 Good morning. Can I welcome everyone to this second meeting of the Europe Committee of the fifth session of the Scottish Parliament? Can I welcome the public and also the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs? Can I remind everyone, including members, to switch mobile phones to silent and to mention to the witness that the Parliament is moving to digital working? If members are consulting their equipment during evidence sessions, it is not because they are rude, it is because we are moving to digital working. Since the last meeting of the committee, we have expanded. Our role is going to expand as a result of a decision by the Parliament. We have been sent reinforcements in the shape of Ash Denham and Havish Scott. I would like to welcome both our new members to the committee and invite you to make any declarations of interest. I know a relevant interest to declare. I have never been described as a reinforcement before, but I will take that as a great courtesy. Thank you, convener. I have no relevant declarations either. Thank you very much. The committee is now invited to consider item 4 in private. I agree. Our main item of business today is an evidence session on the implications of the EU referendum for Scotland. We are delighted to have Fiona Hyslop here with us, as well as Karen Watt, the director for culture, tourism and external affairs in the Scottish Government. If I could start, cabinet secretary, by inviting you to give an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. This is the first time I have appeared in front of this committee. I look forward to working with all of you across the brief. I am delighted that the Parliament has agreed to expand the committee. I think that it is really important at this time that all parties are represented on this committee. It is a vital piece of work that will have to be carried out over the future period. Obviously, we are meeting very soon after last week's referendum. I was reflecting that this time last week I hadn't actually cast my vote as yet. A lot has happened over a period of the last week. The First Minister has also committed to meeting with the committee at the earliest opportunity. Having secured the support of the majority of Parliament on Tuesday, the First Minister and the Scottish Government will now begin to take all possible steps to explore all options to protect Scotland's relationship and place within the EU. It was reassuring on Tuesday to see colleagues from across the chamber committing to work together and to deliver on our common values and shared responsibility for the people we serve. To that end, we have been in active contact with the European Member States and the EU institutions. Since the UK voted to leave the EU, I have spoken with the Slovak, French and German ambassadors. Dr Allan has held a briefing with the consular corps in Edinburgh on Monday, 27th. The First Minister has also set up the Standing Council on Europe experts with a variety of views on Scotland's constitutional future to advise us on options open to us to protect Scotland's relationship within the EU. Yesterday, as you may be aware, the First Minister was in Brussels on a successful visit where she met leading figures from the EU institutions and the European Parliament. She explained Scotland's position to leading figures and was received in her own words a very sympathetic response from those she met with and the European press. Yesterday, I spoke with the UK Government's Minister for Europe, David Littington, where I reminded him of the Prime Minister's commitment to meaningfully involve Scotland and the other devolved administrations, not just in the negotiation but in the process leading up to it. I will also meet David Littington next week. With a clear democratic mandate from Scottish voters to remain in the EU, the First Minister has outlined three priorities for the Government. First, to reassure those from other countries who have chosen to make Scotland their home that they are welcome in Scotland. This is their home and we value the contribution. Secondly, to reassure and engage with businesses, organisations and stakeholders. Thirdly, our determination to protect Scotland's relationship with and place in the European Union. In Tuesday's debate, there was concern about the prospect of a second independence referendum. I want to make it clear here today that all options will be considered to protect Scotland's EU relationship and we will bring our recommendations to Parliament in due course. Tuesday's motion in Parliament called upon the Government to report back to Parliament and to the committee. This is the first of many conversations that we will have. I also think that we need to think about the appropriate mechanism, particularly during the recess of how we make sure that members are kept informed. The First Minister has also made a commitment to Parliament to keep party leaders informed of progress, and I ensure that I will do that with my counterparts and leaders in other parties, but we can work out the mechanism by which we do that. More than this, the First Minister, as I said, had made clear her intention for a range of committees to contribute to this process. I think that the Parliament's involvement clearly led by this committee, but it also has an impact on other committees that are important, and that is something that we should explore further. However, that clearly is the responsibility of the Parliament and not of the Government. Yesterday, the Irish president convener addressed the Parliament in what was a very eloquent and magnificent speech. He reminded us that we must respond to demagoguery with an informed, open, respectful, tolerant and engaged discourse and with respectful debate. We are challenged to do democracy better rather than revert to old and divisive myths based on exclusion and often to what is thinly veiled hate or racism. I think that the sentiment that he expressed and his address to us was very meaningful and of the moment. I hope that we will inform the spirit and the content of how we take forward our discussions here in Scotland. I am very keen to explore with you how we, at this even very early stage, find a mechanism by which we together, the Government and the Parliament, can take forward Scotland's interests. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Yesterday's spokesman for the EU commission president, John Claude Junker, said that Scotland had won the right to be heard in Brussels. In your view, what is the significance of that statement? Does it represent a sea change in Scotland's relationship with Europe? The purpose of the First Mrs's visit was to make sure that the position of Scotland and our experience in the referendum and the results of the referendum was heard and understood in Europe. That was certainly achieved. The feedback that we have had is that people recognise that Scotland voted differently than some parts of the rest of the UK. It was important that that was understood. In terms of our relations with Europe, remember, in the longer term, not just from this Government but from previous Governments here in Scotland, we have had a very active role in many fields, not least in representations from ministers and our position within Europe. Fergus Ewing, as we know, was at the agriculture committee on Monday. I have regularly attended council meetings. Scotland has been an active player and led on many issues like climate change, for example. People recognise that we have a position and role, but we are a legal entity as a country. We do have an opportunity to put forward our case. Part of it is making sure that we are listened to. That is certainly what happened yesterday. I think that the fact that the President of the Commission has said that Scotland has won the right to be heard is because 62 per cent of our country decided that they wanted to remain. In terms of all this engagement with European leaders and institutions, what impression have you got from them as to their view of the result of the UK referendum? I do not want to be in a position where there are confidential discussions that other countries have with us that I cannot give you a blow-by-blow report and they would not expect me to. If I can give you a general response, as everybody is in shock, I do not think that people expected this to happen. I think that we have seen that within the United Kingdom. Clearly, there is a view across Europe that they wanted the UK to stay and remain. Therefore, they themselves are coming to terms with what they see as a result that they did not want. As I said, it is early days in this. We need to have a plan of what we want to try and achieve. How we do it, in effect, will take some time. We have to engage early because if Scotland does not engage early, we will not be heard and we will not be expected and necessary to be part of the negotiations. That is why the twin-track approach with working with the United Kingdom and making sure that we are part of their thinking and deliberations is very important, but also recognising that we have to make sure that the different perspectives of Scotland are heard. I think that it is quite interesting that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, recognises also that Scotland should have the opportunity to engage directly. Have you been able to form any kind of impression as to how other member states will approach the negotiations with the UK? For example, there has been a lot of talk about other member states anxious to speed up the process, if you like, rather than delay matters. Have you formed any impression in your discussions? It is fair to say that there probably is not one view. There will be different views in different countries for different reasons. Clearly, the council itself will speak on behalf of all the member states in terms of their position. Clearly, from an immediate call that article 50 should have been lodged yesterday—remember, that was at one point in the past few days—was the perceived position. There has obviously been a bit of movement recognising that there needs to be a bit of space in preparation for an article 50 lodging. Of course, in some part—remember, you have 27 and 28 members—we will decide which number we operate with going forward. In terms of the perceptions, some people will want to move very quickly to change how Europe itself works. Some people want to have Europe come closer together and move more quickly themselves. Some will just look at self-interest. You will remember politics. We are politicians. Six weeks ago, we were facing an election, and many other countries will be facing in the coming year, 18-months elections themselves. They will want to reflect their own interests in that. I think it might be wrong to say that there is one view. There will be different views for different reasons. The whole point of the European Council of Ministers is to bring that collection together to identify what the common interest is for all the member states, but also for the institution itself. The one thing that we need to be very careful of and be mindful of is that there is a desire to protect the institution itself. The idea that the United Kingdom and its own negotiations can cherry-pick or renegotiate what a process is. David Cameron spent the best part of the last 18 months or so trying to get a negotiation package. That has been the process up into the referendum. The idea that somehow you can revisit that is now in speculation. There is a hard view that there might not be open to cherry-picking, but politics is politics. Self-interest is interest both for the institution and the member states. If anything, we know from the European institutions that they are pragmatic, but they face a lot of pressures. When we look at this, it is not just from the perspective of the United Kingdom as a one-way street in terms of the relationship of the UK with institutions. They themselves have their own priorities. We should be mindful of that, not just in Scotland but also in the UK as well. In terms of your discussions with the UK Government, the predecessor committee to this committee conducted a piece of work on the implications of Brexit for Scotland. It brought forward evidence from witnesses about the amount of money that comes direct to Scotland from Europe, the farm payments of over €800 million, over €900 million of structural funds and university research funds, which I believe are around £88 million. That committee in its report repeatedly said that the UK Government had failed to give clarity as to whether the Scottish block grant, for example, would be adjusted after Brexit to make up for the loss of those European funding. Have you any additional information that you have managed to glean from the UK Government as to whether we would be out of pocket or whether they are making plans to readjust the block grant? In the spirit of consensus, I will try to refrain from necessarily making hard political points, but I think that there is a general understanding that there is no plan for immediate Brexit, let alone necessarily what might happen further down the line. Those are all issues that I am sure will have to be considered as part of the United Kingdom's deliberations. What is important for us, and this is why this Parliament has to think about, okay, how do we make sure that Scotland's interest is protected? The previous system had the committee working with rapporteurs or lead people in each of our other committees in terms of European interest. For example, we used on cap payments, so I would fully expect the rule affairs committee to think about that dimension and to think about the positioning of Scotland and how that would be best delivered. Certainly, that has to be a part and parcel of our discussions. Yes, with the United Kingdom Government, but also in recognising what the options might be working with the Standing Council of Experts to identify what the interests might be for Scotland in our direct discussions and understanding. I am trying to be fairly circumspect. Yes, there was a blueprint of 650 pages that told us what would happen should there be a Brexit vote. Unfortunately, there isn't. Therefore, we have got to deal with what we have got and try to make sure that Scotland's interest is represented in these parallel discussions. Thank you very much. I will hand over to Lewis MacDonald now, Lewis. Thank you very much. It has been helpful to have you appear in so promptly under these very difficult circumstances, as we all recognise. Can I go back to the question of the twin track and ask you a couple of things about that? One of the issues that appears to be right at the top of the agenda at the moment is not only when article 50 would be triggered, but how article 50 would be triggered. For example, Professor Mark Elliott has expressed the view that, because the referendum was purely an advisory exercise in law, it has no legal force and therefore a decision has yet to be made by the United Kingdom to apply for, to seek to go forward under article 50. Has the United Kingdom Government consulted you on the timing or on the legal and technical requirements that it faces in terms of deciding when to trigger article 50? I noticed in your witnesses today that you have got a number of people who might be placed to give you the background of the constitutional aspects of article 50. In terms of, I have had two discussions with UK ministers. What I would reflect is that we have got an opportunity to recalibrate how the UK Government works with the Scottish Government in relation to negotiations on this issue. Since the referendum itself, I have now spoken to the Secretary of State for Scotland and David Leadington, and David Leadington, as I said, is due up to meet me next week. I think that there is a better appetite for engagement than perhaps has been in the last two years on these issues. In terms of, they have not told me what their plans are because I do not think that they have their plans yet. That is to be resolved. The issue then might be that some of us go into party politics as to what can or should be done before a new Prime Minister is put in place. I have made it clear that I think that we should think carefully about when and how to lodge article 50. For our interests, it is important that we are involved in the negotiations or the discussions and the process prior to article 50 being lodged. That is in our interests. I have given a clear direction to what I think is in the interests of Scotland. I have yet to have an affirmative response on that, but they clearly know our views. I expect to continue those discussions with David Leadington next week. When you describe to David Leadington what Scotland's interests are and what Scotland is looking for in that very early process prior to the triggering of article 50, what are the fundamental points that you intend to make to him? Is it in Scotland's interests, for example, that that is as late as possible, or is there a view about how it should be done that is specific to what the Scottish Government believes to be in our interests? There are different pressures. Clearly, some of you have the legal competence of negotiation with the UK Government, so therefore we need to be part of the UK Government's negotiations and at the table in those discussions. That is why the process of this is important. I think that there is an understanding from the UK Government that that is going to be important, but I have yet to have the yes, this will happen aspect. To be fair, it is a week after. There is turmoil, as much as we are frustrated. I think that we have got to recognise that that will happen, and we need to keep our pressure up. However, in terms of the content and detail of that, that is certainly in terms of looking at our priorities, making sure that we keep as many options open is very important for us. There are different, you will hear in terms of if you pursue questions in that direction, you can have just a straight article 50, or you can have depending on different aspects, whether they want, they do not need to put justifications, rational, et cetera. I think the most important stage is trying to keep our options open, both in the process, but also in what the result might be and what the options, and that is why looking at all the options is very important. We will need to move fairly rapidly, and there is a lot of thinking going on in that, and that is why I think in terms of the membership of the Standing Council on Europe, the experts in there will give us a range, both on the content detail, so for example with Dayman Glover in Science, and she was previously scientific adviser to President Barroso, an understanding of what the priorities in that aspect might be, but it is as much about content, we need to think about content as well as process. The content discussions won't necessarily form the content of article 50 because that's a legal mechanism, but that's why the talks around it are very important and an understanding of what Scotland's position is, and therefore the dialogue that we can have with other members is very important. The discussion is obviously, which I haven't elaborated on, but very quickly and early, our First Minister spoke to the First Minister of Wales and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and I think it's now two conversations with the T-shirts she's had. And while recognising it early, when you meet Mr Liddington next week, will you be talking to him then about the kind of issues that Scotland will want to address during the negotiations after the triggering of article 50? We were looking at the scope, I mean clearly scoping, although part of this is process and scope, and that's what you always do in initial areas, and that's what we're looking at. I'd like to invite Bruce Crawford. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for coming before us so early. It's useful to hear that some of the background you've outlined earlier, trying to create new relationships, building on existing relationships with the European Union, how best to prosecute the Scottish position. And that twin-track approach is quite obviously important, as far as Scotland is concerned. An interesting word you used about the league calibration with the arrangement with the UK, and as part of that scoping exercise, one of the things that's certainly been exercised in my mind is how flexible the UK might be prepared to be in that scoping exercise in terms of Scotland's position. I wondered whether or not you've yet had the opportunity, or will take that opportunity, with David Llyr next week or sometime in the near future. To discuss with the UK Government whether they're prepared in those negotiations post the triggering of article 50, to find an argument in their position, in their negotiating position, that Scotland can remain? I think there's certainly a goodwill now. I think what you're asking is speculation, and one of the challenges is that we know that there will be a change of personnel within the UK Government, and that makes it very difficult to anticipate what the commitments might be thereafter, and the challenge to the current ministers to say anything that would tie the hands of people who will come after them as early as beginning of September. That's why keeping our options open is important. Therefore, what's essential just now is that we lock in Scotland's interests and role in the process, so that it's very difficult for somebody or unreasonable for somebody coming in if they were so willing to change that. Now, I hope that wouldn't happen. It's also why the voice of Scotland, not just minister to minister and First Minister to Prime Minister, but also at senior civil service level is very important, because, as we know, ministerial positions may change, but the civil service remains. I think that we're having the continuity and the high level. Therefore, within the cabinet office—I don't know if it's a Brexit unit or the minister is in charge of that—we can have a fairly seamless transition from whatever the ministerial team is in the UK Government after the recalibration of their internal elections. That's again why the process of this is very important, so we can try and hit the ground running fairly quickly with whoever comes in as well and establish some principles up front, which I think if we can again get consensus, then that's why, under a statement of a bit of a vacuum across Westminster in opposition as well as government, there's actually a position from Scotland that is reasonable and also has consensus. We'll make that transition from one set of ministers at UK Government to another a bit easier for us, so that's why I think there's a big responsibility in us collectively to make sure that we can achieve that. Okay, just one tiny supplementary to that. Other than political impediments to the UK being prepared to negotiate for Scotland to remain, as well as then Brexit'ing at the same time. Is there any other—is there any reason to stop that happening? No, because at the end of the day, if you want to involve people, you can involve people, and that's—I think so the political will is the most important to achieve that. In terms of our discussions that we have with Europe, we can discuss things, we can understand, and I think it's very important for us to understand the different pressures and interests from other member states in working out what our position is, so we can maximise our position within the UK discussions as well. That's exactly why we have to be able to have a range of discussions, both yes within the United Kingdom position, but also internationally, because the pressures that we may have on some issues may be more important to us than for the rest of the UK. If essential is about how do you retain a membership of a single market? What does freedom of movement look like? I'm particularly on an island which has a common travel area with another island, and that's let alone the dimensions with the Republic of Ireland as well, so therefore I think it's absolutely essential that we're very respectful, not just of our own self-interest and needs, but also of everybody else. Good morning, cabinet secretary. You used the word spirit of consensus at some point earlier on, and so can I at face value take both your words and those of the First Minister that she wasn't seeking to negotiate or position, but simply to bring to the attention of as many people across Europe the outcome of the result here in Scotland, and to thank you for doing that, because I think it's important that it's understood. We are at this stage not really at the stage of probabilities, not even possibly at desirabilities, we are at possibilities, and one thing that slightly struck me in watching an interview that the First Minister gave yesterday with Bernard Ponsonby in Europe was that one of those possibilities seems to me to be that Scotland would remain in the United Kingdom outside of the European Union on the basis of the agreement the United Kingdom finally strikes. Do you accept that that is one of the possibilities, if not one of the desirabilities from your perspective or even necessarily a probability, but it is a possibility? I think it's fair to say that the worst case scenario is that Scotland is outside the EU with no improvement and no options, and any options close down. I think that that would be a very difficult situation for Scotland to be in, because our interests in Europe are long on each side, so I think that that's why I think there's a general consensus saying that we need to try and get movement on this. The degree of movement, we don't know yet, it is uncharted and we don't know the results, but that to me would be a worst case scenario. I think generally across Scotland that would not be ideal. We need to maximise our position. If it's accepted at least as a possibility that Scotland could be in the United Kingdom outside of Europe and on the basis of the agreement which is finally struck, will a parallel effort be given in the arrangements that you strike with the Secretary of State for Scotland and David Lidington or whoever from the foreign office in terms of Scotland's engagement in the discussions that take place, which might lead to that outcome, as well as the effort that you put into as a government, the substantiation of the other options that you have before you? I think it's always helpful going into discussions that you prepare for success rather than failure, and I think we want movement. There may be a scenario which has probably had more airtime, understandably, because people are interested in saying that actually we may get to a position and acknowledged by David Martin, MEP, I think in similar pieces last night, we may get a position that the only way that we can ensure our membership and our relations and our status and our interests in Europe is as an independent country and that may need to happen as a result of the examination of options. Similarly, if you look at the UK's point of view, there may be a situation where they take an extreme position that is so isolationist, it's not even anywhere near the Norwegian model. You've heard Jeremy Hunt talking saying what they should be aiming for is a Norwegian. That's out of Europe, but with a different negotiation. That still has a negotiation with Europe that tries to get something from Europe in terms of a single market access, freedom of movement, et cetera. Now that's on that end of the spectrum of where we might end up. I don't know where on that spectrum we are. I don't even know where the UK wants to get on that area. So for me to try and predict, you said it's never possibilities, but I can understand. So part of our discussions internally with the UK is to try and ensure that they're maximising the position that they have in relation to Europe. I think that will be in our interest, but clearly we have to identify where on the spectrum we can get to with all the options. Some of them will have constitutional requirements, but actually if we focus on the issues of interest of environment, regulations in relation to our products for export, single market, all these areas which I think you can helpfully scope is out. What are the main interests for Scotland? If we identify those issues, thereafter you can identify which is the best constitutional arrangement that would allow us to do that, or what other types of negotiations you can get from that. Now that's kind of pre-empting a lot of where we might end up, but think about it in those terms. So therefore we're not even, you can only start to have a discussion and negotiation with people when you know where they might be coming from. I have absolutely hand on heart, no idea where the UK is coming from and what they're trying to achieve, and frankly we might not even know that till September, and my worry is if they move quickly for an article 50 lodging either now or indeed at the point of a new leader coming in, if we're not in before that, making sure that our voice is heard and that we get a chance to express our views, it will be very difficult afterwards, so that's my positioning. Things may change, we may have to, we have to consider, we've got to renimble and act and be responsive, but we've got to think about all those considerations. I mean I realised time short so I won't seek to drill down on any of that today at all, but can I just finally ask, you said that in due course would come back to Parliament with your conclusion. I mean have you defined in due course in any sense at this stage, is it at the moment as wide as at any point in the next two years during the negotiations that are taking place? I think in terms of making a judgment on options and particularly if the requirement would be for independence referendum, that's the first missus made clear that most certainly that would be a requirement to come back to Parliament, but I think what we have to do is look at the staging posts of how the options are being assessed, how, you know, what possibilities there are, and I'll give you, maybe I'll give you an example of how I personally as cabinet secretary have approached a similar issue which obviously this committee will be interested on the BBC Charter. I had worked very closely with the committee, I made sure that there were debates at appropriate times to have a kind of understanding of where we'd got to at that stage to allow an expression, not just with the individual committee but the wider Parliament. So my commitment certainly is to make sure that at the appropriate points, and that's where your advice will be important, that we can say okay where have we got to this stage. I think certainly coming back into session we may want to, by that time, you know, it'll be in the same week or just shortly before or shortly after a new prime minister is put in place, expressing the views of Scotland at that point again might be helpful depending on where we are, but I also think we should use the committees of this Parliament. One of the strengths of this Parliament has always been the thinking and the cooperation and the drilling down of issues that collectively we can do across the committee. I know we're going into recess but I am absolutely convinced that yourselves and others, as well as the Government will be working very hard during that period to make sure that we're maximising our position. So, you know, we just have to work out the process and I'm sure we can work with your clerks to look at agendas and timetables and processes. Thank you. Can I apologise for the strange noises, cabinet secretary? It's something to do with windows and hydraulics and we are trying to have it fixed, so I'll apologise for that. My understanding is that there's essentially operated, but I've had advice as to how that might be done better, but I will... Security staff have given me some advice on that. I will share with that later. Before I move on to Richard Lochhead, I just wanted to ask a quick supplementary to Jackson Carlaw's question. In terms of the relationship with the UK Government, one of the Conservative Party leadership candidates, Trisa May, today said that she intended if she was successful to set up a Government department that was in charge of Brexit. What are the implications of that for the Scottish Government's involvement in influence in the whole process? I might ask Karen what to come in because obviously that's an operation of White Hall as well, but I did say my remarks that, particularly at a time of change of personal government, making sure that Scotland is not just operating in ministers to ministers, prime ministers to first ministers, but also at a senior level. Scotland has an opportunity within the UK social service set up in this process to make sure that we've got a key position and a key voice to be heard. I think that it's very important, but Karen, do you want to? I think that, in essence, if there is a new department with a new grouping of civil servants, we will engage in the way that we normally do. Already, we have had some very initial high-level contact with the UK Government about arrangements, but it is too early to say how that will play out or what role we will play longer term. We do engage on a regular basis, so how they organise themselves in that regard will be one of the things that we consider, but it won't affect the ongoing relationships that we have. Richard Lockhart. Thank you, convener, and welcome Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, I commend the leadership being shown by the Scottish Government and yourself in terms of making sure that Scotland's voice is heard. Clearly, given the enormity of what we face, there is a monumental amount of work ahead for Parliament and for the Government to make sure that our voice is heard and that Scottish interests are taken forward. First, there is all the work in exploring the options for Scotland to stay in Europe. Secondly, there is the fact that the UK is going to have to negotiate a treaty outlining the terms of withdrawal. Thirdly, there is going to be the agreement and treaty with the EU about a future relationship, and that is a lot of work and a lot of effort required for Scotland's voice to make sure that we are part of all of those levels of negotiations that are going to be taking place. Presumably, at some course, very shortly, the UK civil service is going to be beavering away, preparing to give advice to their ministers, and it is absolutely imperative that Scotland is part of that. There are no working groups set up within Whitehall that Scotland does not know about or that they are not part of. I wondered whether that was something that you would give some thought to, and if you are seeking commitments from the UK Government, Scotland will be part of all those work streams that, behind the scenes, will be beginning in the next few weeks or months. I think that that is important advice from the wisdom experience of Richard Lochhead's understanding of how things work. I know that it is frustrating that people want to immediately say what does a deal look like, what does a negotiation look like in content, but actually trying to get and nail down the processes both at ministerial level and within the civil service is really important. You are right that we have to make sure that our voice is heard yes at EU institutions and yes with member states, but also that somehow we are not considered in any shape or form and afterthought, or that you are presented with fetter company positions on content issues of policies as to issues around withdrawal that do not necessarily meet Scotland's interests, so I think that there are very wise words and thank you for that contribution. My second area of question is that the day-to-day business continues until Scotland exits the EU. Decisions will continue to be taken in Brussels and Luxembourg at the various councils and all the working groups to take place across Europe and this Parliament will be asked to implement those decisions and that day-to-day business will just continue. Therefore we have the issue of how Scotland's voice has been represented in those negotiations because given the way negotiations work in Brussels, if there is no goodwill on both sides of the negotiating table, if you are not seen as very committed to the future of the agreements that have been put in place, then your voice does not count as much as it otherwise would do and that leaves Scotland with an issue given the youth case position is to leave Europe. Therefore I am very very worried about what will happen in terms of our influence over decisions that will be taken that affect many of our communities and our economic sectors in this country over the next two years or however long it takes until Brexit. Therefore is there a case for Scotland to ask for a bigger voice in those negotiations? It is much better to have a pro-European minister leading for the UK delegations in these councils than a minister who wants to leave Europe. That would secure a much better outcome not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK and also there are other issues like the vacancy for the EU commissioner who is resigned. Why are we not asking for that position to come to Scotland on another island? Well certainly I know for that latter point that the president has appointed somebody else to take on the responsibilities but in terms of country position I think that's still open and I hear what you're saying in regards to that. You're absolutely right. One of the key things we did day to day we were Europeans last week we were Europeans today and we're Europeans tomorrow and we're actually members of the European Union until such times as we're not and our intention is to make sure that Scotland remains our clear position. A lot of our early action was about reassurance and connections with particular sectors and that happened as of Friday to make sure that our ministers across different portfolios were engaging actively in different sectors about what their immediate reaction is, any concerns and how we might address them and help them. That work continues and goes on but you're right in terms of how we can maximise our position. There have been instances which you will certainly be aware of where the UK has known that actually having a UK minister operating in a certain area would be of benefit to the UK's position because the Scottish minister would get a better hearing necessarily than the UK for particular areas and I know that frequently a lot of areas you hear of the conflict that goes on between our position on Europe and the UK's position in different areas but in a lot of other areas actually we can work in parallel on consensus and I think a very good example is in relation to some of the climate change negotiations that we're going on. Therefore I agree with you that we can certainly be arguing and making sure that Scotland can be up front and centre in a lot of the on-going because this is two years still of European councils where decisions are taken. Are a chance of influencing you're absolutely right realistically who's going to want to listen to people who want to leave but actually therefore hearing from people who want to remain to make sure we can maximise our position even within that how much we don't want to lose ground in that two years there's a real risk of that and so therefore in terms of our interests we need to make sure that we can be there and that's why as part of our planning because we did have a plan was to make sure that Fergus Ewing did make sure he was there at the council represent our interests on Monday and we're making sure that our representation as we always had we always try and attend councils where we can and to lead for the UK where we can it's we don't nearly have the opportunity I would want us to have to lead UK positions but I have done so on two or three times I've led for the UK on the digital discussions on the audiovisual council so it's possible and practical and very pragmatic and if you have a hold of ministers who might not even want to be in Brussels at all and I think if it's a choice between having you know somebody who doesn't want to be there UK minister who doesn't want to be there or a permanent representative from the UK as a civil servant or a Scottish minister I think it's far better with an understanding the greed lines and the greed positions that we always go through in these processes that a Scottish minister should be well placed to lead our position and I think that's a very it's just extending what we try and do anyway but as you said it's probably more important in the next two years than perhaps it's been even in the past two years. Thank you very much Tavish Scott. I wonder if I could ask governance actually just for you to just set out what the options are because you rightly described earlier on those and you also said the first minister has stated that all options on the table could you just say for the committee what those are? Well Tavish I would love to be able to tell you that I know as of here and now what all the options are and I think that's why we've set up the Standing Council of on Europe is to make sure that we can have advice as to what those options are. We know that one of those options may be if the only way we can you know retain and remain as part of the European Union is independence that is on the table but there may be other options we've looked at you know people the speculation of you know the Greenland situation the Greenland Denmark situation you know I know certainly from I think it was the liberal democrats position on federalism in terms of looking at that kind of option I know that's been floated by different people whether that could deliver what we know I don't know. There's also the far extreme which is I think where Jackson Kara was alluding to a position when you're out of Europe you're in the United Kingdom but they're taking a very extreme position of being out it they may not end up there I think many people don't I'm not I'm not trying to misrepresent that's what your view is but you've got a spectrum over here which could actually you'll say that there's you're out the single market you're out you know you and because you might not have the have that negotiation we don't know so just as much as I can't speculate at the options at this end of the spectrum of where we're at my end I can't speculate on the other end because we don't know what the position of the UK government is all I'm saying is that we we think there may be there may be options I can't give you definitively that's what the First Minister wants to come back to Parliament was is to let you know what the options may be but that has to be after the thinking time and barely a week after the referendum and and you know only a few days after we've appointed the Standing Council on on Europe to give us choice and range and options I'm not going to sit here and tell you what the solution is I think we've all got to work to the solution but there all I'm saying is I think we should be exploring every option we can I don't know what those options are just now but you know I want to make sure we maximize our position whether it's an influence in the UK and where they are going to be or whether it's identifying what the track might be for Scotland you separately from that or differently from that what I don't know is what the difference might be and that's what the options that's what the options will be presented in terms of what we're expecting from the advice we'll get but let's use all the talents the experience the brains the wisdom and the knowledge in Scotland to get to a solution that you know takes forward and protect Scotland's interests but I can't hear now and I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to be able to give you what those options are do you think that by the end of august it'll be clear what those options are I think it will be it will be clearer but I don't know and I can't give you a definitive because you know we're on we've not got a you know an end game in terms of what what solution we might end up with we know that independence may be the only way we retain and protect those interests but we are absolutely going this going into this with an open mind to look at what other options there might be there might be other and that's genuinely where the heavy lifting and shifting over the next few weeks I think the earlier we can do that the better because as much as we want to close our options you know we want to open our make sure our options are open my worry is once you get into an article 50 process they may close very quickly and that's why you know during the recess period I know there's a lot of work could be carried out by committees as well as the thinking that we've done in the standing council but you know I can't I know people want instant solutions and people are fearing very you know a lot of people very saddened and angered by what's happened and they want to have an immediate that you know there's a way forward I think what's it's important from this place committee parliament and government is that we you know we're determined to find an option I find a route or find options that we can we can make and that's and that's where I think we've managed to make even in what is barely a week extensive process and progress in making that happen can I just ask I think I gathered last night that the first minister has indicated that the government plan to seek external legal advice on the options I absolutely take a point that you can't have them today but but self-evidently it's difficult to know what we're talking about until those options are clear to parliament but it was did I get did I get it right that external legal advice is being sought on that but once we have the advice on the options it would be appropriate to make sure that that has it has legal advice and you probably gathered because you probably watched the same television programmes I did last night there's a little interest in having that advice shared with parliament did you do you agree with that point of view well I mean in terms of as much as we can do we want to be open and transparent and clearly we can you know advise the parliament of the existence of legal advice but you know we're not there yet we haven't got the one we haven't got the advice and you know so I can I understand why people want to make sure that we can be as open and transparent as possible but there are you know I think that's that's a matter for the first minister okay thank you very much just as a supplementary to some of the comments that you've made my understanding is that this the section 50 process one section 50 is enacted you have two years and then a guillotine falls what are the implications of that for scotland and scotland's options well you know there are lots of them that's that's why we need to make sure that you know we maximise the options and you know they might not lodge the 50 the article 50 I think the intention is they will lodge article 50 but you know that's also a possibility and the in terms of the different options you know if the guillotine falls and we're out and we've not maximised our position you know by the end of the two years then we could be in the extreme position that I was talking about and that's why the one thing we can't allow us to be in is that in that extreme position and you know people will make a judgment as to if we if we haven't managed to get a position that reintains scotland's membership by the end of that two years you know scotland will be as part of the united kingdom out of the european union and in that case we would have to potentially ask this parliament to give legislative consent to either the repeal of the the 1972 act or indeed open up the 1998 scotland act can you see any circumstances in which this parliament would give legislative consent to being pulled out of the european union against our will I think politically the parliament if has expressed its view that it wants to remain would find that very difficult indeed and that we're not in that scenario situations yet and you know as I've said I think that we should approach this with a view that we can be successful in what we're going to do if we just plan for failure failures what we'll get and I don't want to be put into that position and I don't think if we as a parliament and as a government should be putting the Scottish people into that position by that time. Thank you very much. Rachel has indicated she wish to ask a question. Welcome cabinet secretary. I just wanted to ask you you used the word failure there. Do you think that we should be preparing ourselves for departure from the EU as well as all the negotiations that you have been making for Scotland to remain? Well we've just gone through a referendum that we didn't want with the results that we didn't want and unfortunately the people who took us there didn't prepare a plan themselves for you know what would be happening in terms of of exit. Our job is to protect the interests of scotland that's what we're trying to do and we're trying to maximise our position you know within that but obviously you know we've got to be very conscious as Richard Lochhead's question was that you know there's a two-year period and how you know the position we get to in two years we need to make sure we're in the best position possible in whatever scenario I absolutely understand that but I do want to make sure we try and make sure that we can get as much for Scotland as we can in that period that's what people would expect for us but you know I just find it very disconcerting as a government minister and having gone through our referendum was you know you might may have liked our white paper in Scotland's future but we at least had a kind of blueprint of what could happen and should happen and very a lot of thought and detail in it I just find it absolutely staggering that we're in this position where you know things are having to be established now even basic stuff in early days I just find it quite quite unbelievable but that's what we're having to cope with and you know that's what we're having to do with and we will try and inform that process as well as we can for Scotland's interests. Just as a brief supplementary to that, when you meet David Lipton to next week will you ask him about UK government plans for preparing and publishing what options there might be in advance of the triggering of article 50? Yeah obviously just as much as we think this government and should be as transparent as we can be similarly we'd expect the UK to keep people informed of where they are and that's very important and perhaps maybe you and thinking about how we do this obviously the convenience relations with the Scotland committee etc and Westminster will be important I'm sure as well in making sure that there's a transparency to what they're doing. Obviously this issue you know is going to have effects across other government portfolios you know and sometimes quite severe effects across those and clearly the Scottish government's taken steps to be sure you know the business community about what might be happening in the future and I know that you've got a business summit planned for next week to sort of engage with them. I'm just wondering what sort of feedback you've had or and maybe have they spoken to you about what their hopes might be for Scotland moving forward. I think what's very striking is that you know once people can have acknowledged and understood and cope with us with the result as people move very quickly to one recognise the very strong leadership of our first minister acting very quickly and rapidly but also very receptive and welcoming to the early approaches from the Scottish government and people are very open minded and in terms of what they can try and do and a willingness to put the Scottish interests first and foremost. I've also I had a meeting with the British Hospitality Association yesterday on my tourism brief and part of our discussion was you know the importance to the tourism industry of our European workers and the European Union workers and the steps they've taken you know as employers individual employers in reassuring their own staff about their welcome and contribution so across a range of portfolios there's impacts to varying and different degrees and I think what's very interesting is you know the response from you know Civic Scotland and also the third sector the private sector to recognising that we all have a job in hand to make sure that we're protecting our workforce and our business interests but also we can try and think about solutions so I think the the capacity and willingness for people to to to help identify what can be done is absolutely there is our job to try and harness that and to bring to bring it to bear to make sure we can influence the discussions going forward. Have another supplementary from Richard Lockhead and then Rose Greer. The answer falls on it well from Ash Denham's question there because why I was wanting to just seek reassurance on it was the fact that in determining the time of deciding the options for Scotland to stay in Europe we have to also bear in mind that the negotiations themselves in the run-up to Brexit could take presumably many years given the enormity of what has to be sorted out in other words there's potential to extend the two-year deadline presumably under article 50 once it's triggered and if it turns out that once the can of worms is open this is going to last for years and years meanwhile there's an impact in Scottish economy uncertainty for EU citizens and across a whole range of aspects of our society so I take it that the government's taking it into account in terms of determining the timescale for deciding on the options for Scotland absolutely we've got to be conscious of the the interests and needs and the you know the the different aspects of of what it means for different sectors I think some areas will want to move more quickly than others for example our universities you will have moved very very quickly in some of their statements and some of the decisions they have to take for example with the EU you know EU students coming in for the 2016 intake and I want to put record my thanks and appreciation to all the higher education institutions for doing that and the ones that have done and I think that's very very important so you'll see different people making different decisions at different points for their their own sexual interests but certainly from the business perspective people want to know that we are open for business we want business we've done very well in terms of our investment we want that to continue but we have to make sure that we're very realistic about what that is so that's why you know we have to make sure that every single portfolio and that's of the Scottish government is making sure that we can maximise our interests and protect Scotland's interests. Thanks to relatively short questions cabinet secretary I'm glad to hear of the immediate engagement with other EU member states does the Scottish government plan on direct engagements with each of the other 27 before what we assume might be the earliest activation of article 50 in September and second question on the council of experts was glad to hear there was an understanding of flexibility in its membership are there specific points in the process and specific individuals in mind for the development of its membership I'm thinking specifically of our remaining MEPs it was good to hear that David Martin's involved but some of our other MEPs have I think quite substantial contributions to make their potential and the first and the first point in relation what was the first question well I'll answer the second question I'll remember the first question and in terms of the membership I'm particularly in relation to our MEPs our first minister met with all the MEPs bar one yesterday and I think you're right we have got talented and talented and experienced there in different areas so certainly their role will be critical and that's you know precisely why the first minister made a point of making sure she could see them yesterday so I can't relay because obviously it's a short time since yesterday is how that mechanism will be and but I understand you have Alan Smith and David Martin who are probably some of the oldest and not gonna say age wise but experienced wise but clearly a former clerk to this committee has been elected and a great deal of experience there as well so and I think you know we have to make sure that we're using all the talents and the first question was in relation to all who we're going to see and when and my experience is that you know it's better to to to secure the meetings and have the meetings and meet with people and then you know report from that I think you know we're not necessarily telegraphing everything we can do because for some countries they may not want that to be telegraphed so that's part of the diplomacy of what we're doing but you know even I know in the next few few days I've already got meetings and appointments that were in train that will help this process as well and they were in train before the referendum but they're more important now so we regularly meet ministers and ambassadors from from other countries and that will continue there'll be a different dimension to them now but that's why the experience that this parliament has has built up and the governments our government and previous governments in positive engagement with the European Union and its institutions will stand as I think in good stead going forward and that is why I think the roles of our MEPs you know Alan Smith and others and David Martin and his experience and others and ministers from different parties at different times means that Scotland's voice can be heard and that's the importance of being pro-European in our outlook and engaged and that's the reputation this parliament has and previous committee the external affairs committee has really helped in making sure that we can actually have that engagement when we need to do it and Scotland's time is now and the time for us to to work together and to draw on that goodwill and translate it into something that is meaningful is now and the seriousness of this I'm sure is not lost on anyone with that thank you very much cabinet secretary that ends this particular evidence session thank you cabinet secretary and mrs watt will now have a short adjournment before our next panel witnesses