my real reaction to last week's result is incapable of being translated into parliamentary language. I have seen nothing since Friday morning to make me think that I was wrong and that leave was the better outcome for either our country or for the European public interest. In these remarks, Presiding Officer, I want to look to the future, not hark back on a campaign lost. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. That much is clear, but only that much. Exactly what leaving the EU now means is anything but clear, and there is not merely an opportunity but an obligation for all of us here to begin to flesh out whether we wanted this outcome or not. What we think leave should now mean. We are going to be entering into long negotiations with our European partners. The first task is to identify exactly what it is that we will be negotiating to achieve. The First Minister has said that she wants to preserve Scotland's position in the European Union. Fine, but quite what this means is also unclear. Scotland, of course, is not and never has been one of the EU's member states, and the vote in Scotland last week was to seek to preserve the UK's status as a member state, not to insist that Scotland becomes a new member state. The First Minister has also said that she will appoint an expert advisory panel to look at what she has described as all the options, and I welcome this and I offer to assist in any way I can. So what should leave mean, and what are the options for Scotland? To my mind, leave should mean that we retain full access to the EU's single market. As I understand it, even those small numbers of MSPs who advocated a leave vote are of the view that we should maintain as full access to the single market as possible. Now we may be, as has been remarked several times since Friday morning, in uncharted territory, but there are still some things we do know, and one thing we know is that leaving the EU's political institutions does not mean that we have to leave the EU's single market, for there are several countries, including Norway, the place the SNP often likes to talk about, who have just such an arrangement. And what are the options for Scotland? Again, they are many, and our obligation now is to begin to put some flesh on the bones. So let me give an example. At the moment, it is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament to enact law that is incompatible with EU law. We, as a Parliament, could perfectly easily maintain that rule even after the UK ceases to be in EU member state. We could, for example, pass an act providing that all Scottish legislation is to be read and give an effect subject to EU law. We could confer on the court of session the jurisdiction to quash any of our legislation that is incompatible with European law. All of this is perfectly possible within our current legislative competence. Presiding Officer, I make no pretence that the last few days have been easy. We have lost a Prime Minister, there is volatility in the markets, we face the prospect of difficult and protracted negotiations. But one positive note to have been struck in the past few days is the point strongly made by the Prime Minister that in those negotiations the Scottish Government should play a leading role, along with the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales. As the Prime Minister has said, it is important, it is vital, that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are represented effectively and properly in those negotiations. Had those advocating Scottish independence won their referendum in September 2014, First Minister Alex Salmond said that he would put together an all-party team Scotland to negotiate on behalf of the nation. Likewise now, the UK Government will put together an inclusive team to negotiate on behalf of all our nations, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is as it should be, and I very much hope that the Scottish Government will play a leading role in this team. Again, I offer the many support they think I can usefully give. What Scots now want to see is their politicians working together in the best interests of the country. That is not where we wanted to be. Mike Trumbles Members may know that there is not one member in this Parliament that is more pro-UK than myself. Would you agree or not agree that when the First Minister said, a vote for this motion is emphatically not a vote for a referendum on independence, that we should work together across the chamber and that if the Conservative amendment fails, we should all work together and support the motion put forward by the Government? Adam Tomkins I think that we should all work together to help the United Kingdom to negotiate what it means by leave and to maintain and safeguard the interests of Scotland. I have made that perfectly clear. What Scots now want to see is their politicians working together in the best interests of this country. That is not where we wanted to be, but where we are. Let us try and make the best of it together. I call Richard Lochhead to be followed by Anna Sarwar. Presiding Officer, like most members, I expect that over the weekend I spent a lot of time attending constituency events. Literally thousands of people attended those, and everyone wanted to talk about the referendum. What struck me was that people both from those who voted remain and who voted for leave as well are now extremely anxious about their future and their children's future in the future of Scotland. I have also been inundated, and I am sure that many people have, with emails and letters over the past few days. A lady from your forest contacted me last night. She said by email, I have two daughters aged two and four. What kind of country are they going to grow up in? I am truly fearful for their future. The one thing that everyone had in common was that they were absolutely keen for all their politicians in this Parliament in Scotland to now show leadership in these difficult times, especially given the vacuum at UK level that we are witnessing. That is why today's debate is so important. We must now deal with what may turn out to be the biggest event so far in our lifetimes and post-war Europe. There are, of course, been other seminal events since post-war, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was all about solidarity. Eastern European countries queued up to join the EU, and we all welcomed them with open arms. Yet the UK has now chosen isolation over co-operation and damaged European unity. It is noted that the referendum result, as Patrick Harvie said, has been welcomed by some of the most extremist voices across Europe. People are hoping to put forward extremist agendas based on scapegoating, minorities and others to blame for Europe's current woes. We must hope that the UK's decision does not lead to a dominal effect as the reverberations of Brexit are felt right across the whole of Europe. However, by working together in this Parliament and across civic Scotland to secure our nation's place in Europe, we can send out a message of hope and optimism to Europe's peoples. A message that says that Scotland wants to be an outward looking, modern European country where we embrace rather than reject differences, and we are not going to run away from Europe's tough challenges. I urge all parties in this chamber to focus on the outcome that we all profess to want, which is to stay in Europe in line with the democratic wishes expressed by the people last Thursday. We need time to consider all the options and to hear the views of all parties. I hear suggestions that we can remain part of the UK that is largely out of Europe while we in Scotland and perhaps other parts of the UK remain in the EU. I am very much looking forward to hearing the details of how that could work in practice and not lead to a political and democratic mess or blank checks for constitutional and commercial lawyers for the rest of time. As a Parliament, we need to be careful to listen to all views in this Parliament and outwith Parliament. Of course, the First Minister is absolutely correct to say that a second independence referendum must be on the table. Many people who voted no in 2014 are now saying that enough is enough. Their reference points in the independence debate have been radically altered. Many no-voters are saying that there is a choice between remaining in an isolated UK out of Europe when we voted to remain or be governed by right-wing conservatives who would not vote for either, then they will vote differently next time and they deserve their voice. Douglas Ross I thank the member for giving way. Could you perhaps explain why, if this motion, which you are supporting and debating today, you are now the second backbench SNP speaker and two out of two have moved on to independence and a second referendum? That is where the concerns from those benches and a large majority in your constituency and around Scotland come from about supporting this motion. Richard Lochhead I think that it is really helpful if the Conservatives just for once rallied round with all the other parties in this chamber and put the Scottish interests first and not their usual politics. I am doing so, Presiding Officer. I can't ignore the 38 per cent of Scots that voted to leave. Many have genuine concerns that need addressed. Europe is evolving and we have to, as a Scottish Government, as a Parliament to develop and, in particular, a vision of the kind of Europe we want Scotland to be part of. If we support a reform agenda, we have to decide what that is and we have to articulate it. The next two years are going to be momentous and we will decide Scotland's long-term future and our status as a country. However, in light of last week's vote and subsequent developments, there are some other steps that we can now take to protect Scotland's interests. Between now and Brexit, many decisions are going to be taken in the EU, though impact on our economy and our communities. In this new environment, I do not believe that the UK is able to look after Scotland's interests. It is therefore important that Scotland should formally request that our ministers from this Government lead the UK delegations to those formal and informal councils of ministers' meetings that are going to take place in Brussels and Luxembourg for the next two years, where the agendas are of relevance to our national interests in this country. In any negotiation, whether it is buying a house or negotiating fish quotas or farm subsidies or environmental policy, relationships matter, attitude matters, commitment matters and goodwill on both sides of the table is absolutely essential. Negotiators want to know that you are going to be serious and in it for the long term, but we are now in a situation where the UK is walking away. There is no incentive for either side to bank negotiating capital for the future, but we do know that there is goodwill towards Scotland in Europe. Goodwill from member states to EU institutions, as we saw today in the fantastic response to Alan Smith's passionate speech in the European Parliament across all countries and all parties as well. Scotland wants to participate and act in the long-term interests of our own priorities and of Europe, so between now and Brexit, the Scottish ministers should be given the opportunity to lead in Europe for the UK. Finally, just before I close, it would also be an idea for the EU to postpone the UK's presidency slot in 2017, which is clearly going to be unable to be fulfilled by the UK Government. Keep that slot available should Scotland become a member state in their own right post-Brexit. Let's not forget that the UK is already isolating itself as illustrated by the resignation of Lord Hill as a commissioner, so that position should also be offered to Scotland or, indeed, Northern Ireland. So please, everyone support today's motion in these unprecedented and anxious times. All parties should put Scotland's national interests before their own on this very special occasion and during these difficult and anxious times for Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, I voted to remain on Thursday because I believed that it was in Scotland and the UK's best interests to do so. I felt a huge sadness on Friday morning seeing the results as they came in. The biggest reason being that we have lost the opportunity to stop talking about constitutional politics and instead focus on the matters that are issues right here and now. Many of them are issues of life and death. Today's debate comes as new figures show that the expected standard on cancer treatment has now not been met for over three years. Let's not underestimate what happened on Thursday. This is a seismic event for the UK and the EU. There are millions of people across the United Kingdom who are deeply disappointed with the result and anxious about the consequences, consequences dominated by the reaction and volatility in the markets. Let's be clear what the markets means. It's people's jobs, their wages, mortgages and pensions, so our immediate priority must be to encourage camheads and to protect individuals and businesses who may be affected by the volatility. This is not the time to think about short-term political interests because what we are facing as a nation is much bigger than that. There is no doubt that the UK is at the start of an economic crisis overlaid by a constitutional crisis. That's why Scotland must play a full part in the process going forward. Indeed, I believe that the First Minister has a duty to engage in all talks and negotiations because rightly all options should remain open. That's why there must be a formal structure that allows all the talents and peoples of the nations and regions, including Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London, to be an equal part of the negotiation process so that we can get the best deal possible for all parts of the United Kingdom. That structure, a constitutional convention of the nations and regions, should have a remit to discuss and decide with the significant powers that are to be repatriated to the UK where they should reside. That includes significant powers on fishing and farming, which are crucial to the Scottish economy. I believe that it is premature to talk about the timing of any future independence referendum, especially as we don't yet even know what the terms of the UK leaving the EU will be, or indeed what the terms of Scotland leaving the UK to join the EU would be, if that is even the case. The market volatility that we have seen in the past few days shows that asking people to make a decision without fully considering the consequences has implications that are dangerous for jobs, wages, mortgages and pensions. I welcome the tone that the First Minister has adopted since Thursday. She is right to say that we are in unchartered territory, and I hope that that is a tone that continues in the weeks and months ahead. The First Minister is right to ask questions about the impact on the single market, our free movement, our currency and our international relationships going forward. We need clarity on what the new arrangements will mean for the £11.6 billion of trade that Scotland does with the EU, but we will also need clarity on what any new arrangements would mean for the £48.5 billion of trade that Scotland does with the rest of the United Kingdom. The First Minister is right that we need to see what the new arrangements will mean for the tens and thousands of EU nationals living, studying and working in Scotland, and for the 135,000 Scots working in Europe. We will also need clarity on what any new arrangements would mean for the over half a million Scots living, studying or working in other parts of the United Kingdom. There are many unanswered questions. What will be the details of any deals for Scotland? What terms will the UK settle with the EU? What will be the status of the new relationship? How much access to EU markets will we retain or lose? Will the people of Scotland have the opportunity to have their say on any renegotiated terms of continued membership, and, crucially, what guarantees would we have before any proposed vote on independence? The First Minister also makes the point rightly that the UK is not the same now as it was in 2014, but I put it to this Parliament that the EU may not be the same in two years as it is now. Let's not have some romantic view of the politics on mainland Europe. I bitterly oppose the right-wing politics of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, but, be in no doubt, they are made to look like moderates compared to Marine Le Pen of the French National Party, who could be president next year, or the rise of the far-right party in Germany and Padiga, who planned violent protests across Europe and are attempting to build a base across the UK now, too, or, indeed, the Slovakian Prime Minister, who said, I quote, multiculturalism is fiction. Islam has no place in Slovakia. This man may take over the rotating presidency in the coming weeks, or, indeed, the many other mainstream and populist party who are amongst them climate change deniers, anti-Semites or Islamophobes. Deputy Presiding Officer, since Thursday we have seen an increase in hate crimes, and Glasgow neo-Nancy stickers have gone up, claiming white zones. Will we should send a strong message to all minorities that are here, that this is your home and we stand with you in peace and unity? To the spreaders of hate, we say directly, it is not our minorities that are not welcome here, but you and your hateful views that are not welcome in Scotland and the United Kingdom. To conclude, there is much uncertainty over the coming months. We do not know what the negotiations will throw up, so when the First Minister says that everything is on the table, I really hope that she means it. We need to wait and see what the outcomes are of the negotiations so that we can make clear and reasoned decisions. That is why we need to have cool heads to ensure that we make decisions not with anger but with reason. Members are starting to allow their speeches to drift a bit over time, which could ask you to have a thought about that. Christina McKelvie followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. While we are facing Brexit, it is something that I thought that we would never have to face. Only a few weeks ago, I said that the Leave campaign seemed to have taken leave of their senses, threatening systematic cuts to Scotland's budget and a reversal of the gains of devolution in the event of that Brexit. We are hearing those calls now, not just from Lord Owen, but from many others, too. The rhetoric from a key vote Leave spokesman has shown that campaign in its true colours, hostile to the Scottish Parliament, the consensus of this place in Hollywood and our voters who voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining within the European Union. We also hear that Theresa May, a potential candidate to be Prime Minister of this United Kingdom, would hear her say that we need to get out of the European Convention of Human Rights. It is to those rights that I will concentrate on today. On 26 November 1792, Robert Burns wrote that, while Europe's eyes are fixed on mighty things, the fate of empires and the fall of kings, when quacks of state machetes produce his plan and even children lisp the rights of man, amid this mighty first just let me mention the rights of women merit some attention. That poem was written around the time of the French Revolution. Europe was in turmoil, and war was just around the corner at every turn. As that revolution progressed, an England witnessed the emergence of popular reform societies, advocating parliamentary reform, the aristocratic section of the wigs began to fear the spread of revolutionary ideology on a home territory. How familiar that is today. In 1793, the radical Thomas Muir was arrested and transported. He said in a convention in late 1792, we do not, we cannot consider ourselves as mode and melted down into another country. Have we not distinct courts, judges, juries, laws? Absolutely, Mr Muir. He had been the architect of a new reform society in Scotland. Muir opted for a nationwide association of reform cubs and was unlimited to social class, something that was not the case elsewhere. That Scottish association of the Friends of the People was duly formed in this place, Edinburgh. That brings us to what lies at the heart of this current EU debate. Nationhood, citizenship, sovereignty and the rights of every man and woman, the ffates of empires. Governments ignoring the will of people will face the dire consequences of it. We do not seek resolution or revolution, sorry, as described by Burns and Muir. We seek enlightenment, sisterhood and self-determination. Thomas Payne was laudied at the same time for his rights of man. The universal human rights, citizens' rights that we cherish so much are not to be toyed with by any government. As you know, I am a true supporter of the European Convention of Human Rights. We will fight for it every step of the way. I believe that we can reform the European Union. We know that that is true, because we have done it before. Professor Neil McCormick was an architect of that reform. He almost pushed Europe to a constitution enshrining our fundamental rights. There we are, back to the rights that are so important. His work pushed forward that reform agenda to what we now call the Lisbon Treaty. Without his early work, we would not have that treaty. Another Scotsman who took up the cause, protecting and extending our fundamental human rights as EU citizens. Article 18 of the treaty on the function of the European Union provides that notes and assistance shall be discriminated against on the basis of nationality. The citizens of member states also have a number of social and employment rights that derive from EU legislation. Following agreement of the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, the EU treaties have enshrined principles relating to non-discrimination in areas of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. As a result, the EU has developed comprehensive legislation in the area of non-discrimination and equality. It began with sex equality in employment context and is now extended to race, disability, sexual orientation, age and religion or belief in employment and race and sex in the provision of goods and services. The people of Scotland, through due democratic process, reaffirmed its belief in and support of that European Union. I think that it is only right that this Government be supported by our Parliament to realise the demand placed on it by us, the people and our voters. As stated in articles 1 and 2, the union is open to European states who respect the member states common values. Those are human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights, minority rights and free market. The member states also declare that the following principles prevail in their societies—pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality of the sexes. Those are things that I am happy to pin my name to. Gerard, Palmer, Skirvan, Thomas Muir and Margarole are names that every Scottish man and woman ought to know. When you are called for duty service, when your name is drawn by lot, when you vote in an election and you freely voice your thought, don't take these things for granted for dearly they were bought. It is with these rights in mind that I support this motion by our Government today, in the name of our Government, and I ask them to devote themselves to the cause of the people. It is a good cause. It shall ultimately prevail and it shall finally triumph. Oliver Mundell, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is easy to listen to the First Minister and our party and think that this European result tells a single story. It does not. It tells 33,551,983 individual stories with people from all backgrounds, from all corners of our United Kingdom and from different political persuasions coming together to take part in the largest exercise in democracy that our islands have ever seen. People voted leave and they voted remain for a multitude of different reasons and rightly so, this was a complicated decision with many competing and in some cases mutually unattractive outcomes. It is in that context that we must now be gracious enough to accept that the overall result here in Scotland is just one dimension of that. Rather than jump to hasty conclusions, as the First Minister has done, we must take time to digest that fact and reflect on what this result means for people here in Scotland and elsewhere across our United Kingdom. In the long run, people will not look kindly on political posturing or idle speculation and now more than ever we have a responsibility to pull together and knuckle down to the task in hand. I have no time and we are keeping very strictly to time. It is in that spirit that I would ask all those who voted to remain, who find themselves questioning the democratic process to reflect on the fact that 19,518 people in my own constituency voted to leave the European Union, a higher number than voted for me as their MSP. Indeed, across Scotland, more than 1 million voters put their cross next to leave, a larger number than put their cross next to Nicola Sturgeon for First Minister, and just short of the total number who voted for the SNP in the constituency ballot. While that was far short of a majority of Scots, it was by no means a small or insignificant number of people. Of course, while the result was decisive in a Scotland-wide context, we must too recognise that there was significant variation within Scotland with 49.9 per cent voting leave in Murray compared to around 25 per cent here in Edinburgh. I know that that context might perhaps seem insensitive and of little consequence to the many who feel angry and as if their voice was not heard, but it is important to remember that the view of the majority is seldom universal in a democracy no matter how you choose to look at the numbers. While I fully understand that the First Minister and for that matter many decent and fair-minded people do not agree with the result, it remains a UK-wide result and we must all respect that outcome. Just as those across the rest of the United Kingdom accepted the possibility at the start of the campaign that Scotland might have helped to deliver a remain result, but now is not the time to rake over the campaign or to dwell on the result itself because we are where we are. Instead, we owe it to people to start considering where we go next. Indeed, the truth is that this debate is not about the result, nor sadly does it even seem to be about what is best for the people of Scotland. Instead, it is once again for some in the SNP about one thing and one thing only—independence. Since Friday morning, we have seen once and for all that behind the seemingly good intentions lies a deliberate malice. If they were serious about building consensus and negotiating in good faith, they would have taken a second referendum off the table. All that we have seen is what started as a statesman-like approach rapidly descends into self-interest. Although I acknowledge that events have been moving very quickly, the First Minister has fast become like a runaway train defaulting back to our all-too-familiar mantra of independence at any cost. While others have taken steps to steady the ship with leading leave campaigners supporting a delay to the article 50 process, allowing time for the best approach and a consensus to be reached, the First Minister has sought to amplify division. In doing so, she not only does a disservice to leave voters like me, but far more disgracefully, the First Minister is letting down those who voted to remain by potentially undermining what could yet prove to be a better deal for access to the single market for Scotland than we could hope for as an independent nation. For a start, that would be one that allowed us to use the pound rather than the euro. The truth is that this whole debate is a red herring, and in the emotion that followed the result, it is easy to overlook the fact that Nicola Sturgeon wanted independence no matter what. That, before the campaign started, she abandoned her once-in-a-lifetime pledge almost as quickly as it left her lips. That is why, in or out of Europe, we must never allow ourselves to forget that the SNP exists for one purpose and one purpose only to break up our United Kingdom. For me, like many fellow Scots, in good times and in bad, it is always that primary union between our family of nations that will come first. Even in adversity and even in the disappointment and anger that many feel, there is a greater good. Something far more important to our future security and prosperity than our European Union membership. Now it is time to fight for that and to work together in good faith to secure the best deal for Scotland. Presiding Officer, like many in this chamber and across the country, I was bitterly disappointed at the result of the European Union referendum. It felt akin to a bereavement when the results were being declared across the country. I am a great respecter of democracy, but frankly, I was horrified to see Nigel Farage celebrating his result on Friday morning. This man was the face of Britain that was reflected to the world, and I reject everything he stands for, and he certainly does not speak for me. However, what is clear is that David Cameron gambled with our future. He could not control the Eurosceptics in the Tory party, so he gambled on a referendum and he lost, but we are all the losers for that. He will shortly be out of office. We will, in time, potentially be out of the European Union and the price for the country in Scotland and across the UK may well be very high indeed. People tell me that this was an anti-establishment vote, and that is maybe so, and we need to understand the reasons why people voted in the way they did. However, let's not pretend that Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are anything but the establishment. They went into this referendum not expecting victory without a plan for what they would do, leaving the country in continuing uncertainty. I abhor the approach of the leave campaign, cynically putting immigration at the very heart of what they said, and indeed a promise to increase funding to the NHS, which they denied within 12 hours of the close of poll. I agree wholeheartedly with the First Minister's sentiment and that of others that people from Europe and across the world are welcome in Scotland. What I am disappointed by the result and angry by the nature of the campaign, there is a need now for stability and for cool heads. Our responsibility is to assess the impact and take action where it is right to do so, and in addition to the representations being made across Europe, I believe that our immediate priority must be action to protect the economy and jobs. I would be pleased to hear what the Scottish Government will do in that regard in tandem with the representations that it is making elsewhere. Before Brexit became a reality, Fraser of Allander Institute said that we were flooding with a recession in Scotland. Growth was slowing, we underperformed relative to the UK and we were facing stagnation in the economy. I regret that that prospect of a recession is now, in the view of many economists, much more likely in Scotland and across the UK. We have seen the sharp decline in the stock markets, wiping billions of share prices and the falling pound against the dollar and the euro. Although I am sure that we all hope that that stabilises quickly, it makes a practical focus on the economy absolutely essential. Currently, we export most to the rest of the UK, followed closely by the rest of Europe. The Government's zone statistics for 2014 showed that 42 per cent of all international exports were destined for the EU at a value of some £11.6 billion. One in every £6 in our business economy is generated by companies based in the rest of Europe, so that matters to our economic wellbeing. Businesses adapt to changing circumstances, but those changes are often most keenly felt by those who work for them and in a lessening in job opportunities. Already, we are hearing anecdotal evidence of changes to investment plans. Companies paid in dollars seeing an immediate loss due to the exchange rate. One young man who I know of who was about to start an engineering job in Europe has now been told to stay at home because they have no idea if they are going to recruit to that job anymore. What about iconic products such as Scotch whisky, such as so much of our food and drink sector, representing an increasing contribution to our GDP, a substantial exporter to Europe, accounting for thousands of jobs? Is that impact on people that we serve and that we must focus our attention? There are views on mortgages, pensions—all of those may well be affected—but let me whom in on a couple of points, Presiding Officer, because it is about the impact on people that we need to look at. Let me say, though, on a second referendum that I acknowledge and welcome the reassurance given by the First Minister that that is not her starting point, but let me say as respectfully as I can. I listened to Fergus Ewing with great attention this morning on GMS and he suggested that independence was the only answer, so I begged the Government not to face both ways on this. Let me just say, just as Nicola Sturgeon said, that no, I don't have time, said that the UK—I'm in my final minute—said that the UK had changed. Well, so will the EU have changed— We have a point of order, Mr Ewing. Sorry, Ms Bailey. It's not a point of order. Ms Bailey just said and she refused to take my intervention, Presiding Officer. That is not a point of order, Mr Ewing. It is up to the speaker who she allows to intervene on her. Well, may I make a point with regard to the courtesy in respect? No, Mr Ewing. That was not a point of order. Ms Bailey is currently making her contribution. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I hope that additional time will be added to reflect the interruption that I have had. Let me say to Nicola Sturgeon that she said that the UK had changed and I agree, but so will the EU have changed. It is imperative that, should we be faced with another independence referendum that clear and detailed terms of joining Europe will be set out in advance. If we join the euro, we will need to decrease public debt. That means cutting public spending. What implications will that have for our services? I want to remain in Europe. I am a committed European, but we need to approach this with our eyes wide open and we need to take the time to consider what we should do. At the moment, it is a constantly changing landscape. We do not know what will happen, so if the First Minister is intent on bringing forward another independence referendum to this country, she must spell out in detail what the terms of that engagement with Europe will be. Nothing less will do. Presiding Officer, let me finish by welcoming the First Minister's comments about working together. We should be working together across the United Kingdom, people in Northern Ireland, London, Manchester and other areas besides. They will feel the economic consequence of that, too, so let us not stand alone in our negotiation with Europe. I want to address two issues. The impact of last Thursday's decision on this Parliament in the immediate future in Scotland in terms of our budget, our finances and our process of fiscal scrutiny, and what I think is the existential choice that Scotland now faces. Firstly, on the issue of our budget, it is obvious that in our present state of partial dependence, budget decisions made south of the border impact directly on what we have to spend and on our timescale of scrutiny. We are also clearly dependent, both in block grant and in taxation on the overall health of the UK economy. Huge insecurity has been created, not only by the vote last week, but also by the political paralysis that has followed it. George Osborne, the author of the disastrous revenge budget idea, is now the author of the equally damaging no-budget idea. The autumn statement will follow a challenge in Tory leadership and a change in Prime Minister. It might be subordinated to a snap general election. All those factors create considerable uncertainty for us in Scotland where a draft budget is due according to our existing timetable to be published by 20 September. There needs to be discussion with whoever is in charge in London, if anybody is in charge in London, to clarify this matter. Assuming that no clarity is forthcoming, there need to be decisions made in Scotland on how we move ahead. It may not be the time for a spending review, as the planning horizon has changed substantially. Much discussion on that is required. Tomorrow, the Finance Committee will have a first opportunity to discuss that with the finance minister—a rather unusual first evidence session for both. Finance issues lie within the overall context of political issues, and it has been and is an extraordinary political time. The First Minister is absolutely correct and her leadership has been inspirational over this weekend that the key issue is to retain our membership of the EU. That is the objective. It is right that we start that process today with a clear instruction to the Scottish Government to explore every possibility and consider every route. There may be several possible solutions, but what is not in doubt is that the objective must be achieved. It must be achieved because only by doing so can we retain—each one of us can retain—our European citizenship, which, among other things, guarantees free movement, protects us in the workplace, enhances and conserves the environment in which we live and welcomes diversity and difference within a tolerant whole, while allowing us to participate in the structures of the union as equals individually and collectively. I have the opportunity to ask the First Minister, as chair of the finance committee. Is it her's view that, should Scotland leave the EU, it would have to rejoin at a later date that it would be subject to joining the euro and be tied by a 3 per cent deficit? I am not speaking in my capacity as chair of the finance committee, but in my capacity as somebody who knows anything about politics, which Neil Findlay should, that is a silly question because he answers that there is no such requirement. Let me now deal with realities. The touchstone for me and for many is European citizenship. I don't want to give that up. I won't give that up. Scotland didn't consent to give that up for anyone who lives here. European citizenship is, of course, an addition, not a substitution. We enjoy, in addition to our UK citizenship, we are presently Scottish, British and European, but now, however, we are being forced to give one of those up. That is truly an existential choice. It goes to the heart of who we are and who we will be. We are being forced to decide if we are British or European. We are being told that we cannot be both. I was born in England. I have many family and friends there. What Chesterton called the plain people of England are good, noble, outgoing and generous. They have been failed by their leaders and they are still being failed. That is a tragedy. The First Minister is right to say that the country that Scotland chose to remain in two years ago no longer exists. It is the people of England who see that most clearly now they ended it with their vote last week. They must find a way forward from that. I hope that they can find a better way forward, but accepting that failure and its consequences is something Scotland cannot and mustn't do. We must look up to see a vision of co-operation and engagement, the door to which, as the president of the commission said yesterday, is opening, first of all, for discussion. In June 1850, in the House of Commons, during what was called the Don Pacifico affair, Palmerston, as the foreign secretary in a tour de force, talked about his objective in foreign policy. His objective was to ensure that the British subject in whatever land he may be shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong. That is the choice now for us. Should we do as we are told and rely once again on the watchful eye and the strong arm of England to protect us, or have we grown out of that, given that the eye and the arm are withered beyond recognition? Would it not be more in keeping with the times to seek collaboration, co-operation and an open outlook to the world? If that is so, where do we get those, only in our membership of the EU? That is the existential choice and we are being forced to make it. Finally, let me go very close to home. On Friday, I was on the island of Mull. On Saturday, I was in Caul. Yesterday, I was in Midargyll. There is genuine apprehension, genuine fear about the consequences of what has taken place. Talk of job losses, companies' retrenchment. I am concerned about investment, public and private, a worry about structured funds, about loans and the acknowledgement of how much has come from Europe and still comes to support rural areas. It is not half a century of EU membership that has made us European. It is centuries of engagement. We were European before we were British, sending students to the continent, sharing citizenship with France, and appealing our very nationhood to Rome. Wine was being shipped to Lochfain-Lochfion in the 15th century, in war and in peace, in Cogging and Chis. We look to Europe and they look to us, in Voltaire's words, for our very idea of civilisation. Our existential choice is being made not just because of the referendum but because of our history. It is inherent in who we are. We cannot be anyone else. We are European. We are citizens of Europe. That is what we have chosen to remain. It is what we must remain no matter how and no matter what it takes. Elaine Smith, to be followed by James Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As one of only a few MSPs who put a case for leave, although not part of any official campaign, I feel that I must contribute to today's debate. After all, nearly 40 per cent of those who used their vote actually voted leave, and they were spread across all parties. That effectively means that this Parliament did not reflect that in the contributions prior to the vote. Although I appreciate that members will have their own personal views or a party line, I would have thought that this kind of vote by the public should have been more reflected in this chamber, so they need a voice today. I spoke to a great many people who will listen to the arguments for remain, including the compelling ones being made by Jeremy Corbyn, and I studied carefully the positive left-wing case for leave. One reason that I felt compelled to contribute to the previous debate was that I believed that the opinions of those who were voting leave for reasons of democracy, workers' rights and to stop further privatisation of public services deserved expression in this chamber. Those 1 million voters in Scotland who chose leave did so and assure knowledge that this referendum was right across the UK, and that every single vote counted on its own merit whether they were in Blackpool or Belfast, Cardiff or Coatbridge, London or Lossymouth. There was no question that regional or country results would be treated differently to the overall result. Indeed, we had a democratic vote here in 2014 with an unprecedented turnout that means we are part of the UK, and that vote was conducted only in Scotland with a Scottish electorate, but the democracy of that seems to be somehow being set aside. That referendum vote was conducted right across the UK, and more than a million voters in Scotland who chose leave deserve representation and they do not deserve to be disenfranchised. With regard to remain voters, it was clear that it was a UK-wide vote based on the fundamental premise of the UK's relationship with the EU, so in terms of the motion, I am afraid that I cannot vote to welcome the overwhelming vote of the people of Scotland to remain since I voted leave and also the basic premise of that is flawed and misrepresent the question asked in the referendum. The ballot paper did not ask do you want Scotland to remain or leave the EU, and of course there was a majority of those who actually used their vote here in Scotland to vote for the UK to remain. However, there was also a degree of ambivalence as Scotland actually had the second lowest turnout from across the UK of just over one million people in Scotland who voted for the UK to leave the EU. They did so with little support for their view in this Parliament, and indeed all parties and leaders were pushing very hard for remain. Further, those one million Scottish voters contributed substantially to the end UK outcome of a leave vote. If they had all voted to remain, the outcome would have been very different, so Scotland certainly contributed to the overall UK result. I have to say in some areas, for example, that the vote was tight and maybe that is due to things like the controversial common fisheries policy that has contributed to the demise of our fishing industry. Those kind of failures in EU policy might just be one of the reasons that some people across the country chose to vote leave. To say that much of the result in this referendum was predicated on xenophobic intolerance is a wee bit simplistic. However, I am afraid that I do not have time. However, there is no doubt that UKIP exploited such sentiments where they do exist for their own ends, and the disgraceful and now infamous poster put out by Nigel Farage in UKIP certainly had a hand in changing the minds of some socialists who had been inclined to vote leave. I agree with the sentiment in the motion that affirms to EU citizens living here that they remain welcome and their contribution is valued. That is a hugely important message to send out of today's debate. However, if anyone implies that all leave voters wear xenophobic races, that would be outrageous, and I hope that most members in this chamber do not believe that and do not ever imply that. Many of the one-class communities in south Wales in the north-east and west of Scotland seem to vote leave due to a deep disconnect with the EU project and an expression of discontent with a whole political elite. For example, in south Wales, the threat of 4,000 jobs being lost at Port Talbot, as a direct result of EU state aid rules, blocking more government support, could have influenced the vote. I want to be standing with steelworkers saving their jobs. However, the EU's stance on competition policy has actually meant national governments facing a backlash of legal action if they attempt to nationalise the industry. Can we just think about that? Not being subject to EU competition policy and legal challenge would mean that our Scottish Government could easily nationalise industries like rail and steel if they wished, and they would not have to retender CalMac in future. What we should now be focusing on is the important issues of stopping austerity, protecting workers' rights and jobs. The First Minister should be entering her discussions both within the UK and outwith, bearing in mind that she represents all the citizens of Scotland, those who voted to remain, those who voted to leave and those who did not vote. I note her earlier comments on that. At the same time, she cannot lose sight of domestic issues, like teachers' industrial action and RMT rail strike and problems in the NHS. The EU is not Europe, but it is a political construct that undermines elected national governments and eliminates democracy. It is primarily a trade agreement in the words of Tony Bennett on how the EU is developing. It was very obvious that what they had in mind was not democratic. I am in favour of democracy. We should all now respect the democratic mandate from the UK electorate, which included the one million Scottish Labour voters. The citizens of the UK, through the ballot box, have given a directive for change away from an EU project, which has clearly failed many of them. In fact, many of them see it as a victory for people against profit, communities against corporations and the powerless against the powerful. We now need to make it work for them. I will finish with John Foster's view of leaving the EU. A renewed democracy, a restored welfare state, a redevelopment of public control over the economy, a vision that can combat racism, cynicism and division and unite all working people. That is my vision of the UK outside the EU project. The best way to make that work for working people, of course, is to do that with a UK socialist Labour Government fighting against austerity cuts and attacks on wages and workers' rights. James Dornan, to be followed by Miles Briggs. Before I start, I know that Oliver Mundell is a new MSP, but he is a member of the Scottish Parliament. He is here to represent the people of Scotland. He is not here to represent the UK Government. The people of Scotland spoke quite clearly last Thursday, and I think that you should be doing, and your colleagues should be standing up for them. I have to say that I am a bit disappointed that I have to make some of the same comments to my colleague on the right hand side, Elaine Smith. If he thinks that the workers are going to be better off under Nigel and Boris, then it is a strange socialism that he believes in. I finished saying that the workers would be better off with a socialist Labour Government. James Dornan I would be better off being 25 years of age, six-foot tall and blonde-herd. In the 20 years that I have been involved in the SNP, I have learned to deal with disappointments. As much as I was heartbroken after the 2014 referendum result, I was able to take encouragement from the positivity that the S campaign generated in the prospect that Hollywood would receive additional powers, limited though they are, and Scotland become engaged with the democratic participatory process in a way that I had never seen before. Sadly, I have no such positive outlook in the wake of this result. The result, one in claims, retracted within hours of the result, is one by going to the basic politics that I have ever seen in any campaign in my life, and politicians who took part in that should be ashamed of themselves. Both campaigns ran scare tactics. The remain campaign came out with the sort of project fear figures that we saw in the independence referendum and the leave campaign came out with, as I have just said, the lowest form of politics I have ever seen. The SNP, we did warn against running this negative campaign. We saw that it is counterproductive, that the more positive you are, the better result you are going to get. We saw it in 2014, and if they had ran a campaign like that, if they had sold the benefits of immigration instead of running scared from the benefits of immigration every time it was mentioned, then maybe we wouldn't be standing here today discussing what we are discussing. As convener of the education committee, I would like to concentrate on the possible impact on education thanks to the result, but first let me read you a tweet that was sent to the First Minister just yesterday. Daughter graduates MA honours from Edinburgh union Thursday. Internship with Milan Fyrrham just cancelled. Soul reason given, Brexit. That right there is the reality of Thursday's vote. I wish to express my thanks to the principals and vice-chancellars who have made unequivocal statements in recognition of their value of the EU's students as part of their university's family and their wider contribution to Scottish culture and society. Professor Muckatelli of the University of Glasgow has acknowledged his positive contribution and it is clear that he wishes to maintain academic collaboration with the EU and continue to participate in the Erasmus Plus programme in horizon 2020. I congratulate him on being appointed the chair of the Standing Council of Experts. Professor Cyllian Diamond from the University of Glasgow's Government of Aberdeen has given his thanks to the contribution of EU students and has made a clear commitment to current EU students and those who are set to join in a new academic year that any constitutional change is made during their studies that affect their tuition fees will be financially provided for by the university. I also welcome, of course, the positive statement made by Bonnie Sandlin, president of NUS Scotland, who has urged that Scotland's voice should not be ignored and that it is crucial for the UK Government to work with all the devolved Governments to mitigate the consequences of that vote. Scotland's education sector has benefited greatly from the EU's fundamental policy of free movement of people. The fact that EU students can come to Scotland to study, work and make cultural contributions to Scotland's continuing growth as a dynamic multicultural society should be applauded and not undermined. Likewise, Scottish students can make their mark across the EU. Just look at the benefit that the EU funding brings to Scotland's education sector. The Erasmus Plus programme for 2014-20 has funded 150 projects totaling $13 million a euros aimed at developing Scotland's lifelong learning programme to increase skills, employability and opportunities to work, train, gain, workplace experience and volunteer abroad. The European structural fund for 2014-20 has provided 940 million euros to invest the Scottish Government's priorities. The Harareys in 2020 has contributed 217 million euros into research and innovation. Likewise, the European social fund's commitment to the prince's trust is addressing just disadvantage through a team project. The project has been instrumental in providing support to many young people in overcoming a range of challenges, lower educational attainment, lack of vocational training or simply a lack of confidence. It has helped to assist in equipping more than 4,000 young people with the skills to achieve their ambitions. All of those are potentially at risk because of the unnecessary and damaging referendum and outcome. I alluded earlier to the uncertainty that it has created and I wish to congratulate the First Minister for the way that she has handled everything since Friday morning, since we knew the result on Friday morning. As the Scottish Cabinet met on Saturday to take decisive action, Boris played cricket and Westminster fiddled. I agree with the Government that it is vital to have on-going discussions with key stakeholders and wish the new advisory panel every success. In concluding my remarks, I want to join others in thanking EU citizens here in Scotland. I have a number of them in my constituency. I know that there are many in the First Minister's neighbouring constituency. I again thank the many educational professionals and experts who have explicitly given what reassurance they can to their EU students. I warmly support the Scottish Government's efforts and trying to secure our continued involvement in the EU and, of course, the single market. Earlier, I mentioned a tweet by a mother of a young student. Here is her second tweet. All future collaborations, exchanges and internships for UK citizens across EU are under threat, said the Milan firm that cancelled daughters internship. She then asked us to please retweet. I would say, get that message out there as soon as you can. I think that those two tweets say as much about what a disaster Thursday's vote is for young men and women from all across the UK, not just Scotland, as anything I have heard or read. Those are the real life consequences of Brexit, not some ridiculous abstract about taking back control. Not much control of the future for these young people is there, I support more. Miles Briggs, followed by Graeme Dey. Deputy Presiding Officer, two weeks ago my sister moved to Valencia. Spain is a country which she fell in love with many years ago and one which she has since studied in, learnt the language, soaked up the culture and made many friends and is now like many Scots has decided to make her home. The kind welcome which she has received has been wonderful to witness and it is the same welcoming spirit which I believe the majority of people who have come to live and work in Scotland have also enjoyed. For those non-UK citizens who have come to live and work in our country and those who have married Scots and have made Scotland their home, let us send out the message today that their contribution to our economy and country is valued and one we will work to protect. As members will know, I actively campaigned in the remain vote here in Scotland and wanted to see the whole UK confirm its membership of the EU. I am very aware of the disappointment of many of my constituents across the Lothian region, including Edinburgh, which saw the highest remain vote in anywhere across Scotland. Many of them have contacted me as well as other MSPs since to express their regret and concern at the decision taken by the whole UK. However, as a Democrat, I accept the result of the referendum. This is what democracy is all about, how we put our arguments to the people and the manner by which we lived by their decisions. It is now incumbent on all parties across the UK and all nations within the United Kingdom to seek stability and work towards achieving the best possible deal for the whole of the UK. While the First Minister's immediate reaction to the EU referendum was to put a second independence referendum on the table, the constituents and businesses who have contacted me over the past few days have overwhelmingly said that this threat of another independence referendum is exactly the last thing Scotland needs at this point in time, and I agree. Deputy Presiding Officer, we will now face critical negotiations that will determine our new relationship with the countries that make up the EU. The aim must be to protect and maximise Scottish trade within the European Union area and ensure continued access to our single market. I believe that it is vital that the United Kingdom now looks at all options, including the European economic area, and that that would continue to provide the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the EU. Patrick Harvie? I am grateful to the member for giving away. Does he acknowledge that such a proposition, even though it is not my first option, would involve a substantial financial contribution along the lines of the current financial contribution to being members of the European Union? Therefore, it gives the lie to those who claim that there would be £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. Miles Briggs? Yes, I would, and we are at the point where early negotiations would have to look at all that. The EEA model works well for both Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland, and that is maybe where we will have to move forward on. For our European partners, let us never forget that they will always remain our partners, and this is as much in their economic interest to put together a tariff-free trading relationship for all our futures. Maintaining and extending fair and non-discriminatory access to export markets by negotiating new trade deals with a wide range of partners will be essential to support many key Scottish industries. Securing the best possible commercial environment for Scottish businesses is vital. From the Scottish Whistley industry, which represents a rate 10 per cent of all Scottish exports to the EU, and also a financial services sector, Edinburgh has been an international centre for banking for over 300 years. The financial sector is of national importance with direct links between Scotland, the city of London and other EU financial markets. Britain has 2.2 million jobs linked to the financial service industry, with around 35,000 of those based here in Edinburgh alone. The city remains the UK's second-largest financial hub, and that must be protected and nurtured. I am particularly aware that so many young people backed the Remain campaign and reassuring them and working at how we can guarantee their economic future must also be a key priority. Young Scots want to have the opportunities to work across Europe. Our young people take an internationalist view, and we need to make sure that they have the opportunities to study, work and travel like before. I accept that there is economic uncertainty for many Scottish businesses as we prepare for a new Prime Minister. As we are prepared for a new Prime Minister who will formally lead these negotiations, I think that it is important that we, as a Parliament, set out a clear message, and we send the message out that Scotland is open for business. I believe that we remain one of the best countries to start a business and invest, and we will always have our greatest asset to attract investors and businesses to locate to Scotland, our people. In the coming days, weeks, months and years, our nations will face many challenges. Now is the time for us to work to secure the best deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom. Graham Day, followed by Ross Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The practical implications of the decision to leave the EU are potentially massive. It will be weeks, probably months before the full scale of the impact emerges, and already there is great concern among businesses, large and small, with all the implications that it has, as both Mike Russell and Jackie Baillie have already highlighted. Brexit and its possible consequences is creating genuine worry over the future viability of some businesses in my constituency. Within a matter of hours of the outcome of the referendum being announced, I have been approached by a senior representative of Angus Growers, a farmers co-operative based in Abroad, with an annual turnover of around £40 million. To tell me of their very real worries, they employ around 4,000 people across Scotland, mostly on a seasonal basis, but around 10 per cent in full-time management and admin posts, drawn from all over Eastern Europe—Polls, Czechs, Lithuania, Romanians and Bulgarians. Without their efforts, the business could not function. Soft fruit is part of the success story that is Scottish food and drink in here. Here it is, at best, confronted by a very real uncertainty. Angus soft fruits are pressing to have their concerns over future access to the workforce that are so dependent upon taking on board, and they are far from alone as businesses that want and bred to the UK. Company terms with the horrific consequences of a decision that Scotland, as a nation, has expressed at the ballot box, finds itself completely at odds with. However, those are the potential practical implications of Brexit. What have the people caught in its crossfire? Some of the Eastern European folk who, over the years, have come to Angus to work in agriculture have ended up making their lives there, bringing their families across, marrying Scots, going to college to upskill themselves or gaining the qualifications needed to bring the education that they had back home into play so that they can get better jobs. Angus has become their home, and now, after a campaign that is disgustingly dominated by the issue of immigration, it is not just people from Eastern Europe. Browsing social media the other night chanced upon an incredibly thought-provoking post from a Dutchman, a health professional who has to practice his skills in my constituency. Because he spoke so eloquently and from a standpoint few of us genuinely grasped, let me quote what he said. I have lived in the UK and specifically in Scotland since I came here from the Netherlands with my parents in 1979. I am a bit as integrated as it is possible to be. I was educated here, I have a family here, I practice a good career here and I believe I contribute to the community in which I live. I speak the language fluently, I understand the culture, I am engaged with the politics, I love the heritage, the history, the stunning scenery and of course the people, the warmth, the humour, the self-deprecation and essential decency. The fact that I am not a British citizen meant that I did not get a vote in the referendum. I could watch and participate in the arguments and debates, occasionally weighed with bad grace into a Facebook discussion that irritated me and then grow increasingly alarmed as the conversation became slowly more xenophobic. But ultimately I and the three million or so other Europeans resident here did not get a chance to influence the future of the country in which I and my family live. The conflict that I felt and in the wake of the vote to leave the EU feel even more acutely centres on the fact that as the referendum made immigration the main issue and framed the EU as pesky foreigners imposing their scheming laws in the UK. I felt increasingly that it was out of place for me to intrude on your great national but internal debate even though the decision to leave the EU will have us in yet unclear but almost certainly detrimental effect on my future within the UK. In the big scheme of things my personal discomfort is no big deal. I don't know what rights I'll lose, what services I will have to start paying for, whether I'll have to go through a different gate at the UK airport than my kids' time will tell. There are much bigger things at stake. Soon when the UK leaves the union the separation will be complete and irreversible, we will have lost the common vision, the economic benefits of the common market and the legal framework that protects and promotes the common endeavour towards peace, prosperity, environmental stewardship and workers and humans rights. Against all that that blow to my identity and the sense of my own place in the UK becoming more peripheral and fragile is really not so important but it is present and I have a sense of apprehension about what future living in the UK that's outside the EU will bring. Here's the thing, I'm not merely a resident in Britain, specifically I live in Scotland, that special part of the United Kingdom that has shown by voting to remain in the EU that it doesn't buy into the cynical, petty, xenophobic pharagism of some of its other parts nor does it seem to believe that sovereignty, the ability to determine your own national affairs is incompatible with transnational co-operation and political integration with a small eye. The makeup of the current parliament appears to show that a majority of Scottish people share a liberal, progressive, outward looking, optimistic, environmentally responsible, inclusive vision of society which is absolutely and resolutely suited to providing answers to the problems of the 21st century and which stands in total contrast to the small-minded nationalism of the weak campaign. Whether it's in Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government's powers to keep Scotland in the EU or not remains to be seen but at a moment of shock and enormous insecurity, the First Minister said words that I suspect a lot of EU nationals who have made this country their home and certainly I needed to hear. They weren't policy or even promises, she can't possibly know what would be the liberal post Brexit. What she reached out in such a spirit of generosity demonstrates why hope is not lost, not just for European immigrants but for everyone who wants to live in a progressive and inclusive country that is a fully committed part of the European Union. Colleagues, at decision time tonight, let's join the First Minister on reaching out to a Dutch friend and others like him and demonstrate we value the contribution to Scotland that they make just as much as we do of the country's place in the EU. Ross Greer, to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like almost every member of this Parliament and like an overwhelming majority of those who voted in Scotland on Thursday, this isn't a position that I wanted to be in. Scotland is a European nation, an internationalist nation and the people of Scotland have made their views quite clear. They intend, we intend on remaining European citizens. We want to see the protections for workers, women, parents and the environment continue to protect us. We appreciate the opportunities that freedom of movement gives us, not just as a nation in need of a growing population but as individuals. We have no plans to leave the European Union, and it is only right that we exhaust every option open to us in pursuit of that outcome. The support that reaches across almost all of this chamber today for such efforts will be welcomed by those that we represent. The support extends beyond the chamber, it extends across the continent. Senior politicians from across the liberal, conservative and green traditions have all indicated a willingness to secure Scotland's future in Europe. Indeed, in the course of this debate, I have received the following from the co-chairs of the Green European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. Whilst it is clear that the majority of the UK public have voted to leave the EU, the far greater majorities voting to remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland must be listened to as well. The Greens and the European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, as a strong supporter of the EU, will support exploring all the options that would allow pro-European Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain within the EU, as they have clearly voted to do. We still have a role to play in reforming Europe and building on the successes and the failures of the European project. Huge challenges still face us as a continent, challenges that we can only face together. 57,000 refugees are stranded in Europe, in Greece, and more than 700 drowned in the last week of May alone trying to reach our shores. May was the 13th month on record where temperature levels were again broken. The result of that being the kinds of extreme weather that only causes further misery, not just to those in Europe suffering from extreme flooding, dangerous heat waves or coastal erosion, but to the many millions elsewhere who will be left with no other option but to flee to our shores. Unless we take collective action, that will be a refugee crisis many times greater than the one that we are currently failing to deal with. Although the United Kingdom as a whole has clearly decided to take a different path, one that I believe will make it less able to contribute to tackling those crises, Scotland has said that we intend to stay to continue playing our part. Although the United Kingdom might be heading towards a Conservative Government far to the right of the one that we currently suffer under, people here have clearly said that they value the protections that are afforded to us all as European citizens, protections from overwork and dangerous working conditions, guarantees of maternity leave and equal pay for equal work, and some, although not nearly enough, regulation of our financial sector. The work that is required to continue those benefits and to ensure that Scotland can continue to play our part in Europe will be difficult. We are in an unprecedented situation and I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to cross-party working, as well as the engagement of the council of experts. The Scottish Greens will of course play whatever role we can and I am pleased to see other parties have already made similar commitments, but I do have one specific request. Much has been made of the views of young people in this referendum and its aftermath. Our young people benefit more than any other generation from the opportunities afforded to them to us as European citizens. The ability to live, work or study anywhere across the European Union, schemes such as Erasmus, is not something that Scotland's young people are willing to lose. I am aware of a letter of the First Minister's office that we have just received from the Scottish youth parliament. It requests a formal role for the youth parliament in the discussions to follow. Given SIP's unique mandate to represent Scotland's young people, I believe that that will not just be a reasonable request but a necessary step, and I hope that the First Minister will agree. Shortly before this debate, I addressed a rally outside of the Parliament. Hundreds of people assembled today, thousands more are set to do so tomorrow, and their message could not have been clearer. They expect us to do all that we can to exhaust every option to guarantee their rights as European citizens, to keep Scotland in Europe. I am confident that we will do just that, but it is no secret which option I and my party prefer—one that we would have preferred regardless of the outcome of the referendum, but which takes on a new urgency in its aftermath. I believe that the only way to guarantee Scotland's long-term future in Europe is to put our future in our own hands, for Scotland to become an independent nation. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, the United Kingdom that it argued for in 2014 no longer exists, it is clear that the arguments that it made that the only way to guarantee our EU membership was to vote no. The argument no longer applies. We live in a very different UK to the one that we did last week, and it is only right that the people of Scotland, if necessary and if they want it, once again make a collective choice about our future. Today is the day for us to come together as a Parliament to look at every option available to us. Although I am keen to explore options short of independence, it would be remiss of me not to be honest in my position. I believe that an independent Scotland, with a seat at the European table, will provide the most opportunities for our young people, that it will allow us to play the greatest role possible in facing up to the world's crisis. I believe that, with independence, we can create the fairer, more just and prosperous society that I believe that we all want to see. This week, we begin a deeply uncertain process to clarify and secure Scotland's future in Europe. The Greens are glad that we will do so together with what could still be the support of all five parties in this Parliament if the Tories can bring themselves to support the responsible and reasonable proposals from the Government. Although few of us wanted to be in this position today, we must work with what we have. We must do everything we can to respect the mandate of the people of Scotland. We must keep Scotland in Europe. Thank you very much. I will call Claudia Beamish. We follow by Claire Adamson, and Claire Adamson will be the final speaker before we move to the winding up speeches. The will of the Scottish people and that of Northern Ireland, London and other parts of the UK must be respected in relation to our position in the European Union. This will take time, and we must expect the European Commission to give respect to the complexities of the negotiations ahead. We must not allow the EU leaders of other countries to rush any exit process in a bid to shut down right-wing arguments in their own countries, much as we understand the complexities of that as well. This afternoon, I want to focus partly on my brief of environment and climate change and highlight that we need to protect what is precious in our own legislation, which has come from the European Union. I asked the Scottish Government to consider environmental protection in addition to the social employment and economic benefits highlighted in its motion today. The Cabinet Secretary's evidence before the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee this morning gave some reassurance on these matters. Her explanation that the Scottish Government's starting point would be co-operation across national boundaries and that regulatory bodies here in Scotland would continue to protect us. She also commented that it was about an understanding of our exposure. I agree with that. We must ask ourselves what came from EU directives. Is the legislation devolved or reserved? Is it what is now enshrined in Scottish Parliament legislation? EU directives are not about some bureaucracy or red tape as some in the leave campaign would argue. This is about directives that were forged collectively to protect us all. Lord Debden, chair of the UK Climate Change Committee has said that Europe is about gaining sovereignty as it allows us to face environmental issues. Let's look to see if we can, indeed, in some way retain the membership and those benefits. As to the process if it comes to it of disentwining ourselves from Europe here in Scotland and whatever speed this moves, I want to argue that we must fight against any moves to weaken or repeal environmental protection. The legislation often protects those in our communities who are most in need of support, communities who feel dislocated or left behind. The ambient air quality directive identifies air quality zones to tackle dangerous to health from traffic emissions. About 4,000 people across the UK still die of air pollution each year, and the enactment of the legislation is better protecting people in Glasgow and other cities across Scotland. The water framework directive was introduced in 2000 and was transposed into Scots law as the Water Environment and Water Services Act in 2003. That has ensured the quality of our drinking water and regulated our sewage systems for the benefit of people and the environment. Scotland, as we all know, has a high quality water environment, which is important for our health and wellbeing, supports rich diversity of wildlife, attracts visitors and supports our sustainable development of our economy. I also recall when some of Scotland's beaches were not somewhere that I would want to take my children. Now, thanks to the implementation of the bathing waters directive, I can happily take my grandson to any beach here in Scotland without thinking twice. The marine protected areas were enacted by the Marine Scotland Act due to international obligations under the EU Marine Strategy Framework directive, which calls for good environmental status throughout Europe's marine areas. The birds and habitat directive also calls for a network of protected areas. All these EU directives have been instrumental in benefiting the health of our seas, protecting the livelihoods of those who fish in them, and that of future generations. On climate change, I would take issue with Willie Rennie. It is essential that we continue to work with EU countries to protect present and future generations. Scotland is indeed a global leader in the UK and the EU, and globally, we are at a time when America and China are pressing for co-ordination. It is also essential that the range of funding that came from the EU to Scotland is protected. In my brief, for example, there is recent support for the Beatrice offshore wind farm, which received £525 million from the European investment bank supported by the European Fund for Strategic Investments. That is the single largest investment in an offshore wind investment by the EU and brings with it the likelihood of 100 jobs in the niggyard in Caithness. This sort of support as we transition to a low-carbon economy is essential, so let us make sure that we assess how we can protect this funding for the future. Finally, with 75 per cent of young people voting UK wide to remain, we have a responsibility to ensure that the door is kept open to possible future membership of the EU. So many young people understand the cultural, educational and social links and opportunities the EU membership has bought. Indeed, many have been lucky enough to travel or work in Europe or had the advantage of educational exchanges and support such as the Erasmus scheme. As Ross Greer highlighted earlier, this is very, very important for the future. Lewis Douglas, an MSYP from Dumfries and Galloway, wrote to me yesterday saying, following the EU referendum on Thursday and the United Kingdom's momentous decision, it will have a defining impact on the future of where our country is going now. Most importantly, this decision will have a defining impact on young people's future. Unfortunately, the 16 and 17-year-olds were denied the right to vote. I am writing to you this afternoon—this was yesterday—to ask for your support to ensure that young people's voices are heard. The Scottish Youth Parliament this afternoon has called on the First Minister to include young people in the next steps for this country following the decision to leave the European Union, helping to make our voices heard in shaping our future. I ask the First Minister to listen to this plea this afternoon. Thank you very much. Before I call Clare Adamson, can I remind members that we are going to winding up? If they took part in the debate, they should be in the chamber for winding up speeches. Clare Adamson, please. Can I welcome the First Minister's statement this afternoon and the revealing of the setting up of the Council of Experts, which I think will be vital in securing a positive outcome for Scotland in the months and years ahead? When we were discussing Scottish independence in 2014, one of the members of that Council of Experts, David Edward, gave evidence to the European and External Relations Committee. In that evidence, he said personally, I hope very much that the issue of an independent Scotland place in the EU will not arise. The issue is important for the integrity of the EU and the credibility of its institutions. It affects other countries as well. The people are entitled to know as far as possible where they stand. We find ourselves in a similar situation today. That is not what we would have wanted as a result of the referendum, but we have to deal with those consequences. In the Scottish independence debate, we were hampered by not being able to get clarity on some of those key issues. Therefore, I very much hope that David Cameron's offer to the Scottish Government to be included and to be part of the negotiations ahead will include that, when clarity is needed from the member state to approach the European Union, that that will now happen at the request of our First Minister. I am very, very disappointed that we are at this point because of what seems to be the Conservative party's petty and ill-conceived jealousies that seem to have been conceived in the Bullington club and that have brought the UK to the brink of an uncoupling from the EU. It is a tragedy worth of Shakespearean epics. Our tragedy is that the Danouymong in this situation is that the Tory party has lost the plot. It has left a void in leadership and government at the most difficult time for our country, but I also hold them responsible for the social inclusion void, a vacuum in the post-industrial communities where, similar to where I live and was brought up, communities where hope and security have been sucked out of them by austerity, low wages and conservative ideology. That vacuum where the fears for the future, the fears for their families have been exploited and used by those bent on division and blaming migration for the country's problems. Elaine Smith talked very carefully about how communities feel powerless and disengaged from the political process, but no one has mentioned why there is such a difference in the Scottish vote in those post-industrial areas than there is in the rest of the UK. Could it be that the rest of the UK has not been protected from the bedroom tax? It hasn't had its council rebate protected. The children haven't been protected through the educational maintenance allowance being maintained. They don't have free personal care, free prescriptions or free education. I hold the Tory party culpable for that vacuum that they have left in our communities. It was a closure of Ravenscrake that brought me to the SNP, a SNP on a principle of independence within Europe. I look at my community, which has seen a Government leave no stone unturned to protect our steel industry and that was successfully done in the securing liberty takeover of the existing steel plants in Scotland. The rest of the UK has seen a leadership from the Tory party that is based on the market being all. I am sure that, had Redcar, had Port Talbot, had the same Government fighting for them that we had in Scotland, things may have been so different in this vote. That desperation of our communities has been secondly exploited and is evidenced by that appalling breaking point poster that was released just only a few days before the election. The blame should lie with those who are culpable. There is no pantomine villain to blame for the problems in the UK, although Mr Farage and Mr Johnson are making a good run for it. That has been a great tragedy for our country. I was appalled to hear the tale of one of my constituents who received racist abuse from someone who had frequented his shop for years never having displayed such sentiments, a family who work in our area, who live the children and grandchildren that live in my constituency, the employee people in my constituency, the fundrais for our food banks and for our hospice, and they were told to go home leaving the expletives out. They are home, and that is what we should all remember. I want to finish with a quote from Michael Rosen, our children's laureate. I'm sure that he's all taken us in a bear hunt in the past, but this is from another poem. I sometimes fear that people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress worn by courtests and monsters and played out in the endless reruns of the Nazis. Fascism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your home, give you a job, clean up your neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were. Clear out the venal and the corrupt and move anything you feel is unlike you. I hope that the whole country will reflect on those words, because xenophobia and racism are no place in any solution going forward. Thank you very much. Yesterday, Angela Merkel hosted a meeting with Francois Arlong and Matteo Renzi in Berlin to consider the process of British withdrawal from the European Union. The leaders of the EU have lost no time in confirming that a member state voting to leave finds itself immediately outside the tent. The process of negotiation looks set to be very tough indeed. Even more visually striking was that Europe's big three had also changed overnight. The place occupied by successive British Prime Ministers was now taken by the Prime Minister of Italy and acted as if it had always been that way. The message could not have been clearer. The world has changed and so has our place in it. Sixty years ago, Anthony Eden plunged Britain into the Suez crisis, which culminated in his resignation as Prime Minister. Seeking in vain to maintain the British Empire, he instead hastened its end and changed our place in the world. British foreign policy has focused ever more sharply on Europe since then, until now. The present Prime Minister will go down in history for unequally momentous decision. David Cameron's Suez was a referendum that we did not need with an outcome that even he did not want. It is future generations who will pay the price of that folly if those islands do indeed disengage from our European neighbours. However, that referendum has happened, the world has changed and today's debate has been about how we deal with that. What we should not do is head straight for the trenches to fight again the previous referendum. If the vote last week changed the world, so did the vote in 2014. It is no longer credible to say that, although that was a vote of Britain as a whole, there is no Scottish angle because Scotland is just another component part of the United Kingdom. Not so. If this Parliament, with its new devolved powers, really is the most powerful devolved parliament anywhere, it follows that we can and must take a considered view of the implications of Brexit for Scotland's future. Labour will not support the Conservative amendment today because it seeks to rule out any engagement by the Scottish Government with the institutions of the EU, as if such engagement was simply a matter for the UK Government alone. Surely this is not the time to limit what options Scotland's devolved government can explore. The member gives a question. I agree with the general point that he is making, but surely it goes further. The Scottish Parliament is about to gain over the period of this session powers that place our budget much more into connection with the performance of our economy. Yet, at precisely that time, it is the UK Government that has taken the most reckless gamble with the economy, which will have a direct impact on spending on public services here unless we act to protect them. Lewis MacDonald. I agree with that. At the same time, it is true to say that last week's vote does not change the decision of the Scottish people in 2014 when we voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The question that voters in Scotland were asked last week was whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union, and it is the answer to that question that should guide what we do now. There are material changes, of course, although many will wonder whether independence in Europe of Scotland is in and England is out is more attractive or less attractive than what was offered two years ago. Many will believe that a domestic market of 65 million people is even more precious if we lose access to a single market of 500 million even if some think that the single market matters more. However, the First Minister has said again today that there are options to explore other than a second independence referendum, and we on this side take her at her word. If she wants to retain that credibility and cross-party support, she will no doubt want to contain the excitement of those of our supporters and even ministers who cannot wait for India F2 and appear to have written off all those other options already. She will know that many voters do not want another referendum, whatever the question, because recent weeks have reminded us of just how ugly, brutal and divisive such binary choices on major national issues can be. I was glad that she made clear this afternoon that support for her motion is quite separate from the issue of independence. That clear distinction must be maintained throughout the process that we begin today. We ask the First Minister to explore Scotland's options on behalf of this Parliament for protecting the benefits of Scotland's relationship with the EU and our place in the single market, all of which we have secured over 40 years as part of the UK. We wanted to do that in consultation with other leaders of devolved administrations in the United Kingdom, such as the mayor of London, and we welcome what she has said today on that matter. Other parties will also be active in pursuing initiatives towards our shared objectives. Kezia Dugdale has already spoken to the mayor of London, the First Minister of Wales and the chief minister of Gibraltar, all Labour politicians who share our values and value the UK's membership of the European Union, but there is a particular onus on the Government to take those matters forward over coming months. We welcome the Presiding Officer's assurance that the Parliament stands ready for recall if required this summer to hear what progress the Government has made. I look forward to the cabinet secretary addressing immediate issues at the European Committee later this week. I hope that in summing up today, the cabinet secretary will say a bit more about exploring options other than independence and that she and her colleagues will work hard to maintain a united approach. Only by doing that can we give people here and elsewhere hope that the chaos and crisis caused by David Cameron's referendum will not mean the end of our European story. Thank you very much. Paul Jackson Carlaw to wind up the Conservative party. Eight minutes are there abouts, Mr Carlaw. Presiding Officer, this has been a passionate and deeply felt afternoon of debate and so it should be. Few decisions taken by an electorate have held such profound implications for our country. May I begin by paying tribute to the voters in my own eastward constituency in East Renfrewshire, who again achieved a record turnout in Scotland of 76.1 per cent and who together with voters in Edinburgh achieved the highest vote for a main in Scotland and indeed the ninth and tenth highest votes respectively anywhere in the United Kingdom. My constituents voted to remain. As with all but a handful of members, I sought a different outcome and while I accept the outcome across the United Kingdom, I share the dismay and frustration expressed by the First Minister last Friday. There have been three referendums since devolution and while I appreciate that the First Minister has been on the losing side in all of them, being on the losing side this time has been a new experience for me. There have been some SNP lawyers this afternoon who have commended the First Minister on the leadership that she showed during the campaign and may I surprisingly join them and congratulate her on the energy that she brought to the contest both here in Scotland and in her participation in the UK referendum debate. But I cannot help but observe that the Scottish party whose supporters apparently voted to leave by the largest percentage were those of the SNP and perhaps the First Minister will reflect on why so many of her supporters ignored her advice and perhaps Richard Lockhead may well like to reflect on why nearly 50 per cent of his constituents voted to ignore him. Kezia Dugdale and Oliver Mundell were both right. This was not a clear cut result in every district and every community in Scotland but Kezia Dugdale has to reflect that while many Labour voters may have followed her advice in Scotland, by a far greater margin they rejected the absolutely shocking leadership from Jeremy Corbyn. No national leader has looked more lackluster smug or indifferent to the results since last Thursday than he has, so she can stew in her anger against this side but she needs to boil on the shame of her own juices over the complacent and indifferent leadership shown by Scotland's party's current UK leader at Westminster. In any event, I might observe too in passing, as did Elaine Smith, that proportional as this Parliament may be, it did not in its vote a few weeks ago reflect the balance of opinion in Scotland and that is something for us to reflect upon however awkward. In any event, the proposition I voted for last week and campaigned for that the UK remain in the European Union no longer exists. That was the proposition on the ballot paper. It was not that I or anyone else for that matter vote for Scotland to remain in the EU whatever the terms of the circumstances. I voted for Scotland to remain in an EU where the whole of the UK was an influential member state. The First Minister in her statement last Friday quite reasonably expressed her frustration and, to be frank, anger at the fact that Scotland, along with Northern Ireland and London, spoke so differently to the rest of the United Kingdom. She is embarked on a strategy to explore all the options that are open to Scotland and has detailed those as she sees them in broad terms that are sensible and prudent. However, if I had the views expressed this morning in the European Parliament by Mr Juncker and the fact that, in the last few minutes, the European President Donald Tusk has turned down the First Minister's invitation for a meeting, suggests that it is not going to be an easy path forward, I suspect that, although the First Minister does no disservice in exploring her options, the reality of a union-based entreaty will assert itself, although I hope that my pragmatic pessimism proves wrong. However, in exploring all the options and within hours of the result, the First Minister confirmed that she had instructed officials. It seems almost before anything else and before anyone had even digested their breakfast to prepare the way for a second Scottish independence referendum. As I listened with care then to the options as the First Minister detailed them, I did not hear advance what many regard as the most probable outcome and which surely the SNP must acknowledge must be a possible scenario, that Scotland remains in the UK and outside of the European Union. It is not enough for SNP members to sit in their seats and sneer and say that this shows the true colours of people who consider that. It is surely imperative that, in that scenario, we not only secure the best possible terms in our exiting the formal EU for Scotland, but that, in the future life of our country, we ensure that the policies adopted for the areas of national life once again determined in the UK are unequivocally designed to advance Scotland's best interests, and at the very least, this option should enjoy a parallel status and effort from the Scottish Government. If they do not do that, if they focus on the campaign for India or F2, the SNP risks undermining Scotland's influence in the very negotiations and future planning that are taking place. As others conclude that Scotland's contribution is half-hearted, half-baked and designed to undermine the deal available. I do not argue that this would ever be the intention of ministers, but it could easily be the conclusion of others less enlightened. So we need to see Nicola Sturgeon at the heart of discussions in London, not in a busman's tour of European capitals. We need to see the First Minister join with and work with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who she did not mention in her statement today, and all others to represent Scotland's best interests. We need all of Scotland's Westminster MPs, who the First Minister did not mention today, to represent Scotland's interests, and not just of the SNP. We need to see and hear the voices in support of Scotland and not just suffer their belligerent tweets in support of SNP commands alternative agenda. Central to our national interest is the best possible access to the free trade market, which is of so fundamental importance to employment. No result last week changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of our business is with the rest of the UK or with the European Union. Jobs and futures depend upon it. Foremost in our minds, wherever we live in the UK, should be the future of our young people. I know from my own home and from the friends of my sons just how strongly they feel. It's not just a media fantasy. Rightly or wrongly, many young people feel that the 60 per cent of our oldest generation who voted to leave have scoffered the lifetime opportunity of the 75 per cent of our youngest generation who voted to remain. We have above all else to show and give these young people hope. Direct democracy has let them down in a way representative democracy would not do, but we have to offer them the opportunity to travel, study, volunteer work, wherever across Europe and the world they wish to do so. To facilitate that, in the potential absence of the many schemes available currently within the existing EU, like Erasmus, and to welcome others to the UK in exchange. Just a few weeks ago, and in all sides of this chamber, members spoke with passion and commitment for the UK's continued membership of the European Union. I argued, I hope and believe, not on the basis of why we should not leave, but why we should remain. I will always argue for the most positive, productive and engaging relationship with Europe, but now it is necessary for us to meet the challenge. Few of us sought. We need to meet it with steely purpose. We need to meet it with an agreed unity of purpose and with a message of hope. However, individuals may define it. Our adjudity is now to obtain the best possible outcome for Scotland. I will call Fiona Hyslop to wind up for the Government Cabinet. I thank all those who have participated in today's debate and to echo the First Minister's pride at the decision that voters in Scotland took to decisively vote in favour of Scotland and the UK's continuing membership of the EU. Just reflecting on the contribution, I think that Jackson Carlaw does protest too much. It is about the time that the Conservatives face up to what they have done. It does not behold him to lash out to other people and other members in this chamber. Some of the members today have contributed about how they felt personally, as Willie Rennie did, some about their constituents and how they feel. Some have talked about the immediate consequences of the referendum vote and some about the nature of the campaign that was fought and some about the immediate aftermath. Many have focused on the result itself—the infatic 62 per cent of Scots who chose to remain. I thought a very passionate speech. Kezia Dugdale reminded us to think and understand that, in some cases and in some places, some people voted to leave out of a sense of powerlessness and a need for change. We also have to think through the consequences of that. Patrick Harvie was correct to identify that there was space provided for division and fear and hatred to be agended and gendered. That has to be confronted face-on in all our politics as we go ahead. Christina McKelvie talked about rights and respect for citizens and citizens of the EU. Many of the contributions that we have had today or that it has talked about to EU citizens living here. The European Minister, Alasdair Allan, visited two businesses yesterday morning in Edinburgh, owned by EU nationals, to hear first hand why they chose to make Scotland their home and to make it clear to them that their contribution is valued. Right across Scotland, employers, organisations and industries have been publishing messages and making statements stressing the continued welcome for their friends and colleagues. Professor Antony Muscatelli, from the University of Glasgow, stated on Friday that the university was founded in the European tradition and that nothing will change our international outlook. He told his colleagues and students from the EU just how much this university values your contribution to our community and that you are a vital and essential part of the university. Paul Gray, the head of NHS Scotland, has stated that he values the contribution of every member of staff in NHS Scotland, regardless of citizenship. The EU referendum has not changed that. Geoffrey Sharkey, the principal of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, emphasises that our EU and international students are past, present and future and will be the most welcome and valued members of our creative community. We can all agree that, however, each of us voted that the Scottish Government has a responsibility to provide reassurance to the 173,000 EU citizens that have chosen to make Scotland their home. The First Minister, ahead of today's debate, has already outlined the actions that we are taking to provide this reassurance. I met yesterday with the ambassadors of France, Germany and Slovakia, who all have citizens living here, and I underlined our commitment to the interests of their citizens. I think that it is important that we ensure that that welcome is known. We have always argued in this Government about the benefits of EU migration, and that is a consistent part of our message. I, of course, was also saddened and indeed angered the way that some seek to use a wholly misleading way migration to encourage people to leave. I thought that Clare Adamson gave a clarion call and a very powerful speech about how all of us going forward must face up and face down that behaviour. I think that we cannot express the Scottish Government's welcome more clearly than the words used by the First Minister on Friday morning. Scotland is your home, you are welcome here and your contribution is vowed. I also want to emphasise that, in my discussions with the ambassadors of France, Germany and Slovakia yesterday, I told them about this debate and that it was a motion about how approval to take forward and protect Scotland's interests in the EU and that all options would be assessed and that it was not asking Parliament about support for an independent referendum. Despite my disappointment in the UK's result, I want to stress again the commitment of the Scottish Government in ensuring that all Scotland's interests and those of our citizens are protected at this most uncertain of times. The Scottish Government will be taking forward that. Jackie Baillie asked about the economic aspects—indeed, Mike Russell touched on that as well. John Swinney and Keith Brown are taking forward some of the direct dialogue with business about how we can make sure that our interests are protected. However, we must also think about how we do that and who we do that with. Miles Briggs talks about the financial services industry in the city. How does he expect the financial services interests of the city of Edinburgh to be advanced if we do not have the opportunity to engage directly? I bear in mind that Lord Hill, the Financial Services Commissioner, has resigned. Although there might be similar interests with the financial services in London, there will also be different interests. It is very important that we explore all options and to understand that. I want to turn to Oliver Mundell, in particular, who talked about no need to jump to hasty conclusions. In terms of our engagement, we are seeking urgent talks with the UK Government on its plans for withdrawal, but I make it clear that no one has any idea what those plans are. Oliver Mundell's perspective to wait and see is at best passive, but at worst is a complete and utter abdication of responsibility. If you listen to the tone of the Conservatives, both sides of remain and leave are acting and behaving as they wish it hadn't happened. Our job and our responsibility is to take forward Scotland's interests. I will ensure that we have dialogue and we have had dialogue with our colleagues across the United Kingdom. We have said quite clearly that Scotland must have a clear role in the UK negotiation, and indeed, the Prime Minister has confirmed that. However, we need a seat at the table, and we cannot have a repeat of the situation of the last year in terms of the negotiations of David Cameron's work that we were locked out of that. It is unclear how those developments will be taken forward. I have met the Secretary of State for Scotland on Friday. I am due to have a phone call with the European Minister, David Linton, tomorrow, but it is important that we ensure that we have an opportunity to look at all options, but we must have a direct engagement to ensure that all options can be explored with EU institutions as well as with the United Kingdom. Many members have cited different arguments for economic benefit from the EU, the access to the single market, the valuable social human rights, the importance of being able to pull sovereignty to look at big issues such as global challenges, tackling pollution, climate change and tackling the refugee crisis. We do not have to look too far back in history to acknowledge the importance of co-operation in the EU over conflict, and that is something that we must always remember. I am proud that the chamber in its debate barely a month ago set forward that positive case for membership, free from the fear-based campaigning that we saw on both sides during the closing stages. The benefits that we realised from our EU membership were as real last week as they are this week, and in voting to remain, the people of Scotland have recognised that. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to examining all options open to it, to preserve its relationship with the EU, so that those benefits can continue to be realised. In doing that, we will engage directly with member states, European institutions and the UK Government. I met the Secretary of State, as I said, and I am talking to the UK's European Minister, and we will continue our engagement in Brussels and with other interested member states. However, if we are to advance our interests in law, in business, in jobs and in the environment, we must identify what the options are and are available within the EU institutions and the member states. In doing so, we can build on the work of the European External Affairs Committee's report. Joe McAlpine set out the founding and grounding that we had in relation to that, and I can reassure both Jackson, Carla Lewis, Donald, Rondrie and indeed others that I will make sure that Opposition members and spokespeople are informed. However, we have the benefit in Scotland of taking that work forward with advice, with information, with knowledge and wisdom from a standing council on Europe that was announced by the First Minister to look at all the options that we can take forward in pursuing our interests. Presiding Officer, in terms of where we are now, we are in a unique and unprecedented situation. We are in uncharted waters. There is no obvious route forward, but together we must find a route forward. I am confident that we as a Parliament can work collaboratively going forward, taking all actions in the best interests of Scotland. The people of Scotland sent us here in our election only a few weeks ago to represent them and stand up for their interests. We have a clear responsibility and duty to work together, not just across the chamber, but together with the experienced knowledge and wisdom of the standing council and beyond to make sure that we identify, predict and advance Scotland's interests in the EU. Presiding Officer, it is in that spirit, in that intent, that I would urge members to think forward in the case of Scotland, not just to where we have been recently in this campaign but where we want Scotland to be in the future. We might not have a charted route forward, but if we have a commitment and a common endeavour and if we have the interests of Scotland clearly in our focus, I think that this Parliament working together can achieve much in difficult times. I urge all members to think about the opportunities that lie ahead, the challenges that lie ahead and be realistic about what they may be, but let's come together and give endorsements that that work should and must take place.