 At the outset of the statement, can I make it clear that the Scottish Government welcomes yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court that article 50 cannot be triggered without an act of the Westminster Parliament? That ruling comes as a stinging rebuke to the UK Government and its stubborn refusal to accept the previous unanimous court ruling that an act of Parliament was required before formal notification of the decision to leave the EU. Instead, it tried to plaw on regardless towards a hard Brexit, hoping to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. Effective UK parliamentary scrutiny is now enabled, but parties and members at Westminster will have to rise to that challenge. The SNP is more than ready to do that. Once the UK Government publishes its article 50 bill, 50 SNP MPs in the House of Commons will bring forward a range of amendments. I am sorry to understate the number, Presiding Officer. There are, of course, more than that—far more than the one Tory MP from Scotland in the House of Commons. SNP MPs in the House of Commons will bring forward a range of amendments to clarify the UK Government's approach to triggering article 50. Some of those amendments will seek to amend the bill so that the UK Government must first secure unanimous agreement from the Joint Ministerial Committee, the UK's equal partners, on triggering article 50. In July last year, the Prime Minister assured the First Minister that article 50 would not be triggered until, as she said, we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations. That was in line with Theresa May's clear and unambiguous view of how the United Kingdom should operate. The UK, she said, should be a country in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners. Of course, that is a sentiment expressed by all the better-together partners during the 2014 referendum, so taking the Prime Minister to her word—I am sure that that will be welcomed with equal chairs by the Tory benches—when it is brought forward, we will seek to enforce that via the Westminster Bill. Of course, there was another aspect to the judgment, which has made one thing crystal clear, because this whole process and the determination of the UK Government to pursue a disastrous, hard Brexit is revealing much about the way that power is exercised in the United Kingdom and who exercises that power. Yesterday, the Supreme Court considered the arguments that were put forward in interventions from the Lord Advocate and the Welsh Council General on the devolution implications of triggering article 50. We are obviously disappointed with the Supreme Court's ruling about the legal enforceability of the Sewell convention, but let's be clear about what the judgment actually said. Notifying the intention to leave the EU will have significant consequences for devolved matters and the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish ministers, and the court explicitly accepted that. In so doing, it is obvious that the Sewell convention is triggered by a UK bill authorising the article 50 notice. What the court has ruled is that the operation of the convention is a political, not illegal matter and therefore outside the court's remit. That is, of course, a position urged on the court by the UK Government, which also resisted any and all efforts to give real teeth to the Scotland Act provisions on the Sewell convention. The UK Government has at least been consistent in its position under no circumstances it has said should its action be questioned by judicial authority. The Tories may wish to reflect on the wisdom of gloating on that point. Rather than a defeat for the Scottish Government, yesterday's ruling exposed the inadequacy of the Smith commission process. For those who believed that writing Sewell into law would represent a new status for the Scottish Parliament, it is in actual fact a defeat for the Tory architects of the Scotland Bill 2016 architects, including the Tory constitutional spokesman. However, it is a wider defeat. As one community commentator has noted, yesterday's ruling is a disappointment on the rights of Holyrood. There was an opportunity said Kenny Farkerson of The Times, and I'm sure he'll be surprised I'm quoting him, to recognise the new reality of a changed UK. This is, he tweeted, a depressing moment for those of us who have consistently backed home rule for Scotland within a reformed UK. Yesterday's ruling demonstrates how empty were the assurances of being a partnership of equals and that the Scotland Act would represent a new UK settlement. The UK Government merely reinforces the old view, the supremacy of Westminster, its immunity from constraint by law courts or respect for this Parliament. We can expect to see more of that as Brexit proceeds. We already see this attitude in proposals for UK-wide regimes overriding existing devolved competence. Last year, the Scottish Tory Secretary boasted in a speech about what he called the new realities that the Sewell convention was now written in law. In its submission to the Supreme Court, the UK Government left that position far behind. It made it clear that its law, Mundell's law and Tomkin's law was not worth the paper that it was written on. Instead of crowing on Twitter, the Conservatives, led by their constitutional spokesperson, should abjectly apologise to the people of Scotland and to those who believed that their promises in 2014 would lead to a genuine change in the status of Scotland's Parliament and Scotland within the UK. The reality is that, up until now, the UK Government has in practice always accepted that a change to devolved competence requires the consent of the Parliament. The UK Government's own guidance and the Parliament's standing orders are clear that the Sewell convention applies where a bill, and I quote, contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish ministers. Attempts to argue the opposite would overturn. Indeed, they are now in danger of overturning. Nearly 20 years have accepted practice under different political administrations, both north and south of the border. They fatally undermine the protections, perhaps on burnsday, I should say, the boasted advantages, given to the Scottish Parliament and this Government in the devolution settlement. It is clear that the Sewell convention will be engaged by a bill that changes the law on devolved matters or the competence of the devolved institutions. Therefore, once the UK Government bill is published and in line with the Parliament's standing orders, the Scottish Government will publish a memorandum setting out the implications for devolved matters and the powers of the Parliament and Scottish ministers. As things stand in that memorandum, we will be unable to recommend that the Parliament gives its consent to a bill that gives the UK Government the power to trigger article 50. We will also use the meeting of the joint ministerial committee next week to continue to press for the sensible compromise outcomes set out in the paper that we published in December. However, it is becoming clearer by the day that Scotland's voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the UK. The claims about Scotland being an equal partner are being exposed as empty diversionary rhetoric by the actual facts. Last week, the Prime Minister unilaterally announced without any notification or negotiation that she intended to take the UK not just out of the EU but out of the single market and indeed out of the customs union. That announcement preempted a meeting of the joint ministerial committee where the possibility of the whole of the UK remaining in the single market was due to be discussed as one of the options in the Scottish Government's Europe paper. Indeed the Prime Minister also made her announcement before one of the UK's negotiating partners, the Welsh Government, had even published its proposals for the way forward. How can a unified UK approach be agreed when the Prime Minister does not even bother to wait to hear the position of one of the constituent parts of the UK before pronouncing? Now the very foundations of the devolution settlement that are supposed to protect our interests, such as the statutory embedding of the sole convention, are being shown to be worthless. The Scottish Government has done all it can to seek compromise and reach accommodation with the UK Government on the terms of the UK leaving the EU. We have recognised that there is a mandate for England and Wales to leave the EU but no such mandate in Scotland. We were the first in administration anywhere in the UK to produce detailed and pragmatic proposals on how to respond to the challenge of Brexit. It is for the UK Government to show similar pragmatism. It is time for them to compromise. It is time for them to listen and to respect the views of others. It is becoming increasingly clear that the UK Government's approach to Brexit is not just about the question of EU membership, it is about the kind of country we want to live in. Do we want to have our future direction determined by an increasingly right-wing, reckless and hard-bricks Tory party that is determined to turn its back on Europe despite the threat to jobs, prosperity, rights and freedoms? Or is it better to take the future into our own hands? Is it better that we determine the kind of Scotland, the kind of Europe and the kind of world that we want to live in? Those are the questions that all of us should start asking ourselves today. The actions of the UK Government are making that the key question of this whole process. They are closing down the options for Scotland instead of working with us to find a right way forward for everyone. Thank you. Members will press their request to seat buttons. We'll have about 20 minutes for questions. Adam Tomkins. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. If it's to be believed, it seems that I've made more law for Scotland than the whole of this Parliament ten months since this Parliament last debated a bill. But when they play the man and not the ball, Presiding Officer, it's always a sure sign that they know they've lost the argument. It was always going to be the case that the UK Parliament would be fully involved in the Brexit process. The question in yesterday's case was much narrower. It was whether UK ministers have the legal power to trigger article 50 or whether fresh legislation is needed to confer that power upon them. This is a complex question of law which split the 11 justices of the Supreme Court. Where the court was unanimous, of course, was in throwing out the entirety of the Scottish Government's argument that this Parliament has a legal right to be consulted on a matter which is plainly reserved to Westminster. It is the United Kingdom, not Scotland, that is the member state of the European Union, and it is the United Kingdom as a whole, not its nations severally, that has taken the decision by referendum to withdraw from the European Union. Those matters are not devolved, and nothing in the Vow or in the Smith commission or in the Scotland Act, any of them, has ever suggested that they should be. The Sewell convention to which the minister referred provides that the Westminster Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without our consent. That convention can surely have no application to a bill that does nothing more than to confer on UK ministers the legal power to give effect to June's referendum result by triggering article 50. For the simple and I should have thought, really rather obvious reason, that the UK's membership of the EU is not and never has been devolved to this Parliament. The SNP has spent the last seven months, Presiding Officer, trying and failing to stoke grievance about Brexit. Now it seems that their ambition is reduced to stoking new grievance about the Sewell convention. Last week, the Prime Minister explained how she wants the freest possible trade with the European Union, how she wants the greatest possible access to the European single market. Instead of complaining about a court judgment that has gone against them, when will the Scottish Government get on board and help to make Brexit a success for all of us? Presiding Officer, it is regrettable that the Tory constitutional spokesperson does not address the issues raised either in the statement or the judgment. Let me address them yet again. I'm sure that Professor Tomkins is perfectly capable of making bad law. He doesn't understand however how bad the law is that he made, because he was a key Tory adviser in these matters, a key Tory adviser on the issue of the Scotland Bill. He was involved in the Smith commission process, and the commitment was clearly given. I know that Tory members don't like the reality of what is happening in Scotland, but they will have to face the reality. Their policy is dictated by Westminster. It's not a policy that is made in Scotland for their constituents, and they are letting down their constituents with every shout that they give in their chamber. The Smith commission made it clear in the heads of agreement that the sole convention will be put on as statutory footing. Clearly, the circumstances that we are now in are that the Smith commission proposal there is not worth the paper that it is printed on. The reality of the situation is not just that it is not effective, but the UK Government itself argued against it happening in the court case. Actually, there is no doubt that this is a matter in the end of the day for the Presiding Officer and for the Parliament. However, the standing orders of the Parliament are clear that the sole convention applies where a bill contains provisions applying to Scotland that are for devolved purposes or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish ministers. The judgment yesterday at paragraph 130 confirms that the legislative competence of the Parliament will be altered. In those circumstances, it is an odd way to argue a legal case to shout from the sidelines, very strange indeed. That is what we are hearing from Professor Tomkins. Facts, if I may say this, are cheels that want to ding. There's the fact. I would, even at this very late day, I would hope that the Tories might get on board with Scotland rather than try to stay on board with Theresa May. I am grateful to Mr Russell for an advanced site of his statement. His penetration was rightly to decry a reckless Government committing to turning its backs on our neighbours, despite, as he put it, the threats to jobs, prosperity, rights and freedoms. He will know that the people of Scotland have voted against abandoning our neighbours precisely because we understand the threats that come from isolationism and from turning our backs on our closest friends and trading partners. The Scottish people do not want to turn their backs on Europe and we do not want to turn our backs on the rest of the UK. I'm sorry, S&P members, don't find this a serious point, but it certainly is. When Mr Russell talks of closing down options, is he abandoning his Government's commitment to working together across parties and across the UK in spite of the recklessness of the Tory party? Will he not reject isolationism in all its forms? In the spirit of joint working, we saw in Wales and indeed in this Parliament last week and recognising the clear need for change. Will the Scottish ministers now support Scottish Labour's calls for a constitutional convention across the UK and put the national interests and the public interests ahead of party interests? For the record, I reject isolationism in its entirety. That's not what we're having the discussion about, but I have to say as positively as I can to Lewis MacDonald, because I want to work with the Labour Party on that. In the words of those slogans that used to be shouted out on marches, what do you want and when do you want it? Because the reality of the situation is that you can't sit forever saying, well, we want everything out of this situation and we're not prepared to make a decision, and that's where unfortunately the Labour Party finds themselves. I do not wish to see any barriers in trade within these islands. I stand with the person who said this. We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible. I stand on this rare occasion with Theresa May, because that is what would happen in independence. It will what's happened if we remain in the single market. All our proposals are predicated on working with both and trading with both. I'm sure that Lewis MacDonald has read in great detail several times our proposals in our paper, and that is precisely what it says. If the Labour Party will work with us to achieve that, the best solution, then I'll be happy to work with them. Unfortunately, the Labour Party, and I know it hates this, will have to make a decision. It will have to decide whether it really wants to see Scotland as part of both the customs union and the single market and working freely and trading freely with the 27 and part of the UK single market. I have to say that it's entirely acceptable. Our paper says that. So trying to make a difference between us in this matter is wrong and is untrue. Please work with us and support us to get our paper implemented rather than splitting on it. If we have slightly tighter questions and tighter answers, Joan McAlpine will be followed by Jackson Carlaw. In the process, but in court, they argued that this didn't change anything. Does the minister agree with me that this means that the UK Government's claim that the 2016 Scotland Act made Holyrood the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world was a deception? In the cause of brief answers, absolutely. Jackson Carlaw. Is it not manifestly opportunist having demanded week after week for months on end that the Prime Minister make her intentions clear on the single market to then protest when she does exactly that that this is a disgrace on the facile basis that every last person in the UK would get to express their view? The stringing rebuke yesterday by 11 votes to zero was to the Scottish Government and surely the stringing rebuke that will yet follow will be in response to the SNP determination to create further uncertainty in constitutional division with its paranoid thrice daily threats of another independence referendum, while ministers repeatedly ignore the business of Scotland for which this devolved Parliament and this devolved Government actually has a responsibility. It appears to me that the business of Scotland is in very safe and competent hands and the people of Scotland and, well, interestingly, that's what the people of Scotland believe, too, if both elections and opinion polls have anything to do with it. So Tory's self-delusion is not unknown, it just continues to this day. Can I just make it clear that the remarkable terms of that question need to be thought about? Because what Jackson Carlaw was arguing for was that his constituents—this Parliament—should be at the back of the queue, where every last person apparently to be consulted. I don't think that the Scottish Parliament is every last person. The Prime Minister said absolutely on the record that she was going to engage with the devolved Administrations. Engagement doesn't mean publishing your position, going out and saying what your position is. 48 hours before the negotiating committee that she had set up has even had a chance to meet. So that's not the right way to proceed. If that is the attitude of the Tories to this Parliament to Scotland, we are every last person. It's a little wonder that people look at them and think that they are not really for us. The minister quoted in his statement from the Prime Minister that, until we have a UK approach and the objectives for negotiations, the Scottish Conservatives have made it very clear in the past after the European Union referendum that the overriding priority was to stay in the single market. Can the minister tell me, have the Scottish Conservatives offered the minister any suggestions to keep Scotland in the single market, or has that now been abandoned, in favour of a hard right, hard Brexit, Tory opposition of the bosses and Westminster, despite the obvious disastrous economic consequences? Thank you. It's very obvious from the Prime Minister's speech last week, from the actions of the UK Government, that they are determined on the hardest of Brexit. The position with the Scottish paper remains, fortunately, after a great deal of work by the devolved Administrations, that it will be continued for discussion amongst officials. Clearly, the first option in that paper that Scotland, that the UK should remain in the single market, was knocked out of the water by the Prime Minister refusing to consult the Joint Ministerial Committee. The other parts of that paper remain in play and are strengthened by the very good Welsh paper, which was published on Monday. It is absolutely remarkable that the First Minister made this decision not just 48 hours before the GMC, but even before the Welsh paper had even been published. The UK Government knew that the Welsh paper was about to be published—a joint paper, incidentally, between Labour and Plaid Cymru—and I have to say a very good paper, and all the better for it being that joint paper. In all those circumstances, it is quite clear that the determined on the hard Brexit I am equally determined, along with colleagues in the devolved Administrations, to maintain membership of the single market. That is a view that is held widely across the devolved Administrations, not unanimously but widely, and we will continue arguing and fighting for that. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Ross Greer. I seek assurances from the minister that he will continue to focus on arguing Scotland's case with the UK Government, although that is difficult. Will the minister give his assurance that he will continue to use his offices and his time to influence the need and the opportunities that do arise for Scotland to have more say on policies such as immigration, fisheries and the economy in the UK, which the majority of people demand from their ministers? I continue to use my good offices and every ounce of energy that I have to try and influence the position of the UK Government on this matter. I am quite happy to give that assurance to Pauline McNeill, because it happens to be the absolute truth. The difficulty in so doing should not be underestimated, and particularly the difficulty in so doing with the rhetoric that is coming from the UK Government and because of its actions. I will continue to do my very best, but it is absolutely right that I tell the chamber what the facts of the matter are and the reality of the way in which the UK Government is responding, and I am fulfilling that obligation as well. Ross Greer, to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you and like colleagues, I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. The Greens, like the Scottish Government, are disappointed at the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. We were promised during the independence referendum that Scotland would be an equal partner in this union and that our voice would be listened to, yet it is clear that the Scotland act did not live up to those promises. The permanence of this Parliament is meaningless if it can be overridden at will. It is increasingly clear that the Scottish Government's compromise proposals—significant compromises—have been dismissed out of hand by Westminster Government, which did not even wait for equivalent proposals. If my party had led this country into the message in, I would be a little bit more sheepish in this chamber than certain members have been today. The minister has pointed out that options are fast closing for Scotland, so could he confirm the timetable on which an independence referendum bill will be introduced, as it is becoming increasingly clear that we must put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands? Minister, thank you for that and I think your remarks about those who are responsible for the mess that we find ourselves in are very accurate indeed. Unfortunately, being sheepish is not a Tory trait. The arrogance, as my colleague says, is much more like it. I cannot give the member that arrogance continues with the laughter from the Tory bench. I cannot give the member that timetable and he won't be surprised about that, but let me put it this way. The options that we have placed on the table are being closed down, not because of any actions by the Scottish Government. They are being closed down by the Westminster Government. In a sense, the timetable of what goes ahead now lies with the Westminster Government. If the Westminster Government is prepared to operate in the way that it is promised to operate, is prepared to debate and discuss, is prepared to look seriously at where we are going, then that takes one timetable. If we are not prepared to do so, that dictates another. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I understand that there are SNP colleagues at Westminster table 50 amendments. What assurances has the minister had that those will avoid that race to the bottom, where the UK Government will try to attract business to the UK by offering lower taxes, lower wages, less regulation and in terms of workers' rights? I think that the cackling laughter from some Tory benches says it all probably. That is entirely what they are intent on achieving. It is quite clear that that is what they are intent on achieving. The SNP group at Westminster, I am sure, along with others, but the SNP group at Westminster will work very hard to avoid that, as this chamber has to work very hard to avoid that. The obligation in terms of defending Scotland in those terms will lie with this chamber and this chamber should be willing to pick up that challenge and work to make sure that it does not happen. I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. If I can gently suggest that the minister is not missing the opportunity from yesterday's judgment, the Westminster Parliament can now influence the Brexit process in a way that the Conservative Government was hotly contesting previously. It means that we can build that case for a Brexit deal referendum, so that the British people can reject the Brexit deal that is comprised by the Conservatives if it is damaging to our country. The minister has said that his MPs will table 50 amendments. Can I ask him whether he will support a Liberal Democrat amendment for a Brexit deal referendum? The last time that was mentioned in this chamber two weeks ago, a very good point was put to, I think, Tavish Scott, which was, would the Liberal Democrats recognise in any such referendum a Scottish vote that opposed leaving the EU? The answer appeared to be no. That does not appear to be very liberal or very democratic and certainly not responsive to Scotland. I do not really think that the way in which Liberal Democrats are approaching this smacks of any seriousness at all. I would be happy to sit down and discuss with Willie Rennie again how we take the issue forward, but I do not think that on the basis of forcing this issue, which will not win the support of the House of Commons as far as we can see, if that is not likely to win any support, apart from the Liberal Democrats, it would be quite important to try and go with the flow to find the effective actions rather than the ineffective actions. Dean Lockhart could follow by Alec Neill. Figures published earlier today show that almost two-thirds of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK—four times more important than our relationship with the rest of the EU single market. Contrary to what the minister has said today, the SNP's proposed differentiated approach would result in a trade barrier between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and the terms of that trade barrier would be negotiated in Brussels, not here. Can the minister explain how the SNP's prioritisation of the EU single market at the expense of our domestic market is in the best interests of Scotland, or does he agree with the former leader of his party, Gordon Wilson, when he said that demanding a European settlement for Scotland is simply pointless posturing? I had anticipated that question because it seemed the most obvious, and I have to say that it is not a very sensible question at all. The reality of the situation was that during the entire 2014 referendum campaign, every occasion in this chamber has made it clear that it is not either or. The reality is that we would wish to trade with the rest of the UK—as the rest of the UK—wish to trade with us. The proposals, as Mr Lockett has read them, and clearly from his question—he doesn't appear to have read them—visages a customs union of this island. There would be no new barriers. I think that perhaps the Tory should focus more closely on the unravelling of some of the statements that they have made about what would happen in Ireland. A very, very serious situation is developing there, where it is now obvious, for example, from a senior EU official yesterday that the issue of customs barriers remains, and it is perfectly possible to envisage the situation in which there is flourishing trade north and south of the border. Indeed, the question also shows a misunderstanding what that trade is. If he looks at the figures today, he will see that a substantial part of that trade is in electricity. I suggest that the wires come down across the border in these circumstances. That is simply nonsense. I think that it is timely that the Tories grow up and start to ask questions that mean something, as opposed to questions that mean nothing. I speak as one of the million Scots who voted for Brexit for progressive reasons. I am very keen to ensure that the Brexit negotiations are handled successfully with a successful outcome. However, in order for that to happen, there has to be recognition and acceptance in the UK Government that, although we are at the moment one member state, we are four nations with four legislatures in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the UK Government, if it wants a successful outcome in terms of the acceptability of the deal to the whole of the United Kingdom, it will have to take cognisance of the views of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Has the time not come, because the important point now is where do we go from here? Has the time not come for the Scottish Government, along with the Welsh Government and whoever is representing Northern Ireland, to demand of the UK Government that all four nations and their legislatures should have an inside track in those negotiations? Unlike what Mr Tomkins said, many of the subjects—I am just finishing—under discussion that, such as agriculture, fishing and many other subjects, are as devolved as they are partially reserved. Therefore, there is a deep vested interest for every nation to be represented in the inside track in those negotiations. Very interesting, Presiding Officer. To note the chairs and Tory branches from that question started, there were no chairs when it ended. Of course, my friend Alec Neill is absolutely right. If those negotiations are to proceed and were to proceed without the deep involvement of the devolved Administrations, that would be yet another failure by the UK Government. I take the point on board. I hope that not only I was listening, but the Tories here were listening, and much more importantly, because the Tories here do not influence what is happening, that the Tories at Westminster were listening and the UK Government was listening to recognise that they may do everything that they can to try and divide in Scotland, but there is a unity of purpose about what we need to have. That has just been expressed by Alec Neill. Thank you. I am afraid that time is too tight this afternoon to take any more questions and apologies to the members, as we couldn't call. We are now going to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate in the name of Alec Rowley on the budget. We are just going to take a few seconds to change seats.