 Rwy'n credu i'r next item of business, which is topical questions, and we have one question today. It's from Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the ruling by the European Court of Justice that the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50. Cabinet Secretary, Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The court's ruling is a hugely important decision that provides clarity at an essential moment. People in Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU. That continues to be the best option for Scotland and, indeed, for the UK as a whole. Thanks to the efforts of Scotland's parliamentarians—let me name-check them—Andy Weintman, Llyr Ros Greer, Joanna Cherry, Alan Smith, Catherine Stuyler, David Martin and, also to name-check Jolyon Mon and the legal team, we now know beyond doubt that remaining in the EU is not only the best option but one that can clearly be achieved, and the Scottish Government believes it should be. Bruce Crawford. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. It's a very important ruling by the ECG. Will he join me in congratulating the Scottish politicians involving securing clarity, at least on one aspect, as far as Brexit is concerned? Does he agree with me in the light of the ECG ruling? Given the total chaos that exists at Westminster, it's time for politicians to use this ECG ruling to find a way to end this Brexit madness and the potential of a no-deal scenario. Cabinet secretary. I do agree. I think that it is very difficult to find words that adequately express the sense of chaos and dismay at Westminster, and the real sense of dismay within the country at large—I've just been meeting some stakeholders who are confirming with me that investment by them and by others will simply not take place, because there is just no idea what is going to happen next. The ruling makes clear that there is a route to revocation of the article 15 notification. It must be unequivocal and unconditional. A second EU referendum, including the option to remain in the EU, would provide such a way forward. We've always said that remaining in the EU would be the best outcome. Of course, we've offered compromise after compromise, particularly in the form of the membership of the Single Market and Customs Union. There was continuous to be options to minimise the damage of Brexit to Scotland, but we need to decide how to move forward. We need to be clear how to move forward, and that provides much-needed clarity. I have named check those involved. I paid tribute to them. It was not an easy decision for many of them to be involved. Many of us wondered what the outcome would be. Now we know that we should use it. Bruce Crawford I thank the cabinet secretary again. Given the chronic leadership vacuum that exists at Westminster over Brexit and the serious damage that is being forced on our country, what has Scotland's Government's view on whether a way forward can be found that can command a majority in the House of Commons? Does he believe that the time has come to put the people in charge and let them democratically decide their own future through a people's vote? One of the most extraordinary things in the process has been the sight of the Prime Minister rampaging up and down the country—well, in Scotland, within half an hour's travel of Glasgow Airport, which, for her, counts as rampaging up and down the country—and now going off to the continent to talk to people, but never saying that the people who count are the voters themselves. That is what now needs to happen. The people of Scotland have already been clear. They voted overwhelmingly in 2016 to remain in the EU. That remains the best option. I have to say at this particular juncture where we are, with the chaos that we have seen, and, as the member said, the leadership vacuum, then quite clearly a second referendum would offer the opportunity for Scotland's views to be respected rather than be ignored as they have been throughout this disastrous process. For that to happen, it would seem clear that the current Prime Minister needs to get out of the way. She is insisting on pursuing her deal even though it makes Scotland and the UK poorer and, indeed, in circumstances where there is no deal. The deal has been rejected by this Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It would have been rejected by the House of Commons if it had been given a chance to vote on it, and even the House of Lords had to suspend its debate. It is absolutely clear that the Prime Minister is not going to lead anybody anywhere. What we need is an expression of popular will, and that can come about now by the so-called People's Vote. Adam Tompkins will answer three supplementary questions. First of all, I would like to thank my fellow petitioners, Joanna Cherry, Ross Greer, David Martin, Jo Mo, Alan Smith and Catherine Stylard. I would also like to thank our legal teammate in O'Neill QC, David Welch QC, Maya Lester QC and Elaine Motion, chair of Balfort Manson. Finally, I would like to thank those many members of the public who have contributed to our crowdfunding. The Court of Justice says that the UK can revoke the article 15 unilaterally, and that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the member state concern under terms that are unchanged. Given that the Advocate General for Scotland on behalf of the UK Government has consistently opposed this action for a year, can the cabinet secretary recall a Government in the past that has gone to such length and such expense to oppose the right of the people to find out their legal rights? It is difficult to find a parallel, but it is difficult to find a parallel for this entire UK Tory Government, which is completely unique in how it is operated, particularly uniquely anti-democratic. Let me repeat my tribute to those who took part in the case, Andy Wightman and his colleagues. They have done an important task. They have done a task that at the beginning did not seem to be possible but has now proved to be possible, and they have contributed enormously to the process, all of them, and I pay tribute to them. The important thing now is to look forward from this. There is a route open, the route has been opened up, and as Andy Wightman has said, it is also withdrawing the notification and remaining on the same terms, which is extremely important. In those circumstances, I again urge the UK Government to take that very clear step. Three things struck me about this curious judgment. First, it is very much rooted in state sovereignty, and that is to say in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom state. Second, the court says, paragraph 66 of its judgment, that a member state could revoke notification given under article 50 to leave the European Union if expressed through its democratic process. Does the minister accept that there has been no democratic expression in the United Kingdom that article 50 should be revoked? The third thing that struck me when I read the judgment is that the notice to revoke must be given in accordance with the member state's constitutional requirements. That is a phrase that the court uses several times in its judgment, notably paragraph 73. If the minister has taken advice, he says that this judgment adds clarity. It seems to me that he does the very opposite. If the minister has taken advice on what the UK's constitutional requirements would be to revoke notice given under article 50, are we talking about a ministerial power to be exercised under the prerogative? Are we talking about the requirement of an act of the United Kingdom Parliament, or does the minister consider that we would need a fresh referendum for this matter to be complied with? It is extraordinary that the member who I acknowledge is a very clever man requires to question the basics of democracy every time he gets up to speak in this chamber. What we have just heard is sophistry. That is all it is. The reality is that there is a way out of this enormous mess. It is a way that the member might have welcomed that because he has claimed—and I do not doubt his claim—that he voted to remain. It clears up the mess that his party has made at Westminster. I think that it is entirely clear. I do not regard this judgment as curious. I regard this judgment as telling us something that we probably already knew, but it is useful to have confirmed. As Mr Whiteman said, it took an awful long time because of the actions of the UK Government. It is absolutely clear that there should be a democratic expression of will. It is absolutely clear that the constitution requirements were met. That is not a surprise. The democratic expression of will could be a resolution of the Parliament, of course. It might be an encouragement for a people's vote, of course. If the member is encouraging that, I am glad to hear it. The second one is that, if the UK Parliament, if the people of these islands, of the people of these four countries say that they do not want to leave the EU, that is enough for me. I think that they should be allowed to say that. Pauli McNeill Does the cabinet secretary agree that the ECG decision simply means that the UK Parliament is sovereign over the question of Brexit? I realise that there is not much time left before the Christmas holiday period, but can the cabinet secretary outline if there are any meetings scheduled with the UK Government? Finally, does the cabinet secretary think that the arrangements set out in Scotland's place in Europe 2016 and the light of various events that have happened in the last few months require some revision? On the final point, we have constantly developed and revised and built our arguments. That is the right thing to do, but the basic thesis is correct. If the UK Government was to accept a compromise, the compromise that we proposed was, we believe, the best alternative to actually leaving. That remains the case. Given the mess that is now existing at Westminster and the way in which the Prime Minister and the Tory party have led it, the point that I am making now is that I suspect that people's vote is the clearest and best way to move forward. However, Scotland's place in Europe argues that a strong case and that case still stands. In terms of meetings with the joint ministerial committee, discussions are taking place about one to be held before Christmas, but there is no confirmation of that at the present moment. I am not entirely sure what it would discuss, because I am not entirely sure what the Prime Minister is resolving by going and talking to people who have already said that there will be no renegotiation. However, of course, we are always willing to have a conversation. In terms of sovereignty of the UK Parliament, this is something that I cannot say I am fond of. Devolution is a careful balancing act in which the devolved parliaments of these islands dance around the concept of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. It was interesting to see yesterday that Liam Fox is now denying the sovereignty of the UK Parliament because apparently only the Government matters. In those circumstances, I think that you have to say, it is the Tory's understanding of democracy that is at fault here, something demonstrated beyond any doubt by the question that we had from Professor Tomkins. Thank you very much and that concludes topical questions today. We will move on to our next item of business, which is a debate on motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on sea fisheries and end-of-year negotiations. I would ask members who wish to contribute to this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.