 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 4763 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the business bureau setting out our revised business programme for today and tomorrow. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 4763. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion number 4763 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next item of business is debate on motion 4710 in the name of Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland's choice. I would invite any member who wishes to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and move the motion. The decision to seek Parliament's authority to begin the process towards an independence referendum is not one that I have reached lightly. It is therefore important to set out why we have arrived at this point, and also in light of the significant change facing our country, to reflect on the importance of giving the people of Scotland a democratic choice over our future. As a result of the Brexit vote, we know that change is now inevitable. The question is what kind of change is right for Scotland, and should that be decided for us or by us? In the past two years or so, the Scottish Government has made a number of proposals designed to protect Scotland from the impact of Brexit. It is important to note that, had any one of those proposals been accepted by the UK Government, we would not be having this debate today. We recognised early on the risks to Scotland from the EU referendum, so before the referendum even took place we proposed that Brexit should be possible only if all four UK nations voted to leave. That sort of provision is relatively common in federal countries such as Australia and Canada. Would, in this context, have recognised the reality of the UK as a multinational, not a unitary state? That proposal was rejected. As a result—although, yes—would the First Minister recognise that the country is entirely divided down the middle and that it is the job of the First Minister surely to heal those divisions rather than make them worse? I believe very strongly that there is a difference of opinion about the best way forward. The best thing to do is to allow people to choose the best way forward. As a result of that proposal being rejected, although Scotland voted by 62 per cent to 38 per cent to stay within the European Union, we now face being taken out of the EU against our will. With massive implications for our economy, our society and our place in the world. Contrary to the promises made by the no campaign before the 2014 independence referendum, staying in the UK has not safeguarded Scotland's relationship with Europe, it has jeopardised it. Before last year's elections to this Parliament, the SNP's manifesto took account of that possibility. It said this, the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. It is worth being clear. That manifesto commitment, combined with the result of the Scottish election, which returned a pro-independence majority to this Parliament and then the outcome of the EU referendum, gives the Scottish Government an unquestionable democratic mandate for an independence referendum. Let me make some progress, I'll take an intervention shortly. There is an important point for those who seek to question that mandate. To suggest that an emphatic election victory on the basis of a clear manifesto commitment and a parliamentary majority on an issue does not provide a mandate, begs the question, what does, and it runs the real risk of undermining the democratic process. Lewis Macdonalds. I'm grateful to the First Minister and I know that she will acknowledge that at that election she lost her overall parliamentary majority. It's an important point if we're talking about mandates to make that point. Can she tell us what assessment she has made of the view of the Scottish people and the appetite of the Scottish people for the kind of referendum that she proposed last Monday? First Minister. We won the election on the basis of that proposition and, of course, the vote that will take place in this Parliament tomorrow evening will demonstrate very clearly whether or not there is a majority in this Parliament for that proposition. Notwithstanding the mandate that we have, I want to make some progress, notwithstanding the clear mandate that we have, however, the Scottish Government did not seek a referendum on independence immediately after the EU vote. Instead, we tried to find common ground with the UK Government. I want to make some progress. We tried to... Okay, I'll take an intervention. Ruth Davidson. On the point that the First Minister raises, can I ask her, were my ears deceiving me when I heard her within three hours of that vote being announced on the Friday morning, saying that she had already instructed civil servants and officials of the Scottish Government to draw up the necessary legislation for a second independence referendum? First Minister. I know that Ruth Davidson has a selective memory. She has, of course, forgotten that she said following the referendum that we should seek to stay in the single market. If Ruth Davidson had listened carefully, what she would have also heard me say that day was that I was determined to explore alternative options to independence. What I sought out to do was to find a way of allowing Scotland to stay in the UK while also protecting the most vital elements of our relationship with Europe. In other words, we tried to square the UK wide vote to leave the EU, with the Scottish vote to remain, and to give effect to how people in Scotland voted in both 2014 and 2016. We were encouraged in our endeavours by the initial comments of the Prime Minister who made a commitment last July to seek agreement with the devolved administrations before triggering article 50. In the compromise paper that we published in December, we argued firstly that the UK as a whole should stay inside the single market. That seemed the obvious consensus position in a state where 48 per cent of voters and two out of four nations voted to stay in the EU. That would also have been in line with the clear commitment in the Conservatives' own manifesto—not right now, I'm going to make some progress—yet, despite that, the Prime Minister ruled out single market membership without any prior consultation with the devolved administrations. That, in itself, was a breach of the commitment that she made in July. However, the Scottish Government also proposed ways in which, with political will, the option of Scotland staying in the single market, even if the rest of the UK chose to leave, might be achieved. We also proposed significant new powers for this Parliament, short of independence, that would help protect Scotland's interests in the post-Brexit landscape powers. That would effectively have delivered the federal solution that some in this chamber say they favour. However, all those efforts that compromise each and every one have been rejected. Indeed, there has been no meaningful attempt whatsoever by the UK Government to explore those options and find common ground, which brings me to where we are today. Having voted to remain in the EU, we face now being taken out against our will. The probability is that our exit, taking us outside the single market, will be on harder and harsher terms than most people, including many leave voters, would have supported in the run-up to last June's referendum. The voice of this Parliament has been ignored at every step of the way, and far from any indication of new powers, we now face the prospect of the UK Government using Brexit to reserve for itself powers in areas that are currently devolved to this Parliament. All of that raises fundamental questions for Scotland. If the UK Government can ignore this Parliament on one of the most fundamental issues that the country faces, what meaning can ever be attached to the idea that the UK is a partnership of equals? If the UK refuses to guarantee the rights of EU citizens and focuses on ending free movement, despite the fact that growing our population is economically essential for Scotland, what does that mean for Scotland's desire to be an open, inclusive, welcoming society? If the UK Government is determined to leave the single market, despite the wealth of evidence at doing so, could permanently weaken our economy, risking jobs, investment and trade, what does that mean for our living standards and our future prosperity? Add to all of that the fact that, because of the collapse of the Labour Party, the current UK Government could now be in power until 2030 or beyond, and it becomes clear that to Scotland faces a fundamental question. It is a question not just of how we respond to Brexit but about what sort of country we want Scotland to be. The answer to that question is surely one that should lie in our own hands, and that is the fundamental point at the heart of today's debate. As a country, we cannot avoid change, but we can choose what kind of change we want. Let me say quite clearly that I understand why many people do not relish the prospect of another referendum on a major issue within the space of a few years. That is something that weighs heavily on me, as I am sure it does with others. However, the alternative to planning now to give Scotland a choice is this. It is simply to drift through the next two years, crossing our fingers and hoping for the best while fearing the worst. Knowing that no matter how hard we work to avoid it, we may well have to accept a hard Brexit, come what may, no matter how damaging that turns out to be. It would mean accepting now that at the end of this process we will not even have the option of choosing an alternative path, that the direction of our nation will be decided for us. I do not consider that to be right or fair. The future of Scotland should not be imposed upon us, it should be the choice of the people of Scotland. I will take an intervention from you. I will take one from Willie Rennie. Ruth Davidson, first. The First Minister talks about the will— Sorry, I do not know Willie Rennie. Oh, sorry. Willie Rennie. I do not have that in the case of any previous. Alex Salmond, the First Minister's foreign affairs spokesman, said this morning that an independent Scotland would only seek membership of EFTA, not full membership of the European Union. How can the First Minister claim a mandate using the EU if she cannot even guarantee or even seek full membership of the European Union? The SNP's position in favour of membership of the EU is clear and it is long standing. What is beyond any doubt is that if we do not become independent then that membership of the EU is indeed because we are taken out against our will. I want to know, I am going to make some progress. I want to turn now, Presiding Officer, to the question of the timing of a referendum. As a matter of principle, the timing, together with decisions on franchise and subject to the advice of the electoral commission, the question should be for this Parliament to decide, just as it was in 2014. That decision should be taken in the interests of the Scottish people having an informed choice, not driven by a consideration of what is convenient for any politician or party. The Prime Minister has said that now is not the time, and I agree with that. The choice must be informed. That means that it should not happen before the terms of Brexit are known. In the speech that she gave at Lancaster House in January, the Prime Minister said this and I quote, I want us to have reached an agreement on our future partnership by the time the two-year article 50 process has concluded. If the Prime Minister is to deliver on that commitment, the terms of that agreement will require to be clear around six months in advance, autumn next year, to allow for the process of EU ratification. The European Commission has itself said that there will only be 18 months for negotiation. That has led to my view that the earliest time at which Scotland could make an informed choice would be the autumn of next year. However, it is also important that the choice is made while it is still possible in a timely manner to choose a different path. Therefore, it is also my judgment that the latest date for that choice—I am going to make progress, I have taken lots of interventions—I am going to make some progress. The latest date for that choice to be made should be around the time that the UK leaves the EU in the spring of 2019. That is the time frame that I am asking Parliament to endorse today, but let me make this clear, Presiding Officer. If the UK Government disagrees with that time frame, then they should set out a clear alternative and the rationale for it. As I have said in recent days, I am within reason happy to have that discussion to see if we can find common ground that I can then propose to this Parliament. However, it will simply not be acceptable for the UK Government to stand as a roadblock to the democratically expressed will of this Parliament. It is, of course, no, I am going to make some progress. It is, of course, entirely legitimate for the UK Government and for other parties in this chamber to robustly oppose independence. That is an honourable position, albeit one that I disagree with. However, in the circumstances that we now face, for the UK Government to stand in the way of Scotland, even having a choice would be, in my view, wrong, unfair and utterly unsustainable. Presiding Officer, no, I am going to make some progress. Let me now turn to the nature of that choice. I have already acknowledged that it must be an informed choice. That means that the people of Scotland need to know the terms of Brexit and be in a position to make an assessment of the pros and cons before making that choice. It also means that they need to understand the implications and opportunities of independence, whether on the economy, currency, Europe or the many other matters that people have questions about. Those of us who advocate independence have a responsibility to consider a range of issues in light of the change circumstances brought about by Brexit, circumstances that we did not choose to be in and then present that information in a clear way. That is exactly what we will do, and we will do so in good time to allow scrutiny and debate well in advance of a referendum that is at the earliest 18 months away. By doing so, we will allow people to make a genuinely informed choice between being taken down a hard Brexit path or becoming an independent country able to chart our own course. That will be in stark contrast to the EU referendum. Not only was there no detail and no answers before that vote, that remains the case, shamefully so, nine months after that vote. Let me seek to end on a note of consensus. We might differ on the best way forward, but I suspect that almost all of us across the parties can agree that we would rather not be in this situation. The majority of us wish that the UK as a whole had chosen to remain in the EU. We wish that the UK Government was pursuing continued single market membership, but we cannot avoid or ignore the consequences of the UK-wide vote or of the UK Government's response to it. My determination at all times since 23 June has been to stand up for Scotland's interests, and the support of this Parliament has been welcome. But nine months on, there is no indication at all that this Parliament's voice has carried any weight at Westminster. Instead, the UK Government is taking decisions entirely unilaterally that I and many others believe will deeply damage our economy, our society and our standing in the world. Whether we like it or not, Scotland again faces a fundamental decision about what sort of country we want to be. The question before this chamber is simple. Who gets to make that decision? The answer to that question cannot be me and it cannot be the Prime Minister. The decision about what kind of country we are and what path we take can only be made by the people of Scotland. It is for that reason that I ask members to support the motion before us today. I move the motion in my name. On Monday of last week, the First Minister announced her intention to demand a second referendum on independence. On Saturday of last week, the First Minister used her party conference speech to demand a second referendum on independence. Today we meet here to debate the SNP's demand for a second referendum on independence. At least this last week has shown everybody what the number one priority of this Scottish Government really is. It is separation, not education. This week they have made clear what comes first. We have heard the First Minister speak today. Let me run through what she said about a second referendum in times past. In August 2014, a month before we voted on independence, we were told that constitutional referenda are a once in a generation event. I take it that she does not deny saying that. A few weeks later, at her party conference speech, she summoned up all her gravitas to tell her delegates that another referendum in this Parliament without a change of opinion would be wrong and we won't do it. A year ago this very week, she and I addressed a federation of small business conference in Glasgow, where a businessman called Alan Robbie asked her why she was dragging us back to a referendum, and looking him in the eye, she promised him that if opinion stays as it was in the referendum, there won't be another referendum. She talks of outrage, and I wonder how outraged Mr Robbie is feeling today. Absolutely. I would just like to ask Ruth Davidson why she has omitted to quote the manifesto that I was elected as First Minister on last May. Ruth Davidson. Don't worry First Minister, I'm getting to that. What I will do is all through her speech, the First Minister was talking about the will of the people of Scotland. Let me read what our Premier Sephologist John Curtis has said. He says, each poll has asked a somewhat different question, but each has obtained much the same picture. Only just over a third say that there should be a second referendum, while around a half reckon there should not. The people of Scotland don't want this, and it won't wash to have a First Minister standing there, washing her hand saying it's not me that's dragging us there, it's with a heavy heart a big Tory did this and ran away. It won't do First Minister, take responsibility. All of those quotes that I gave you weren't enough. Just for good measure, in the live TV debates that we all took part in in April last year, watched by hundreds and thousands of Scotland's voters, the First Minister made herself clear. If support for independence doesn't increase, there won't be another referendum. Well, support hasn't increased. Indeed, according to the weekend's polls, the impact of the First Minister's big announcement last week has led to a drop in support for independence. But never mind, because if you're in the SNP, you don't need to acknowledge all promises, still less honour them. Instead, we are told today to forget about what was once said, and instead submit to the SNP's will. Well, we don't, and we won't. So, Presiding Officer, let me set out the many reasons why my party will be opposing the Government motion today, because it calls on this Parliament to gain the power to call a referendum between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of 2019. Order. Order. Kenny, one day you'll make it to the front bench, but it won't be this week. The motion also insists that it is only this Parliament that should have the sale over the franchise and the details of the referendum, and that bulldozer approach is completely at odds with the way in which the 2014 referendum was held. Back then, the SNP won a majority with a clear pledge to bring forward a referendum bill. The UK and the Scottish Governments worked together on proposals for a fair, legal and decisive referendum. The Edinburgh agreement was then signed with both sides promising to respect the result and how different things are today. Under this First Minister, the SNP lost its majority with no clear pledge to hold the referendum. I'm sorry, but believing something should happen if something else takes place might be many things, but it is not a clear mandate. Furthermore, the SNP wants to unilaterally decide on the rules and the timing of the referendum. We now know that there is no agreement between the UK and the Scottish Governments on the prospect of the referendum. I remind the SNP today that it wants to describe the last referendum with the Edinburgh agreement, with unanimous backing in this chamber, with 92 per cent support across the public, as the gold standard approach. Today, it is not the gold standard, it is a tin pot approach to the biggest decision that we could ever be asked to make. Let's cut to the chase. The SNP's plan last week weren't about trying to hold a fair, legal and decisive referendum, but it is really about a very well-rehearsed game, which is to put forward an unworkable proposal, to wait for Westminster politicians to point that out and then to rush to any nearby microphone with the angry face on and to trot out the same old tired complaints. Once upon a time, it might even have worked, but it won't any more because most people in Scotland are sick to death of the games. Most people in Scotland don't want another referendum anytime soon, just three years after the last one, and most people in Scotland see the plain common sense in our own position. Brexit is going to be a major challenge for this country, and none of us know how it will play out. None of us know how we will come through it, and none of us know what impact there will be for our country. That is exactly why we question how we can make a decision on our future constitutional path at a time of such uncertainty. Why start an independence referendum campaign now, at this very moment, when the process of leaving the EU is only just beginning? And why ask the people of Scotland to choose our future when they have not had the chance to see it playing out? And most of all, how can the SNP sit here today and demand another referendum when they still cannot answer the basic questions of their own proposition, on currency, on long-term membership of the European Union, on the cost of independence? Another SNP conference has gone by, another opportunity to answer even basic questions has been squandered. In short, the First Minister wants a date, but she won't give Scotland a plan, so our position is as follows. There cannot be a referendum until people know what they are voting for, until the Brexit process is complete and they know both what the UK and what independence looks like. You don't make a decision on leaving the UK by voting blind, and we also believe that there should not be one when there is no political or public consent for it. Not when we were promised by this First Minister it wouldn't take place for a generation, not when we were told that it wouldn't happen without a change of opinion, not when we know it will cause more division and more uncertainty for our country. I know that my plea will fall on deaf ears on the SNP benches, even among those who voted for Brexit and now see a sense in the pause. Apart from Alex Neil, they still haven't had the guts to stand up for their principle. But we know that the Scottish Greens are different. That's a party that claims to stand by its commitment, so we therefore call on them today to stick by their pledge to the people of Scotland. They said that it should only come about by the will of the people while there is not. They said that it should not be driven by the calculations of party political advantage while I'm afraid that there's plenty of that. So I warn them today, dump the promises and push this over the line, and their position as the self-appointed moral guardians in this place will be no more. Now I know that I'd absolutely be delighted to give way to the co-convener of the Green Party talking against his own manifesto pledge. Patrick Harvie. I'm grateful to the member for giving way, and I'm interested that she raises manifesto pledges. When I read in the Tory manifesto from 2015, on the very same page, on the very same page as the commitment to hold this reckless EU referendum, we are very clear about what we want from Europe. We say yes to the single market. Have I misunderstood the meaning of that apparently clear commitment? Ruth Davidson. The Prime Minister has already said that she wants UK firms, including Scottish ones, to be able to operate within and trade to the single market. The water boundary is fantastic. If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage. Pin that to your front as you go through the voting booths, Patrick. Now I know that all of the analysis and commentary surrounding today's debate is pointed to a predetermined result, and that there's little point that's all turning up because we all know how it's going to end, with the Greens dutifully backing the SNP as of times before and as Patrick has just admitted. Even in the groundhog day that is Scottish constitutional politics, I have a longer memory, to a time when parties across the constitutional divide united to act for the country. I remember in September of last year when this Parliament voted for ministers to call in major NHS service changes six months on and no action by the Scottish Government. Also in September, the Parliament voted to ban fracking now. I didn't back it, but the votes were there for it in this chamber and no action by the Scottish Government. In November, the Scottish Parliament voted to abolish the offensive behaviour at football act four months on, no action by the Scottish Government. In January, this Parliament voted against SNP plans to scrap the Highlands and Islands Enterprise boards, no action by the Scottish Government. Just this month, the Parliament voted against SNP plans to abolish the Scottish funding council. Five times in six months the will of the Scottish Parliament has been clear and five times in six months this SNP Government has chosen to ignore it. If today the vote does go as all the commentators expect, I hope that SNP members will reflect as they are crying grievance. Why do they explain that the Westminster Government should recognise votes in the Scottish Parliament when the Scottish Government does not do so? To those Scots who are watching at home, will the SNP explain to them why votes on crucial issues such as health, education funding, enterprise and energy should be willfully ignored by the SNP Government? However, when it comes to independence and only when it comes to independence, Holyrood is sacrificed. This referendum may be this First Minister's priority, but it is not mine and it is not that of my party. We say, let this Parliament focus on the issues that we were elected to deliver on, on better schools, on a sustainable NHS, on a growing economy and on a strong Scotland as part of a strong United Kingdom. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I now call on Kezia Dugdale to speak to and to move the amendment in her name. Kezia Dugdale I wish that this was the start of a two-day debate on education in Scotland, that we could focus on the need to close the attainment gap, we could put forward proposals to give young people the best chance in life, we could come up with innovative ways to lift 260,000 Scottish children out of poverty, but instead we are back talking about the only thing that has ever really mattered to the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon wakes up every single day thinking of ways to engineer another referendum, because leaving the UK is the only thing that matters to her. It is not improving education in Scotland, it is not living children out of poverty, it is independence. That will always come first and the truth is that it always has. When the first majority Labour Government established the NHS and the welfare state, the SNP wanted Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. When the last Labour Government introduced ground-breaking anti-discrimination laws, maternity and paternity leave, the national minimum wage, tax credits, rights at work and civil partnerships, the SNP were arguing for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. When the UK Labour Government delivered a Scottish Parliament, it expressed will of the people following a referendum, the SNP still campaigned for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. Brexit is not the motivation for another referendum, it is just the latest excuse. We have heard a lot from the First Minister about mandate, but people have noticed the shift in the SNP's language. They used to demand that the will of the Scottish people be respected, but the will of the Scottish people was very clearly expressed in 2014. 85 per cent of our fellow citizens voted in the first referendum, and they voted by a very clear majority to remain in the United Kingdom. More than 2 million Scots in the biggest mandate ever given to any political leaders in Scotland's history voted to remain in the UK. That is the will of the Scottish people and that is what should be respected. We have already heard from the First Minister about the need to respect the will of this Parliament. If only she had respected the mandate given to Government by this chamber before now. If she had, several local NHS services would be free from the threat of closure hanging above their head. The First Minister would have banned fracking and she would have scrapped the football act, too. This Parliament has had its say on Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Funding Council. Will the First Minister respect that? Will this Parliament voted to demand a change of course from the nationalists on education? Given that that is apparently her defining priority, surely the First Minister will respect that. When this Parliament votes for another referendum, as it inevitably will, thanks to the perpetual crutch that the Greens provide, let's not pretend that it reflects the will of the Scottish people. Because it doesn't. The people of Scotland do not want another divisive referendum. Last week, the First Minister said that the 2014 referendum wasn't divisive. She obviously didn't speak to many people beyond her own party faithful, because my experience and the experience of the very many Scots who have taken the time to tell me on the doorstep in the street and by email is that this country, their country, felt more divided than at any time in their lived memory. Families argued, colleagues fell out and communities were split down the middle. No bus, no train, no pub, no community centre, no workplace, no living room escaped that fallout. Last Monday, the first day of this campaign felt just as hostile and polarised as the 847th and final day of the last. Where does it end? Some of those who voted to leave the UK and the majority who voted to remain in the UK don't want to go back to the divisions of the past. But if there is to be another referendum, if the First Minister must drag the people of Scotland back there, the Labour Party will campaign with everything that we have to remain in the United Kingdom. Let me tell you why. If you want to have a different result from the last time, you might want to listen to people who do not agree with you. I believe in the United Kingdom, not as a symbol of past glories or purist ideology, but as a living, breathing union of nations that delivers for the people of Scotland. The pensioners whose income is secured through a UK state pension and benefit system. The shipyard workers who are in jobs because of UK defence contracts. The staff in East Kilbride who deliver aid to some of the poorest countries in the world on behalf of all of us. The schools that are built because of the extra money that we receive by being in the UK. The NHS that we built together and is sustained because we pool and share our resources across the whole of Britain. The businesses, large and small, are able to thrive because of access that they have to our UK single market. The scientists who carry out lifesaving medical research because of funding from UK research councils. Those are the things that I value the most. Those are the things that being part of the United Kingdom has delivered for families across Scotland, so much prosperity and security. At a time when so much of the world is ravaged by division, when the trend in too many places is separation, I value the fact that our four nations come together to share sovereignty and resources, that we recognise that together we are stronger more so than we ever could be apart. I say to the members opposite. It is not this union of nations that is intrinsically unjust or unfair. It is the actions of the powerful within it. I hate what the Tories are doing to Britain. I have never felt anger like it. The austerity programme is destroying public services that we all value and the poorest rely on. However, the SNP cannot escape from the facts. Leaving the UK would make things much worse for the poorest people in Scotland. In the six years that I have sat in this chamber, I have never once heard a convincing argument to the contrary, because separation would mean—let's see if Kevin can give us one. Kevin Stewart. Ms Dugdale has just mentioned poor folk there. As we see the Tories' advanced austerity agenda and make poor folk even poorer, is she happy to go around doors saying that she's going to be happy with a Tory Government for the next 10, 20, 30 years? Kevin Stewart. The problem for Kevin Stewart and the rest of the SNP members is that they want to replace Tory austerity with turbocharged austerity, because the truth of the matter is, separation would mean £15 billion of cuts, £15,000 million of cuts to schools and hospitals. The Government's own figures tell us that. It means cuts to pensions. John Swinney told us that. It means an end to UK defence contracts that keep thousands in work. Those are the facts. The nationalists don't want to hear them. They will howl and they will rage. They will question the patriotism of those who back unity over division, but they cannot escape the reality. We are stronger, richer, fairer and a better nation by remaining in the United Kingdom. Tomorrow evening, Scottish Labour MSPs will vote against the divisive second independence referendum. That was our manifesto commitment to the people of Scotland, and we will honour it. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I now call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move the amendment in his name. Thank you. It's nice to be given such a warm welcome. I appreciate it very much. If we are at the beginning of potentially two years of debate on the independence question again, it's important that we recognise the mixed feelings that exist. I'm sure I'm not the only member who's seen angry emails on both sides of the debate telling me that an independence referendum is an absolute priority or something that must be opposed absolutely. I've seen keyboard warriors on both sides. I've also spoken face to face to many people who remain as yet unconvinced or who have mixed feelings. Equally, we have to acknowledge that there are a great many people in Scotland who believe, whether reluctantly or with enthusiasm, that the future of Scotland has to be decided not by one Parliament or the other or by one Government or the other but by the people who live here. Before our political future was thrown into turmoil nine months ago, most independence supporters, I know, understood that this was more likely to be again a long-term aspiration and we're going to build that case over that long-term and that included my own party. We suggested one means by which the issue could be revisited, but in assessing what the will of the people means, as so many people are keen to use that phrase, yes, we have to acknowledge that 2014 was an expression of the will of the people, but so was 2016 and the 62 per cent who voted to remain inside the European Union, that is also an expression of the will of the people that must be respected. I'm very grateful to Mr Harvey. Can he tell me what assessment he has done of the will of the Scottish people in 2017? Do they want it or not? The two clearest recent expressions of the will of the people are 55 per cent voting to remain part of the UK two and a half years ago and 62 per cent voting to remain part of the European Union just nine months ago. If the UK Government had shown any interest in reconciling those two positions, we might not be where we are today. Ruth Davidson. I thank Patrick Harvey for giving me, because I know that he's just taken an intervention. On the very point that he raises, will he address and acknowledge that the question in 2016 was about the UK staying part of the European Union? It just said nothing about Scotland as anything different. Will he also acknowledge that there are thousands of Scots, including many in this chamber, who are furious that their vote to remain has been appropriated as some sort of vote for independence when it was no such thing? There are such people and there are also those who are equally furious that their vote no in 2014 is being taken as an excuse to take us out of the European Union against our will. It is absurd to suggest that we should not respond to and react to the situation and the fundamentally changed circumstances that we have found ourselves in. Ruth Davidson a few minutes ago said, Do not just say that a big Tory did it and ran away. Well, good grief, I wish they would, but they are dragging us with them. That is the problem. One more. Neil Findlay. If at some point Scotland was to leave the EU and under his plans should there be another EU referendum if Scotland is ever to seek to go back in? I am perfectly open to that debate when the time comes. The question here is whether we seek a section 30 order to argue, as my party did five months ago in October, as we took that decision to our party members to ask whether they supported the call for a section 30 order and they did, and I was happy to vote with them. The situation has changed not only by the EU referendum result but by everything that the UK Government has done with it. The recklessness of holding that referendum to resolve their internal squabbles, their utter lack of a plan, astonishing to be told by Ruth Davidson now that there shouldn't be a referendum till people know what they are voting for after we have seen what happened with the utter lack of a plan of what to do next in the EU referendum and the disrespect that has shown to Scotland since then. The UK Government is using a narrow UK-wide majority not only to ignore their own commitments to the single market, as I mentioned earlier, very clearly five or six times on the very same pages as the commitment to hold that referendum on their manifesto, commitments to stay in and protect the single market, but also prominent leave campaigners, Daniel Hannan from the Tory party. Absolutley nbody is talking about threatening our place in the single market. Oen Paterson MP, his language would never be mine on any subject. Oen Paterson's language would never be mine on any subject. Only a man would, he said, would actually leave the market. Nigel Farage, Matthew Elliott, Aaron Banks and others. Look here, Ruth Davidson as well, not just during the EU referendum debate but after the result was in I want to stay ar gyfer y swyddfa oedd oedd! colours of the consequences of that are retaining free movement of labour. Yes. I gave her credit for that at the time and I think her abandonment of that position is disgraceful. Whether you believe, Presiding Officer, in a deregulate free market or, as I do, if you place value on the raft of social environmental and economic regulations that have come from the the European Union being achieved there and which protect our quality of life. The argument about how a single market works, about what it means, are critical and it must include a shared approach to regulation and to freedom of movement. We've already heard and will continue to hear mealy-mouthed terms like access to the single market. Access to the single market. It cannot be taken seriously, that kind of language, because it won't mean access for people deciding where they want to move to work. It won't mean access only for business. If you're not free to decide, unimpeded, where you wish to sell your labour, you're not in a single market. If anyone is to be accused of breaking promises today, it's the Tory party in both parliaments. The Green amendment talks of the terms in which this Parliament should set the franchise and the timing. Young voters and citizens of other EU countries were deliberately excluded from the vote last year by the UK Government. We should not be satisfied at that. Neither group was expected to be particularly pro-independence in 2014, but we all agreed that they had a right to take part to determine the future of the country that they live in. Those who have chosen to come here from other EU countries in particular have been treated in the shabbiest way possible by the UK Government. Their lives, their careers, their contribution to our society and the future of their families treated as playthings. I think that even those who hold an affection for the UK as a political union or for Britishness as an identity must surely look at the way that the UK Government is treating our friends, neighbours and colleagues and be ashamed. In relation to the Labour and Liberal Democrats amendments, they both sound like a bit of wishful thinking—a fantasy of a federal UK that simply doesn't exist. The idea of Scotland's strong place in a federal Britain, which does not exist, Labour has chosen to play the Gordon Brown card pretty early this time around. I wonder what they are holding back for the final weeks of this time. As for the Liberal Democrats, yes, indeed. I understand that Patrick Harvie will spend the next two years campaigning for independence, but will he spend all of his time doing that, or will he make the case for powers that we know are coming back from Brussels to come to this place? I am not resigned to being taken out of the European Union against the will of the people of Scotland, and today's debate is about holding line against that. At the UK level, they are going around kidding on that they are the only pro-EU party left, while here in Scotland they want the Westminster Parliament to block our only remaining path to EU membership. As for the Conservative amendment, it seems bizarre to suggest that the Scottish Government must work together with the UK when it takes to tangle. UK ministers have blanked Scotland entirely in this process, ruling out negotiations to respect the way that Scotland voted. Theresa May promised to develop a shared approach with all the devolved Administrations before moving forward with article 50. We can now see how empty that promise was. Finally, on the question of timing, the idea of delaying that until after 2019, after we have been given the opportunity to see how our new relationship with Europe is working, it fundamentally misrepresents leaving the EU as something good instead of the act of political wreckage that it is. In 2018, we will be after the negotiation concludes when there is clarity about the arrangements. A deal negotiated by a UK Government Scotland did not choose, with an EU institution on which Scotland is no longer represented, Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for either, and then a period of ratification by every other European country, would leave the future of Scotland in the hands of everybody else in the whole of Europe, the citizens of Scotland, the only people voiceless, voiceless in that process. I do not think that we can accept that. I will not vote for it and I move the amendment in my name. Willie Rennie to move and speak to the amendment in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Liberal Democrats will vote against the Government's motion tomorrow. We are opposed to another divisive independence referendum. First of all, I want to address the issue of the cast iron mandate. For the SNP's mandate, another divisive referendum is based on the European Union. However, the SNP will now tell us that it will not seek or guarantee membership of the European Union with its referendum, only according to Alex Hammond, his official foreign affairs spokesperson. The ex- First Minister very clearly said that the EFTA is what it is after the European Economic Area, so it will use the EU to get the referendum, even though its referendum will not get the EU. We know the reason why. It is cynically courting one in three independent supporters who backed Brexit, some of them in this chamber here today. They are prepared to use pro-Europeans to get a referendum but to sell them out to win independence. It is low politics for narrow game. It seems like from a different time, but we can recall the budget just a few weeks ago, the triumph of a budget where the secured funds that were going to be spent anyway are not a penny extra for the environment. Far from being bold and green, it was a bland shade of beige. That was the first broken promise of this year. Now we have the verbal gymnastics of Patrick Harvie, arguing that manifesto commitments do not count anymore. What happened to this participative democracy? What happened to the one million names on a petition? Where is the role of the people deciding whether to have another referendum? Patrick's idea of participative democracy is a few green members gathering on a wet Saturday afternoon in Perth to airbrush out their manifesto commitment. How can the First Minister claim a cast-iron mandate if she is dependent on the Greens who did not even have it in their manifesto? That is the cast-iron mandate of the SNP. In just three months, two manifesto commitments have blown out of the water that people will remember Patrick Harvie and his excuses. Tomorrow, I predict that the SNP and its online bedroom warriors will be battering their keyboards, demanding that the will of the Scottish Parliament be respected. I do not recall those masses demanding the SNP respect the will of the Parliament when it voted to save the Highlands and Islands enterprise or the Scottish Funding Council or the outrage when they ignored it. I do not recall the marches on the street of this capital when the Government ignored the vote on the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act or the local health services or the education performance. I could go on and on, but for those people, somehow Parliament only counts when it agrees with the Scottish National Party. This Parliament has been systematically undermined by the SNP when it does not agree with the SNP but when they demand it be respected when they ever will wish. This Scottish Parliament is not the Parliament of the Scottish National Party. The referendum in 2014 was a fair, legal and decisive vote, as agreed and specified by the Edinburgh agreement. With great fanfare, the agreement was signed at a grand occasion high up at St Andrew's house, with high security but nobody watching. A special broadcast by the First Minister at the time was made to mark this special occasion. Both sides were supposed to respect the result. With such demands, today they are breaching the Edinburgh agreement. That is what the Scottish National Party is doing. It does not bode well for the ability of an independent Scotland sticking to international treaties if it cannot even stick to this agreement that it signs now. Alex Sammond said that the referendum in 2014 was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Some may have heard him at the weekend. He denied he ever said it, despite it being on the record. We have got it on YouTube. Then he denied that he denied it, despite that being on YouTube too. Then he dismissed the whole thing as being complete and utter nonsense. It is the fastest denial about a denial about a broken promise that has ever been given. How long is forever said Alice? Sometimes just one second said the white rabbit. Time is a relative concept, especially in Wonderland, or indeed in the SNP's Scotland. Mr Rennie, I have a point of order. Ms Martin, I hope that this is a point of order and not to interrupt your disguise as a point of order. In section 7.3, in a debate, you need to show courtesy to others in the chamber. Not taking any interventions when you are delivering a speech at any point in your speech is not shown respect to the other members in the chamber. That is not a point of order. Will you, Rennie? I think that the Presiding Officer knew the answer to his own question before he allowed the point of order. Nevertheless, I am sure that we have all had it in the past 10 days. The torrent of abuse from SNP supporters stirred from their three-year slumber by the call to arms by our First Minister. The feeling of dread that even the First Minister acknowledged at the weekend will divide families, communities and friends. That is exactly what happened last time. If they are deaf to that, they need to get a life. That personal division is good enough on its own to oppose another referendum, but there is wider division 2. Division with Europe is not resolved by division in the UK. The response to a hard Conservative Brexit is not hard SNP independence. We do not mount chaos on to chaos of Brexit with the chaos of independence. We do not respond to the break from Europe with a break from the United Kingdom. It is that divisive politics that I opposed in the referendum last year on Brexit, and I will oppose on independence too. We have got an awful lot more to do in this country. This Government is distracted by its mission of independence. We just have to have seen the excitement on their faces the last few days, the smiles, the anticipation of those benches slavering at the prospect of another independence debate. This Government is distracted by its lifelong mission of independence, yet the performance of our education system is slipping down the international rankings. The poor mental health services that Scotland deserves better from, the sluggish economy, the struggling care services, the climate change targets missed. All those things should be what gets this Government excited but never does. You can tell the SNP's priority what gets them exercised. Today has blown apart any idea that they were in this for the greater good. They are only in it for their own good. We have made great progress in reforming our United Kingdom. In just 20 years, we have created this Parliament based on proportional representation, built on the foundations of human rights, gaining more powers, including most recently, over tax. We should be proud of what we achieve together—together, everybody in this Parliament working together. I want to create a federal United Kingdom with power shared across the country, with a written constitution, fair votes and an elected second chamber. Those are the reforms that are on the way to make our United Kingdom even stronger. The campaign for independence undermines that chance, undermines that momentum. There is a positive case for the United Kingdom. The economic case for the UK is even stronger than in 2014, but it is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. It is about the values that we share. It is about the compassion that has built some of the best charities in the world, such as Oxfam, Save the Children and British Charities spreading compassion across the world. It is about the compassion that has built the second-biggest aid budget in the world. It does not like it. The compassion that has built one of the best health services in the world is not about flags, it is about the ties that bind us together. No Scottish nationalist here or anywhere else in Scotland will ever tell me that I should be ashamed of those ties and that compassion. That is the modern United Kingdom that I am proud to be part of. The Liberal Democrats stated clearly in our manifesto that we would oppose another divisive independence referendum, and that is exactly what we will do. We now move to the open part of the debate. I will call Bruce Crawford first to be followed by Adam Tomkins. Over the course of the coming days and weeks as we debate whether the people of Scotland are to be given a choice over the future direction of our country, one small but very important word should be our byword. I have heard that I have used a number of times today that word is respect. Like others, I have read many articles already in comments that contain the language of hatred and division. We should declare that it is time to stop it and stop it now. We in this place have a special responsibility and a public duty to show leadership and respect to each other and how we carry out this course of this debate. I saw a couple of comments last week that I think we would do well to dwell on. First, in an excellent blog from Chris Creegan, the chief executive of the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability, a couple of sentences from his blog sum up the kernel of the message he was trying to get across. He said, If we characterise our opponents as divisive, we will divide. If we use the language of hate, we will create bitterness. Secondly, in an important intervention from the Church of Scotland where they said that there is nothing inevitable about this debate being divisive and acrimonious. I implore all those who take part in this great debate, but particularly my colleagues and friends from across the parties in this Parliament, let's lead from the front and show respect for each other's point of view. Of course, the debate will be passionate, it will be hard-argued and we will vehemently disagree with each other, but that does not mean that we need to lead to the use of language that creates division and bitterness. However, the debate at its core is about the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and the fundamental democratic principle of giving them the choice of the future direction of their country. I hope that I am correct in the belief that the sovereignty of the people of Scotland still extends beyond the seats occupied by the members of the Scottish National Party and the Green Party. I also fully understand that there will be those in this chamber for their own legitimate reasons who believe that the UK Parliament is sovereign. However, for those of us who believe in the principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, I cannot see how we can come to any other conclusion. We have to enable our citizens with the right to choose their future. I know, too, that there are those in this chamber who argue that the people of Scotland have already decided in 2014 that they do not want Scotland to become an independent country. Let me be clear that myself and my colleagues all accepted and respected that result. Of course, it is not as simple as that and to think otherwise is an exercise in delusion because, of the EU referendum result, last year saw 62 per cent of the people of Scotland choosing to remain within the EU, providing our country of Scotland with a democratic puzzle, a democratic conundrum, if you like. That is not a conundrum that can or should be resolved by politicians in Holyrood or Westminster. Only the people who pose this conundrum in the first place have the responsibility, indeed, to resolve it. That is the people of Scotland. That right of giving our people the choice to decide their future was strengthened by the election of an SNP Government in last May. A Government elected, as the First Minister has said, with a cast iron mandate, with a manifesto that declared. I want to repeat this because it is important that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum, if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. In a delicious irony, the right of choice for our people was given even greater weight as a result of the arguments that were deployed by the defenders of the union themselves during the 2014 referendum. They argued strongly and with real passion that Scotland's place in the EU would be jeopardised if we voted just. It was a central plank of the better together campaign. A position that was neatly summed up in a tweet for the better together campaign on 2 September 2014. What is the process for removing our EU citizenship voting yes? A position that was neatly summed up by that. As it turns out, voting no in 2014 has proved to be the option of guaranteeing the removal of our EU citizenship. I am not taking intervention today, but plenty of time over the next two days for lots of people to contribute to this debate in a sensible way. As the First Minister of Scotland has rightly said, as soon as it is clear what the shape of the Brexit deal actually means for Scotland, then the people of Scotland have the right to have their sovereign voice heard. Our people did not choose the hard Brexit route being proposed by the most right-wing Government that has existed in this country at any time during my lifetime. The next two years will decide Scotland's future. Westminster will get its say on the outcome of Brexit, the European Parliament will get its say on the outcome of Brexit and the 27 other remaining countries of the EU will get their say on the outcome of Brexit. Yet our citizens are to be denied, I do not think so. They have the right to make their choice to have their voice heard over the future direction of their country before it is too late for them to change direction. For those of us who believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, I say at decision time tomorrow, vote to let the people speak. It is a real pleasure to follow my friend and colleague Bruce Crawford in this debate, and if the whole of the debate could be conducted in the tone that Bruce Crawford just set, then perhaps we wouldn't be quite such a divided country. States in the United States of America have no right to secede. The Spanish constitutional court takes the same approach as regards Catalonia. In Canada, Quebec and the other provinces also have no unilateral right of secession. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 that a clear expression of a desire to pursue secession in a referendum would give rise to an obligation on all parties to confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. But the obligation on Canada and on the other provinces would be to come to the negotiating table, not a duty to deliver secession. The court expressly rejected what it called the absolutist proposition—the court's words are not mine—that there would be a legal obligation on the other provinces and on the federal government to accede to the secession of a province subject only to negotiation of logistical details. The contrast with the United Kingdom position is clear. The United Kingdom made it perfectly plain in 2012-14 that if Scotland voted yes, Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and become a new independent state in international law. Canada never made disconcession in the Quebec secession referendums, and in 1998 the Supreme Court upheld Canada's decision not to do so. The United Kingdom takes a remarkably generous approach to secession, not at the moment. The United Kingdom takes a remarkably generous approach to secession, much more generous than the United States or Spain, and more generous also than Canada. But there is a political price to be paid for this constitutional accommodation. Here in Britain secession proceeds by agreement, not by the unilateral demands of a separatist government acting alone. No, not at the moment. For the Scottish independence referendum, that agreement was reached in 2012 in the so-called Edinburgh agreement, one of the signatories to which was the current First Minister. That agreement bound both the United Kingdom and the Scottish governments to conduct the referendum in accordance with a number of mutually agreed ground rules. There were rules about campaign spending, rules about the setting of the referendum question, rules about the franchise and a rule for what little it turned out to be worth that the result of the referendum would be respected by both sides. Also agreed by the two governments was the question of timing. The referendum had to be held within a certain agreed timetable. The contrast between 2012 and the First Minister's unilateral demand for a second independence referendum to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of 2019 could hardly be greater. No state governor would get away with that in the United States, and neither would any provincial premier in Canada. The Prime Minister of this United Kingdom was absolutely right to rule it out. I give way to the First Minister. I have set out what I think would be the sensible time frame, but I have said again in this chamber today that I am willing to discuss that with the UK Government. The question is, is the UK Government willing to come to the negotiating table to discuss it with me? Does Adam Tomkins think that the UK Government should come to that table to have that discussion? Yes or no? Adam Tomkins. The First Minister, in her remarks earlier on this afternoon, said that the question of timing should be for this Parliament. That is not how we did it in 2012 and it is not how we did it in 2014. The question of timing was agreed between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. I would have thought that the First Minister would remember that, given that her signature is on the Edinburgh agreement. The Edinburgh agreement was based on a number of clear and firm principles. It was not a free floating compromise that rested on nothing more secure than the shifting sands of political expediency. It was a principled agreement based on a sober and mature understanding of the right constitutional way to go about the business of secession. It said that an independence referendum had to be fair, clear, legal and decisive. That is the second reason why the Prime Minister was right to reject the SNP's unilateral demand for a second referendum. An independence referendum triggered by the First Minister's dismay at the result of the UK's decision to leave the European Union could not fairly be held until two things are clear and settled. First, how the UK's new relationship with the European Union would operate. Secondly, what an independent Scotland's relationship with the EU would be. Would we be required to take steps to join the euro? Would we be required to join the Schengen free movement area? How would compliance with the Maastricht convergence criteria impact on Scotland's £15 billion deficit and what would happen to the border with the rest of the United Kingdom? These are just some of the questions which require to be asked and answered before any demand for a second independence referendum can reasonably be exceeded to. As we repeatedly saw last week, Scottish ministers are nowhere near being able to answer any of these questions. They are clueless on the currency at sea on Schengen in denial about the deficit and bewildered by the border, unable to answer even the most basic questions about the proposition they seek to put before the Scottish people again. That brings me to the point about consent. No new independence referendum should be contemplated in Scotland until a clear majority of Scots want one. Poll after poll after poll shows not only that there is no such majority but that the clear majority of Scots do not want to go through this again. Those are the words the First Minister needs to hear. We are the people, and we said no, and we meant it. I call Jenny Gilruth to be followed by Anna Sarwar. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the education secretary. I thank Adam Tomkins for the European constitutional lecture. You might get a bit of a modern studies lesson from me this afternoon. Behind you, Presiding Officer, are people—at least the outline of people. That was what Morales intended when he designed this place. My higher class once told me that they were more reminiscent of vodka bottles, and while I told him that I could not possibly comment, there is nonetheless a powerful, immoderate implicit. The eyes of the nation and the world are on Scotland right now, watching. I know from my friends working hard at the chalkface in modern studies classrooms that lend and bred the country. Their pupils are transfixed. Today and tomorrow they will be paying close attention. They will have been taught about the additional member voting system across between first pass the post and proportional representation, a system far more democratic than first pass the post, one that affords smaller parties a fairer share of the vote, one that was designed to guard against majority government and, indeed, has been very successful in doing so in four out of the five elections that we have held since this place reconvened. You might have noticed that we do not all agree when it comes to Scotland's constitutional future, but today's debate should not be conflated with the yes-no arguments from 2014, like a bad rerun of friends with Gordon Brown playing a not-so-funny version of Chandler. The debate has moved on. The goalposts have shifted against the wishes of every single political leader in Scotland. We made a choice as a country in 2014. We all live with that choice every day, but our manifesto commitment was clear. It stated that if there was a material change in circumstance like Scotland being dragged out of the EU against her will, that would be grounds for a second independence referendum. It is hardly a state secret. We are the Scottish National Party after all. I suppose that the press pack watching from on high that this debate is a fetta company. Unionist parties say no, pro-Indie parties say yes, and then we wait and see what London has to say to it. London, who yesterday forgot to inform Scotland that article 50 will be triggered next week. Yes, we are in a partnership of equals, all right. In June 2015, commenting in the Guardian, Ruth Davidson said, I actually don't think in the longer term Westminster saying no, you can't, will play well in Scotland, and I think that it would damage the Unionist cause. So can I say to Ruth Davidson, who grew up in my constituency, across the hill from me actually, on this point, Ruth, you are absolutely correct. Ruth Davidson is, of course, of a different generation than I am. In fact, we are four generations apart if you go by Kezia Dugdale's math skills. So what about today's generation? What about the kids who are growing up right now across the water, 10 minutes from where I and the leader of the Opposition grew up? In 2013 statistics showed that 27 per cent of children in the Glenrothes and Central Fife constituency were living in poverty. Only parts of Glasgow recorded worse figures. In Buckhaven, where the leader of the Opposition went to high school, that figure stood at 38 per cent—almost four in 10 children living in poverty. Scottish Government figures that were published last week reported that roughly 260,000 children are living in poverty nationally. That is an increase of 4 per cent from last year. John Dickie, director of the child poverty action group in Scotland, described the figures as devastating. He stated last week that those statistics are a stark reminder of why the UK chancellor needs to end the freeze on family benefits and reverse cuts to universal credit for working families if the UK Government's rhetoric on supporting ordinary families is to mean anything. So today's debate matters to these children— There's a wee bit too much mumbling off, could I hear this, please? Thank you. Thank you. So today's debate matters to these children, it matters to their future, it matters to their ambitions and to their aspirations. Earlier this month I attended the official opening of the new Leithmouth academy, a school that would not have existed were it not for £25 million of direct Scottish Government investment. The Deputy First Minister told pupils that every person who comes into the door of the school has the right to expect the best possible start in life. That is not a political statement. Unlike schools in the Deputy First Minister's constituency, can you confirm that that school has enough teachers? Jenny Gilruth. I will be taking no lectures on education from the Conservative Party, who seek to provide selective education in England at the moment and divide people according to ability. When the pupils leave Leithmouth academy, they might be lucky, like Ruth Davidson and I, they might leave for the big smoked study at university or college, but what about jobs? In recent years, my constituency has suffered disproportionately at the hands of Tory austerity. Since the independence referendum, we have had job losses in. The HMRC jobs in Glenruthis October 2014, Bilux windows in the town also October 2014, Cullish Russell paper mill June 2015, pro-clad manufacturing last March, Clyde steel bank in Leven in January. I was in Glenruthis yesterday afternoon and as I was walking through the kingdom centre, I couldn't help but reflect on how the town had changed since I was growing up. The pawn shops, the discount bargain stores, the empty shop fronts. The Fraser of Allander institute has estimated that a hard Brexit could cost 80,000 Scottish jobs within a decade and cost working folk an average of £2,000 in their wages. I will not go back up the road to my constituents and pretend that the status quo is delivering for them. That patently is not the case. If MSPs vote tomorrow against the Government's motion, then they are merely and meekly capitulating with Tory austerity. It is the rollover Beethoven School of Politics and, quite frankly, Scotland deserves better. To the pupils studying right now for their final exams, finishing their added value units, preparing their assignments, remember this. The political parties of Scotland will take a vote on Wednesday. The outcome of that vote will determine your future and the opportunities that you will have when you leave the school gates. We say in the Scottish National Party that power should always rest with the people, so let us wait and see who is brave enough in this place to let the people decide on Scotland's future. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Jenny Gilruth for confirming that it is SNP policy that a generation represents four years. Here we go again. The First Minister in her opening contribution said that she regrets that we are here. The reality is that she is delighted that we are here, because the truth is that she has not stood up for Scotland's interests. She is standing up for her and the SNP's interests by pursuing another referendum. She talks about the will of Parliament, but she ignores the will of the people of Scotland while at the same time trying to hide behind the so-called will of Parliament. Just on the will of Parliament, why does she ignore the will of Parliament when it came to cutting local NHS services? Why does she ignore the will of Parliament when she criminalised football fans with the offensive behaviour of football act? Why does she ignore the will of Parliament when she wanted to damage our environment with fracking? Why does she ignore the will of Parliament when she wanted to abolish the funding council? And why does she continue to ignore the will of Parliament on her continued failings in our education and healthcare system? Every single step along the way, ignoring the will of this Parliament when it suits her. I have to thank the Greens, because they supported us on all the issues that I raised that were important to the people of Scotland. I have to say that when it comes to the crunch as the budget vote showed, it will always seek to protect the yes alliance first and Scotland second. This is a party that is meant to be environmentalists. There's been a campaign for climate justice. The truth is that Patrick Harvie is a nationalist first and environmentalist second. I'll happily take the intervention. I'm grateful for the intervention. Mr Sarwar, though, does need to decide whether he acknowledges that we challenge and vote against the SNP on issues that matter to us, or whether he thinks that we're just going along with them on any other issue. The two can't both be true. Does he not acknowledge that the Labour Party bears some responsibility for where we are now, with the lackluster remain campaign from Jeremy Corbyn after Labour voted in favour of the reckless EU referendum and then handed the UK Government a blank cheque Brexit? If you want to talk about lackluster campaigns, Nicola Sturgeon spent the entire campaign going to the rest of the UK attacking the remain campaign. That was Nicola Sturgeon's contribution to the debate. I say to Patrick when it came to the budget, he voted for cuts to communities right across the country. Let me just say to every single SNP member, let's stop pretending that somehow you're so passionate about the European Union, and that's why you've been dragged to this referendum debate. If you genuinely believed that being in favour of leaving the European Union would help the case of independence, you would argue that case, because you believe in nothing except independence. You talk about democracy. Nicola Sturgeon talks about democracy. The truth is that we've had two referendum debates, and the nationalists don't accept the result of either one of them. They only want democracy when it suits them. All they care about is independence at any cost. Let's talk about the day job. Do you remember, Deputy Presiding Officer, the way for independence was to demonstrate that perhaps the SNP was a competent Government? No more the case. After 10 years of this SNP Government, health inequality on the rise, the attainment gap widening, the wealth gap increasing, child poverty increasing, and life expectancy failing to rise for the first time in Scotland since 1851. That's a record that she's shamed every single member on the SNP bench, but instead it doesn't, because for each and every single one of them, they prefer the anger and grievance that they're actually using, the powers to actually make a difference. The First Minister says about anger. She's right. I am angry. I am angry that we have a First Minister who would rather use the powers and the power of our First Minister's office to seek to divide the United Kingdom and divide Scotland rather than transform the lives of the men, women and children of this country. She should be ashamed of herself. We heard from Bruce Crawford and from Patrick Harvie about the type of debate. I'll tell you the type of debate we need. We need a debate with the truth, because we didn't give Scotland the truth in 2014. The white paper was a fiction, was a fantasy. It was a willful attempt from the Scottish National Party not to inform the people of Scotland but to misinform the people of Scotland. Even if we take Nicola Sturgeon at our word that somehow she is genuinely upset about Brexit, how can it be possible that she wants to multiply the consequences of Brexit rather than minimise the consequences of Brexit? Patrick Harvie said about the pledge to say that if you vote no, you will remain in the European Union. There was a reason that was said, because if you voted yes in 2014, you would have left the EU at that point. Remember that legal advice? They spent £40,000 of legal money on it and it never existed in the first place because we would have left. Instead, we want to talk about grievance with 15 per cent of trade from the EU compared with 65 per cent from the rest of the UK. In closing, I oppose a second referendum because I love Scotland. I oppose a second referendum because I respect democracy. I oppose a second referendum because I want this Government to focus on ending inequality and defeating poverty. I oppose a second referendum because of my labour values of unity, solidarity and redistribution. I oppose a second referendum because I want to unite Scotland, not divide Scotland, and ultimately—this is the key difference—I oppose a second independence referendum because I respect the will of the people of Scotland. I am sure that many of us wish that Mr Sarwar has spent more time opposing the Conservative Party. When we vote tomorrow on the motion before us, we will be laying down another milestone in Scotland's story. No one predicted that we would be here in early 2017 debating a second independence referendum, but circumstances have changed, and they have changed dramatically. Some proclaim that we have had our independence referendum, we have had or say that we should accept the outcome and move on. In response, I say that we are lucky enough to live in a democracy and a democracy does not have an expiry date. We cannot ignore how Scotland voted in the EU referendum and Scotland support for Remain. The UK Government's decision to press ahead with a hard Brexit, which means leaving the single market and refusal to count on us a bespoke EU deal for Scotland or even seriously acknowledge how Scotland voted justifies the Scottish Government's decision to give the people another chance to choose a different path for our country and lay this motion before Parliament. This week's vote is of Theresa May's own making. She says that she is listening, but so far there is no sign that she has heard a word that Scotland has spoken. The past nine months have also reinforced the view that Scotland is simply not a priority for the UK Government. The Scottish Government's plea for a bespoke deal and compromise has so far been completely ignored. It seems to me that your definition of compromise is just to agree to everything that we want and everything that we might want in the future and we might call it a draw. Richard Lochhead I think that the First Minister has laid out very eloquently the compromises and the requests for negotiations given to the UK Government, but time and time again have been completely and utterly ignored. Indeed, at no point in the past nine months were the UK's chief Brexit ministers, for instance, able to find time in their busy diaries to give evidence to our parliamentary committees. Of course, we know that the UK Government forgot to tell the Scottish ministers about the date for triggering article 50. Now, Scotland is at a crossroads. Europe and the world have been shaped by nations choosing statehood to take more control of their destinies in response to changing circumstances. After several decades of debate about our constitutional status, it is very clear that the will of our people is far from settled. That is evident from last week's social attitudes survey that was published that showed support for Scottish independence has doubled since 2012. Support for independence in this country has doubled in four years. In these momentous times, we face further intense national discussion and, for many people, as has been said by others, that will be difficult. Some of our fellow citizens will have voted to remain in the UK in 2014 and to leave the EU in 2016. They fear that they have the most to lose from another referendum. Others voted yes in 2014 and to remain in 2016, and they will feel that they have the most to gain. Others, of course, voted across different lines, but all deserve another say on our country's future. That is why another referendum in line with the Scottish Government's mandate from the people is the only way forward. The EU referendum and the UK's lack of response to the Scottish result is the trigger, the catalyst for this week's historic parliamentary vote. The next referendum will not be a rerun of the EU vote, but Brexit is, however, the most profound illustration yet of why we need to take charge of our own future. As a parliament, when our country faces momentous change and pose from elsewhere against our express wishes, we must turn to the people for guidance. We must give the people a choice—the choice to empower ourselves to decide a different, better path than what would otherwise be forced upon us if we sat back and did nothing. Our relationship with Europe and the rest of the UK will determine the kind of country that we want to live in and our quality of life for generations to come. Membership of the single market will benefit my constituency and our economy, leaving the single market will damage it. Retaining the free movement of people, capital goods and services will benefit my constituency and our country. Losing them will set us back. We need an escape route from decisions taken by the UK Government that, in 2015, won only 14 per cent of the popular vote in this country and had only one member of parliament elected. Retaining a meaningful relationship with Europe is important for Scotland. The people must be given a choice to choose between maintaining their most important long-standing ties with Europe or continuing down that hard Brexit road, which only a few short months ago the leaders of all the other political parties were arguing with spell disaster for our country. I hope and I pray that our discourse in this parliament will rise to the occasion. In the aftermath of Trump and Farage, I hope that we can show the world that we have a considered debate with competing visions. Let's raise our eyes beyond the short-term and look to what each choice means for future generations and their role in the world. We need to look at the options to the opportunities that we can grasp to build on our many strengths also through the prisons of our deep-seated challenges, such as the demographic time bomb that others have mentioned. Projections tell us that between 2014 and 2039, the working-age population in England is sectorised by 13 per cent but only 1 per cent in Scotland. With zero EU migration post-Brexit, our working-age population is projected to decline in this country, Scotland, by 5 per cent. With an ageing population to care for, but shrinking tax base to deliver that, we need powers over immigration and other areas to secure a future. I say to the other parties, how can we do our day jobs with less taxes and a declining workforce and given the damage that will be caused if we are completely out of Europe? Of course, with the Resolution Foundation study that says that we face the worst years for living standards for the poorest half of households since records began and the worst since the Thatcher years for inequality. Let's give our people the chance to choose a different path. That's why we need this Parliament to vote for an independence referendum this week. Finally, let us remember the late poet Edwin Morgan's words at the opening of this Parliament in 1999. Don't say that we have no mandate to be so bold. Thank you. As members will be aware, when you take interventions, we have time in hand, so I give people a little extra time. John Finnie, followed by John Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I haven't heard anyone say other than that there is a significant change in the position that Scotland finds itself in. That's significant in material change that the First Minister alluded to. Certainly from those benches we believe that there's an unquestionable mandate that the Scottish Government has to take the course of action that it has. Likewise, the Scottish Green Party has an unquestionable mandate to pursue the section 30 order on the basis of a confidence decision. Yes, people have made a lot of particular points in time, but nothing stands still and we've moved forward considerably. Indeed, in fairness to Ruth Davidson, she said that she referred to Brexit as a major challenge to our country. I think that it's unfortunate that the options of the single market have been rolled out and extremely unfortunate that there wasn't a willingness to engage in negotiations. A number of people have talked about considering the implications and that's what I would like to do in the brief time that I have and you may well think that the most appropriate person to consult on that would be the Brexit Secretary, the UK Brexit Secretary, and take some of the assurance from the fact that he says, and I quote, I do my job on the basis of facts. We know that the PM has repeatedly insisted that leaving the EU with no trade deal quote is better than a bad deal. Of course, Mr Davidson admitted that leaving the EU without a deal would lead to new tariffs and other barriers to trade, but he did say that he was not quantifying the outcome, but he did acknowledge that there were significant implications for that and I would like to list some of them. The loss of financial passporting, the EU open skies agreement, and the possibility of the reintroduction of border checks between the north and the Republic of Ireland. He also acknowledged that leaving the customs union could also cause delays at customs, not that that's not the case at the moment, indeed it would be exacerbated, and it would probably cost UK tourists access to free health and insurance cards. And when asked whether the Tory Government had made an assessment of the economic impact of all these changes, he said, and I quote, it's not possible to calculate. He added, and again I quote, I cannot quantify that in detail, I may well do in a year's time. And he insisted, and again I quote, you don't need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment. Well, that's genuine frontier gibberish, as far as I'm concerned, but what we do know is that from a leak treasury forecast under the chancellor George Osborne last year, it estimated that crashing out of the EU in world trade organisation terms would cost the UK seven and a half per cent in lost GDP growth by 2030. But the important thing for me is what does this mean for our friends and neighbours who are EU citizens already in the UK? Loss of freedom of movement would of course not just be a one-way thing, and freedom of movement is key to the Scottish Green Party's international philosophy. Conversely, using those friends and neighbours as a crude bargaining chip fits entirely with a calculated pandering to xenophobes of the Tory UK Government. And, lest we forget, the Labour Party, with our now infamous immigration control mugs, the reality is that the UK has taken an unfortunate launch to the right. So freedom of movement is a fundamental non-negotiable foundation stone of the kind of Scotland that we wish to see. And the implications have already started. They've started for higher education who would apply for a university unsure whether they were to be permitted to stay or indeed be welcome. And we know that applications are down. This is unfortunate because last year there was cross-party consensus when I represented the independent aim group on a joint ministerial team looking at the question of post-study visas. There was consensus. Indeed, Liz Smith from the Conservatives was extremely helpful in making representations at UK level. It's very unfortunate that that's not where we are nowadays. Likewise, research funding— John Scott. Thank you, Mr Finnie, for taking the intervention. Could he tell me if he thinks that the First Minister's priority is still education? John Finnie? Well, I think that the First Minister will have to answer for the First Minister's priorities. The reality of the situation is that there's already implications regarding research funding and the loss of valuable researchers. Indeed, times higher education paper yesterday talked about fantastic UK researchers heading for Canada, the University of Waterloo's recruiting British academics worried about the future, worried about their families. Ironically—perhaps not ironically—the similar thing has happened because the University of Waterloo is located on Ontario close to the American border, and there's been a similar fro of US academics looking to move since Donald Trump came in. The broader implications for research of course will have implications for climate change, for disease, and we know that science is global. Many of the world-leading programmes in which the UK is involved at the moment can't be scaled down to national level, and it is always the position that in these things there should be the maximum international co-operation. Why do we support the time frame outlined by the First Minister? The Scottish Green Party is deeply concerned that the decision about Scotland's future and that of our EU citizens takes place before they are disenfranchised. That's extremely important. This is catered for specifically on our amendment. I indeed hope that they all hang around for a vote and for a positive future, because we know that there's fears of EU nationals leaving already. Indeed, I know of one manager of a restaurant in Inverness who's a Polish gentleman who's a learning German because he sees his future as being in Germany. He's not going to hang around for the risk. We have a growing and ageing population. I think that we need to celebrate that. That's been alluded to before. The Highlands needs to import people. We warmly welcome the First Minister's invitation for people to come and live in Scotland. It's not how I view things in the cold economics, but we know that people who have come are net contributors, and they have certainly enriched our country. The EU was set up with a lot of Williams, and I think that it would be very disappointing if the United Kingdom paid a part in the fragmentation of the EU. The time frame is right. The details of negotiation will be known. Scotland's EU citizens can have their say. As Bruce Crawford said, the people of Scotland are sovereign. That choice is going to be an informed choice about two futures. One riddled with uncertainty, the guarantee being that the UK elites, the bankers, the generals, the public school boys will continue to benefit from the growing inequality, which is an essential part of the DNA of the UK, or a chance to make our own choices, yes, and in chartered waters, a chance to work together to make social and environmental justice the foundation stones of our futures, a just and welcoming Scotland taking its place among the countless other small independent nations of the world. Last week, the First Minister gave up any pretence of being the First Minister for the whole of Scotland. She revealed herself to be what we on this side of the chamber have always known her to be, as leader of the SNP above all else, even above the interests and wishes of Scots. Opinion polls have consistently shown that support for separation has not changed since the EU referendum last year. Poll after poll clearly shows that Scots do not want another divisive referendum of whether we should remain part of the United Kingdom. The First Minister should be getting on with the important business of improving our public services, but the temptation to have another go at breaking up Britain has proven to be just too great. Last week, Deputy Presiding Officer Scotland lost its Government but gained a pressure group. I got involved in politics for a whole variety of reasons. I wanted to make my community a better place to live. I wanted to make our schools and hospitals as good as they possibly could be. I wanted to improve the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. I wanted to create opportunities for people, regardless of their backgrounds. I wanted to be able to hand over our country to the next generation in a better state than when I was born. However, it is clear that this nationalist First Minister and those nationalist MSPs do not share my aspirations for our country. We have been reminded today and during the last few months that the nationalists got into politics for one reason and for one reason only, and that was to tear Scotland out of the United Kingdom and to break up Britain. Last week, the First Minister went back on her words that independence referendum was a once-in-a-generation event. The First Minister went back on the Edinburgh agreement that she signed, promising to respect the results of the 2014 referendum. She went back on her pledge that she would only call a second referendum if Scots clearly wanted one. Scots clearly do not want to return to the division of the past. To propose another referendum without strong evidence that a significant number of those who voted no have changed their minds would be wrong and we do not do it. Not my words, but the words of the First Minister. We would like to know the basis on which she now proposes a second referendum, despite what she said in the past. The First Minister is now going to have to rely on the support of the six green MSPs that elected her a manifesto, which explicitly said that if a second referendum should happen, it should come about by the will of the people and not be driven by the calculations of party political advantage. That is not a cast iron mandate. It is a weak and narrow-minded political posturing. Deputy Presiding Officer, last week, the First Minister's speech was littered with incoherence. The First Minister says that she wants to compromise, but has been working towards this moment since the morning after the Brexit vote. The First Minister set out proposals that, even by her own tests, were unworkable and not in the interests of Scotland. Even when the UK Government has found common ground with the SNP over important points such as access to the single market, the rights of EU nationals, workers' rights and co-operation over crime and terrorism, the SNP failed to acknowledge that, ploughing on their grievance agenda. The First Minister repeated that the claims at Holyrood might actually lose powers, while at the same time the Prime Minister has guaranteed that no powers currently devolved will be taken to Westminster and that Holyrood will in fact gain more powers post Brexit. I will not take an intervention from the minister when the First Minister stood in front of journalists last week and refused to show respect to this Parliament and took questions from 22 members of the press and not one MSP for interventions during her speech. I will take no interventions and no speeches from the minister. Those are powers over many areas such as farming, fishing, environment, climate change, energy and in reserve areas such as immigration, business control and employment powers, which will be handed back to the UK and which the SNP wanted to hand straight back to Brussels. My constituents in the Borders voted overwhelmingly in favour of the UK back in 2014, and I see no evidence that my constituents have changed their minds. Indeed, the sense that I get from the past few weeks and months is that anything borders is moving towards a more firmly pro-UK position. The impact of leaving the UK would be hardest felt in my constituency, where people regularly travel and work south of the border. The SNP's intention to pursue a separate immigration policy and to be part of the EU internal market means that a hard border is inevitable. Putting up barriers between us and our largest market makes no sense and it would be a disaster for businesses and residents across the Borders. What my constituents want is for the SNP to focus on getting the best deal for Scotland as we leave the EU, but also for the SNP to focus on the day job. Improving our schools, supposedly SNP's number one priority, is needed in the borders more than anywhere else. The attainment gap is one of the biggest in Scotland, and teacher numbers have plummeted. Pupils, parents and teachers have been let down by Government obsessed with separation from the UK at any cost. The SNP's record in health, in policing, in economic growth and employment are all poor, but it is hardly surprising whenever they think they do is about independence. The SNP is not Scotland, it is time to realise that the country is not with them and moved on to the things that mattered. The next two years are hugely important. They will determine what kind of country Scotland will be. It is a privilege to contribute to this historic debate on Scotland's choice and our country's future. In 2014, Unionists promised the people of Scotland that a no vote would deliver faster, better and safer change than separation. The change has certainly been fast, but it has neither been safer nor better. Before things speed even more dangerously towards a hard Brexit cliff edge, the people of Scotland must have the right to choose a safer and better future. There can be no question that Scotland should have a choice. The arguments of those who would deny the people of Scotland that choice simply do not stand up to scrutiny. We have heard that the decision made in 2014 was meant to settle the question for a generation, but democracy does not stand still, the world does not stand still and the United Kingdom, which that generation was promised and voted for, no longer exists. The United Kingdom and Scotland's place within it has fundamentally changed since 2014. The choice facing us now is fundamentally different. The people of Scotland should not now be denied the right to make that choice. We have also heard that we have no mandate to give the people of Scotland a choice. Trading mandates leave the UK PM on shaky ground, though I would say. In May 2016, the SNP won nearly 47 per cent of the constituency vote. That is the highest share of the vote in the history of devolution, the highest share of the vote in UK terms in over half a century. The SNP won more seats in May than all the unionist parties combined. We were elected on a manifesto that explicitly reserved the right to hold another referendum, if, and I quote, there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. The Opposition might try to convince us that we shouldn't honour our manifesto commitment. They should know how absurd an argument that is. Just last week, their own chancellor received an abject lesson, and why reneging on a promise to the electorate is a bad idea. His climb down was a victory for common sense and it was a victory for democracy. I believe that political parties should honour their manifesto commitments. The SNP is a party that believes that we should honour our manifesto commitments. Our First Minister believes that our relationship with the Scottish people must be built on honouring our manifesto commitments. That is why, with the endorsement of this Parliament, we will deliver on our manifesto commitment and give the people of Scotland another choice about their future—not at the moment—in circumstances that are fundamentally different to those that prevailed in 2014. Lastly, and probably most disingenuously of all, we have heard that another referendum would divide our nation, tear friends and families apart and lead to anxiety and fear. It will only be that if we let it. It is incumbent on all of us MSPs not to feel feelings of anxiety and division to further our own arguments, but to lead, by example, in our communities, in this chamber and online. I know that there are colleagues in this chamber who have deeply held views, meaning that they will disagree with us with every fibre of their body. I defend their right to do that, but the existence of that disagreement is neither harmful nor divisive. Political differences are healthy and normal. Political differences are the essence and lifeblood of democracy. They should be celebrated and not feared. As this debate continues, all of us in this chamber have a particular responsibility to lead, by example, in the language that we use and in the way in which we conduct ourselves. As my colleague Bruce Crawford eloquently laid out, leadership is needed. Our First Minister is leading, by example, at the SNP conference just last weekend. She implored us to argue with passion and commitment, yes, but at all times with courtesy and understanding and respect. Does the member therefore agree with me that it is pretty disrespectful to see another Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown, stand up and tell everyone in Scotland who does not agree with the second referendum that they must be a Tory? Ruth Maguire Presiding Officer, I hope that I have laid out in quite clear language what I think would be an appropriate way to conduct ourselves with. I hope that whatever our political differences we can follow the First Minister's example in setting the tone for the debate that lies ahead of us. Language and tone are important. The world is watching us, Europe is watching us, and the people of Scotland are watching us. Let's have a debate about Scotland's future, but let's have it respectfully and in a way that we can all be proud of. Thank you very much. I have followed Douglas Ross and Ash Denham. There has never been a political moment in my life when I felt so relieved, elated and satisfied than when the returning officer in the Fisherman's Hall and Bucky announced that 58 per cent of the people in Murray had voted no to independence. I'll say at this point that I note in my first paragraph I've mentioned the Murray constituency more than the SNP member who represents that area did in his entire seven minutes, and I think he should be ashamed of ignoring his constituents from the local area in today's debate. In September 2014, I felt relieved as a bitter, acrimonious and divisive referendum was over. I felt elated because the result was correct in my eyes and something I'd been campaigning for for years, and I felt satisfied as I knew we had a legally binding result that both sides would accept. The matter was closed or once in a generation result had been declared, and the result in Murray was replicated across the Highlands and Islands region that I represent. In Highland, 53 per cent said no. In the Western Isles, 53 per cent said no. In Argyllun Bute, 59 per cent said no. In Shetland, 64 per cent said no. In Orkney, we saw the biggest percentage no vote in Scotland, with 67 per cent rejecting separation. With that clear, decisive result, why are we back here again so quickly? The SNP will tell us that it's because of Brexit that the UK Government hadn't listened to what the SNP had asked for, and the nationalists can say that with a straight face. Despite the fact that only a matter of hours after the Brexit result was announced, the First Minister was telling the media that she had instructed civil servants to draw plans for another independence referendum. Let's face it. If it wasn't Brexit, it would be something else. They said that if there were more SNP members elected to Westminster, that would be the case for another referendum, or if Trident was renewed, that would make the case for another referendum. Basically anything the SNP can hang their hat on to call for another referendum, they will use it. As one of their conference delegates said in Aberdeen at the weekend, we'll give folk another shot to answer the question correctly next time, or to put it another way, if you disagree with us, you're wrong, and we will keep on asking until you give us the answer we want. We've already seen in just a week how difficult the case is going to be for independence to be made. Angus Robertson struggled, Joanna Cherry struggled, Ellie Whiteford struggled. They couldn't answer the most basic questions that Scots want to know. It's clear that, since the nationalists lost the last referendum, they haven't been trying to strengthen their argument. They've simply been working on having that argument again. The SNP dispens spokesman has said that they could build up a defence force from scratch. What does that mean for Arre, if Lossy Mouth, or they can lose Barracks? What does the First Minister mean when she won't answer any questions on currency at this time, but it will become clear during any referendum campaign? I think that, in fact, there are a number of questions that the senior Tory ministers have not been able to answer. David Davis in particular wasn't able to answer a number of questions. Could the member therefore set a straight today? Will UK citizens have the right to health care on holiday in Europe? What will happen to the open skies agreement? What about financial services and passporting rights? Will you be able to answer those simple questions about what Brexit will mean for Scotland? We have had umpteen debates at the SNP's bequest in this Parliament on Europe, and they put those questions all the time. What I would like to focus on, if the SNP members will be quiet to listen to an Opposition view, what I would like to focus on today is the independence campaign that you kicked off last week. That's what we're here to discuss over the next two days. On Europe, the SNP has had more positions on Europe this week than the Greens have had manifesto U-turns, and that's saying something. What are the SNP saying to people in Murray? Communities such as Lossymouth or Bucky have voted to remain part of the United Kingdom and voted to leave the EU. When 49.9 per cent of the people in Murray voted to leave the EU, we know that many of those votes came from the traditional fishing communities such as Lossy and Bucky. How is the SNP mantra that we don't want to be ruled by Westminster but we do want to be ruled by Europe going to play out in Bucky or in Lossymouth or indeed in many parts of Scotland? I also want to mention an area of government that is often overlooked while independence is on the agenda, and that is governing. In the run-up to the 2014 referendum, it was clear that the SNP put all its efforts into campaigning for independence rather than running the country that they were elected to serve. The SNP's priority was more important than Scotland's priorities. It's clear for all to see that pattern has continued. My wife is a police sergeant and I see day in, day out the problems that officers and staff face because of the SNP's centralising agenda, which led to a single police force. My sister is an English teacher and I look on with dismay when I see her once great education system dragged down international rankings by the SNP Government's policies. I spent almost a decade as a council and Murray council and I know how councils across Scotland are struggling with budget cuts from the SNP but then the same Scottish Government expect them to do more with less. Tomorrow's vote is a crucial one in our Parliament's history. The nationalists will try and push ahead with another referendum to separate Scotland because they didn't get the result that they wanted last time, but I'll vote a different way. I'll vote to respect the democratic decision that we took in 2014. I'll vote against the SNP and the Greens because I believe that nationalists who said that they would accept the result of the decision taken two and a half years ago and I believed that it would settle the issue for a generation. Perhaps most importantly of all, I will vote against the plans for another referendum to send a message to this SNP Government. Get back to the day job. Start working for the people of Scotland and not just working for your separatist agenda of removing Scotland from the United Kingdom. Let me quiet. I want to hear the member. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'll go over it again because I think it is disrespectful for SNP members to shout down others because they disagree with us. I said to close, perhaps most importantly, tomorrow I will vote against the SNP and the Greens plans for another referendum to send a message to this SNP Government. Get back to the day job. Start working for the people of Scotland and not just your separatist agenda of removing Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Thank you. I'll call Ash Denham to be followed by Alec Rowley. Ms Denham, please. Presiding Officer, since 23 June last year Scotland's voice over its place in Europe has been crystal clear, with voters choosing to remain by a 24 point margin. Even so, as the UK Government forged ahead with its Brexit means Brexit, the Scottish Government, to its credit, offered a host of compromised proposals to protect Scotland's place in Europe while still remaining part of the UK. Those proposals were ignored by Westminster. Determined to ensure that the voices of Scottish voters were heard, this Parliament voted against triggering article 50 until a substantive post-Brexit plan for Scotland had emerged. That vote was ignored by Westminster. Determined still, not now. All but one of Scotland's MPs in London voted against triggering article 50. They too were ignored by Westminster. Theresa May has spoken frequently about fairness and mutual opportunity, a unity of interests and solidarity. How can it be fair for Scotland to be so ignored? What opportunities does Scotland gain from being ignored? In what world is unity and solidarity achieved through scorn and neglect? To give the Scottish people a choice over the future direction and governance of their country is not some constitutional obsession, it is not misguided nationalism. Rather, it is doing what members of the Scottish Parliament are elected to do, stand up for the will of the Scottish people. It is, beyond unfortunate, that there are members of this chamber that would neglect such a straightforward and compulsory duty. Labour has become so feeble not only are they unable to effectively oppose the increasingly hard right tories at Westminster, but they are now complicit in Conservative zeal to deny a mandated democratic choice to the people of Scotland. So disdainful are the Tories that, if Westminster ever got the chance to remove Holyroods powers entirely, it would be the Scottish Conservatives and Unionists handing this Parliament to Theresa May on a silver platter, not now. What is to keep Theresa May from doing that, so reluctant is she to hear the voice of Scotland? It is a question that unfortunately we must now ask ourselves. She failed to move an inch in compromising on Scotland's place in Europe. She failed to consult the joint ministerial committee of devolved administrations before moving ahead with her reckless Brexit plans. She failed to reach an agreement, as promised, with the Scottish Government ahead of triggering article 50. Theresa May has talked over and over again about the need to strengthen the bonds of our special union, but it is Theresa May who is tearing that bond apart at the scenes by offering Scotland nothing but failure, failure and more failure. The Scottish people deserve better. They deserve a free and democratic choice for how to make things better before all their options are thrown off the cliff edge of Brexit. Presiding Officer, try as the Tories might to muddy the waters. The hard fact is that the SNP was elected on a manifesto that says, right here in black and white, and I have it here in a case anyone is still confused when they wish to consult it. The Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. We were elected on this manifesto pledge, not now, from 46.5 per cent of the constituency vote, a vote share higher than any UK Government since 1966. If the other parties in this chamber are going to try and delegitimize what is plainly written in the SNP's manifesto, then they may as well tear up their own party manifestos as well right now. I will. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention, who speaks about delegitimising. Half a million SNP voters backed the UK leaving the EU, including six of our own colleagues sitting amongst her in this chamber. When will the member ever commit to representing their views in considering her party's policy on EU membership? The member may believe that the SNP does not speak for Scotland, but I would certainly say that a party that trailed a dismal second in the recent elections certainly does not. What we are seeing from the likes of Tories and Labour at the moment is a sheer disregard for democracy. Today's vote is merely about giving Scottish people a choice in the future of their country—a choice that is fully attainable through the powers of the Parliament. A choice brought about through the democratic mandate of the largest party in this Parliament, and to deny them that choice would be unacceptable. In fact, I think that Kezia Dogdale said it well when she said that blocking an independence referendum is categorically wrong if there is a compelling sense that Scottish people want a second referendum. Or maybe Ruth Davidson said it better when she proclaimed that if the SNP put in its manifesto that it has an intention to hold a second referendum and it wins an outright majority, I think that it does have a mandate to hold one. What a shame that Kezia Dogdale and Ruth Davidson have, in blatant hypocrisy, turned their backs on the democratic rights of the people that they represent. Democracy must be allowed to fail. Scotland must be heard, and Scotland's future must be Scotland's choice. In the beginning, I would like to associate myself with the comments of Bruce Crawford and Ruth McGuire. We should not forget that it was a result of a Tory party trying to sort out its internal problems over Europe and its fear of UKIP that we had a European referendum in the first place. However, by having that referendum, there is no doubt in my mind that now across Scotland, across the United Kingdom and indeed across Europe, there is a debate taking place about the future. We have to ensure that that debate takes place in a civil way and that its heart is respect, and we can ensure that by behaving like that as parliamentarians in this place and out there in communities. Speaking in this debate today, I want to also make clear that I very much recognise the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. I recognise that during the referendum in 2014 and I recognise it now. Today, the argument in Scotland has shifted significantly from that of 2014. The pace of change is unprecedented right across the world, and here at home there are so many unanswered questions and uncertainties that arise from Brexit. Presiding Officer, I have been consistent in accepting that the SNP's manifesto in 2016 said that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there was a significant and material change in the circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will. I have also been consistent in the belief that where there is the Scottish people, there is a majority of Scottish people calling for another independence referendum, then politicians should not and indeed could not block that demand. A view that I share I believe with Nicola Sturgeon, who said that the ultimate decision as to whether there is a referendum again, when that might be and what the outcome might be, are all matters entirely for the democratic decision of the Scottish people. She went on to say that there cannot be a referendum and there certainly cannot be independence for Scotland unless a majority of people in Scotland clearly want that. So let us in this debate be about whether now is the best time to call a second independence referendum, let us stick to the facts. The fact is that there is not in Scotland a majority demanding a second independence referendum at this time. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Stuart McMillan. I thank Alex Rowley for taking the intervention, but would Mr Rowley agree with me that what the Scottish Government has been calling for in terms of this referendum is not to have it now, it is to have it in up to two years time? In answer to that point, what would say to you is that since the Brexit vote has taken place, poll after poll after poll has shown that there is no appetite at this time for a second independence referendum. Is it any wonder that there is no appetite for a second independence referendum in our country at a time when we do not know what Brexit means for our country and for the people of our country? My main argument today is that the Scottish people do not want another referendum at this time. They want us to focus on getting the best Brexit deal for Scotland. They want us to tackle the growing crisis that is consuming so many of our public services and large parts of our economy. Why, then, would I come here today ignore the majority of the people of Scotland and vote for a second independence referendum? I understand. Stuart McMillan Once again, I thank Alex Rowley for taking intervention. Mr Rowley will have heard the comments from David Davis last week about that there are no costs thus far, because they have not done any analysis as to how much it will cost for a Brexit deal. How do we know how much it will cost and how we are going to get a better deal or the best possible deal for Scotland when the UK drags us out of the European Union? Alex Rowley I think that Stuart McMillan is making the same case that I am making. I am no truck with the Tories. The Tories have created this situation, and it is clear from what David Davis says that the Tories have not got a clue what they are actually doing. That is why this Parliament needs to unite around getting a better deal for Scotland to ensure that we can get that deal moving forward. I understand why Nicola Sturgeon has come to the conclusions that she has come to, because she says that the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets, but I do not agree with her. Like many in our country, I am worried about jobs. I am worried about the state of our education services, about the massive skills gaps in our economy, the rise in poverty up and down Scotland and the threats to our economy moving forward. We need a Brexit deal that works for people. We need a Brexit deal that works for Scotland. We must focus on getting the best possible deal for the people of Scotland. We cannot simply allow the Tories to dictate what the terms of that look like. All of us, our collective efforts, should be focused on delivering the best possible Brexit deal. We cannot leave it to the Tories and Theresa May. We need to unite Scotland around getting the best possible Brexit deal for Scotland. Before us today is about sovereignty and about choice. Given the people of Scotland, a choice in the future of this country is a truly historic event. It is important to remember how we got here and how the historians of the future will narrate the events of this decade. A Tory Prime Minister playing games with politics, not expecting to win a general election outright, made a manifesto commitment that he never expected to have to fulfil. His coalition partners dissolved into irrelevance, leaving him holding power that he never expected to have to exercise with no choice but to hold a referendum that he never expected to lose. A shockingly bad campaign, project fear mark 2, delivered the unthinkable a referendum defeat. That, despite the warnings from those who had witnessed project fear mark 1, almost threw away a 30-point lead a couple of years earlier, no lessons learned. When the going gets tough, Tory Prime Ministers get going out the door. Rather than clear up the fine mess, they have gotten us into the eating mess headed for the exit. The new Prime Minister, fresh from six years at the Home Office, where our main achievement was to completely fail to deliver her single objective of reducing immigration, takes over a top job with a single aim of reducing immigration. Rather than recognise the economic and political reality, the narrowest of referendum wins, two of four nations opposed to Brexit, the impossibility of reducing immigration without trashing the economy and the huge value to the UK of the single market, the new regime lurches to the right, tilting at windmills in an attempt to slay the UK threat by becoming UK. We talk of a hard Tory Brexit but let us not forget what it is. The 2016 referendum did not mandate leaving the single market and it did not mandate a no deal exit, yet that is the direction that we are heading in so far, so bad, but then it gets worse. The Scotland's place in Europe proposal offered Prime Minister may a get out of jail free card. She not only refused to recognise the opportunity it offers but refused even to engage. Instead of giving UK businesses the opportunity to continue to trade within the single market from within a Scotland still in the UK, instead of grasping the differentiated solution in immigration to give both Scotland and the rest of the UK what they voted for, she continued to recite the mantra Brexit means Brexit. So now we are where we are. A Secretary of State for Brexit, who after nine months of preparation has to admit to a select committee that he has done no work on the no deal outcome, his boss has stated maybe the preferred result of the Brexit negotiations. Not only are we going over the cliff edge without a parachute, the driver of the Brexit bus hasn't even had a look to see what's at the bottom of the cliff. Meanwhile, individual Tories have turned from ardent Remainers, fully aware of the benefits of the single market and to born-again Brexiteers, helping to push the bus closer to the cliff edge. Historians of the future will consider this catalogue of calamities, unintended consequences, short-term opportunism, reactive behaviour, atrocious campaign strategies and failure of government, and they will simply fail to understand why the events of these years were so hard to predict to those cut up in the middle of the melee. Neil Findlay, I wonder if you could tell us if he supports Scotland come out of the European Union, if he supports a referendum to be held for Scotland to go back in should the First Minister plan succeed. Ivan McKee. Yeah, lots of ifs, buts and maybes. I fully support Scotland being a full member of the European Union. That's what I support. So why the UK Government was so surprised when Scotland tied up in the back of the Brexit bus as proposal for compromise ignored, as voice counting for nothing, despite the myth of a union of vehicles peddling 2014, decided that it might want to talk about taking matters into its own hands? It will fail to understand how the UK Government could spend nine months transfixed in the headlights of article 50, and its own admission had done no preparation for what might come next, was expecting to deliver a complex exit negotiation and multiple comprehensive trade deals in a time period only twice as long. It will fail to understand the tactical errors currently being made, because now is not the time, means there is a time. The principle of giving the people of Scotland a say has been conceded. It could never be otherwise, yet Tory troops are sent daily to the media front line to argue against giving the people of Scotland a voice, a position that cannot hold. There will be a referendum, yet instead of engaging in a debate on the substantive issues, the Tory Prime Minister has managed to shift the debate on to ground that she cannot hold and an argument that she cannot win on timing, on process—no, thank you—and on who gets to choose. It would be inexplicable were it not the latest in a long line of strategic and tactical errors dating back to David Cameron's cunning wheeze to make a manifesto commitment to a referendum he never expected to hold and an election he never expected to win, making mistakes for the Tories becoming a habit. Neither will anyone be surprised looking back in hindsight when Scotland elected to excuse itself from the impending shambles and take the door marked self-determination. That route is clearly marked, a Scottish Government manifesto commitment written with just this eventuality in mind, an election result delivering a mandate, a compromise shunned and a timescale that gives maximum clarity together with time to change course. The current situation is not of our making and we have worked to find a compromise, but Scotland now finds itself at a crossroads. We are faced with a choice of two futures and there is only one way to answer the question. The people of Scotland will have the final choice. I call Donald Cameron to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In my maiden speech, I made a slightly pompous comment that we would be the first generation of MSPs not to be defined by the constitution. Three weeks later, Brexit happened and I have been regretting those words ever since. I stick by the sentiment. Let's be clear about our responsibility and duty as MSPs. We should not be here. We are failing those who elected us by not addressing the day-to-day issues faced by the people of Scotland and concerns that they may have about their children's schools, their parents' care, their jobs, their businesses. Let me focus on two points where the SNP's shameless hypocrisy requires to be called out. Their position on Europe and their approach to the will of this Parliament. In relation to the EU, the SNP's policy has always been incoherent, at best ambiguous, at worst contradictory, because Europe has never been a matter of principle for the SNP, just a tactic to be deployed in pursuit of the Holy Grail. Just hours after the vote on 23 June, the First Minister announced that she would legislate for an independence referendum on the back of Scotland being taken out of the EU quote against its will. Since that vote, those benches have been subjected to endless taunts from the SNP on Europe. For months, even those of us who voted remain, were nevertheless born again, Brexiteers, and Ivan McKee is still at it. For months, the SNP ignored the 1 million Scots who voted leave, not yet. For months, the First Minister repeatedly spoke about protecting Scotland's place in the EU, and last week, in order to so protect ourselves, we were told that Scotland needs independence. With all that in mind, would it not be reasonable to expect from the SNP a full-throated commitment to the EU, an unequivocal statement that Scotland would rejoin the EU on becoming independent? But answer comes then none, because perhaps, just perhaps, it has dawned on the SNP that 38 per cent of the electorate who voted leave might be politically useful after all, especially as a third of them were SNP voters. We are back where we begin, in a bid to keep both leavers and remainers sweet, the SNP's position on EU membership remains not only inconsistent but utterly devoid of principle. A policy is changeable as a Highlands summer day. As if that were not enough, there is more. I am sorry, I want to make progress. We are told that it will be a democratic outrage if the UK Government rejects the will of the Scottish Parliament, but on numerous occasions since May, the SNP Government has routinely ignored the will of this Parliament. Using its own benchmark, the SNP has committed democratic outrages of plenty. On the NHS, on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, on the Offensive Behaviour of Football Act, if we take the SNP at face value, they themselves are routinely flouting democracy, or perhaps we should be more cynical and realise that to the SNP the will of this Parliament is a fair-weather friend to be used when required and ignored when inconvenient. By picking and choosing when Parliament's will matters and when it is meaningless, the SNP make a mockery of the very idea that they claim to hold dear. Because we all know where this is heading, down at grievance towers or bute house if you prefer, the stance of the UK Government has already been broadcast as the latest insult to Scotland, the latest slight by Westminster to be exploited. Why not throw in the ghost of Margaret Thatcher, just to get the juices really flowing? The old songs are best after all the beats of the old drum. What was Keith Brown's phrase this weekend? Scotland against the Tories. Deputy Presiding Officer, how simplistic. How out of date? Yes, of course. John McAlpine For taking the intervention, he evokes the ghost of Margaret Thatcher. Is that because Margaret Thatcher pulled more votes in Scotland back in the 1979, 1983 and 1987 than Ruth Davidson and your party managed in the last election? Donald Cameron Well, I'm grateful to the member for the intervention. I invoked Margaret Thatcher because the First Minister invoked Margaret Thatcher in her column for the daily record just the other day. For years, we have put up with the SNP stating that they alone speak for Scotland. And with that comes the insinuation that those who don't support independence are somehow found wanting as if in some way we don't love our country enough. The truth is that no one here can claim to speak exclusively for Scotland, but we do speak for those who elected us. And on these benches, we speak for those whose voices the SNP has swept aside in their quest for a further device of plebysite. We speak for those who genuinely do not want the uncertainty of another referendum at this time. We speak for the families, the workplaces, the homes for whom 2014 was a time of unhappiness. We speak for those Scots who reject independence and are dismayed when they find their patriotism questioned as a result, given that their hearts pound just as hard as the most ardent nationalist when it comes to the love they have for their country. They are the silent majority of Scots who simply want to get on with life and whose voice is not only deserved to be heard but must be heard. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, the First Minister says that a referendum is necessary so that we can decide about the kind of country we want to be. Let me save us some time. Let me tell her what kind of country we want Scotland to be. We want a Scotland that is united, not divided against itself. We want a Scotland that talks about the health of its people. We want a Scotland that talks about growing the economy. We want a Scotland that talks about the care of its elderly. We want a Scotland that talks about the dreams that we have for our children. And above all, we want a Scotland that can have all these conversations and acts upon them free from the long shadows cast by the division and resentment that another referendum will bring. Christina McKelvie, to be followed by Jenny Marra. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Democracy, Demos is the rule not just of the people but of the common people, ordinary people, not of the public school elites living in the home counties and posing their views on everyone else. Presiding Officer, it was Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address who spoke of government of the people, by the people and for the people. He spoke to of a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all of us are created equal. We in Scotland share those ideals in the very reincarnation of this country. When this Parliament first opened after a break of 290 years, we will all recall the picture of Donald Dewar amid the hordes of people falling him down the royal mile of Sheena Wellington's movingly lovely rendering of a man's a man for all that. The promise of a new way of governing, one that could indeed be the government of, by and for the people, one that would genuinely represent the same people, one a very long way from the government at Westminster with its transagents, tenured leader and her refusal to even consider a compromise of any kind. It's like wrestling with a brick wall. Presiding Officer, I'm not sure what Donald Dewar makes of us all now, undermining the very democracy of this Parliament for some, but I can hazard a guess what he thinks of Theresa May. As you are well aware, colleagues, this Westminster Government was not elected by anyone in Scotland. It's one MP that doubtless represents his constituents. To be fair, so far as I know, he doesn't have five jobs or incomes estimated around 1.8 million of the former chancellor. Good at making money for himself but not very good at governing the public purse. Never mind, Presiding Officer, that's democracy for you. We rejected the prospect of independence and voted to stay in the UK by a very small margin. A lot of people felt the future would be safer that way. We voted to stay in Europe by a margin of about two to one. Look at what we have now. People voted last time because they thought they were safe within the EU. Where are we now? Democracy, said another former US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, cannot succeed unless those who express their choices are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. This Scottish Parliament is our democratic forum. We especially need it for all those empty words about being a partnership of equals and a family of nations that have proven to be so, so hollow. We are the voice of the people because we are the Government of the people. Theresa May has no mandate in this place. To protect and preserve our voice, we must have the right to make the choices for ourselves. The Prime Minister has made her feelings clear. She doesn't want a referendum at all, and she especially doesn't want one before her Brexit, dog's Brexit deal, is secured. Yet it is her Government's actions that have brought us to this point. Having to deal with an outcome that most of us didn't believe could happen, everybody in this place didn't believe it could happen. Mrs May has now embraced it with an enthusiasm that impresses Nigel Farage. What does that say about it? That Scotland voted so clearly to remain as evidence of a more informed and involved response to politics here. People learn back and they run up to a referendum that they had not only a right but a real interest in getting informed. People in Scotland now know that the vow was a lie, and what we got in 2014 was evil. English votes for English laws, not respect, not a family of nations. Scottish voters must not be conned by another bout of outrageous and possible promises made by the no campaign and the born-again Brexiteers, that the land will be flown with milk and honey beyond Europe and that the age of the empire and of the Raj is on its way back. Our electorate must be given the right to choose Scotland's future. We must never be, for a moment, forget—now is not the time—but we must never, for a moment, forget our responsibilities to provide genuine, clear and accurate information. There will be no fake news like some of the rubbish that we have heard today from this Government. We must level with our voters. We must level with our voters. Of course I will. I appreciate that, because I am blocked on Twitter and I have been biding my time here. We have talked a lot about respect, tone and factual information. Christina McKelvie has been keeping up her record of the politician who tweets whines over Scotland the most as we face another referendum. Christina McKelvie? It is really not worth responding to, but if anybody looks at the public record, they will know why Monica Lennon and her abusers are blocked on Twitter. We have felt the brutal squeezing of our budget, especially the vicious and cruel assault by the Tories on Social Security—a vicious assault that those guys seem to think is okay. We know now that the price of oil has fallen. We are going to see much worse and come to the tariffs of anything up to 40 per cent introduced under WTO regulations. He is describing members of this chamber as abusers and making accusations such as we just heard. Surely that cannot be in order? If you wish to make a complaint, Mr Johnson, I think that you should do so. Christina McKelvie? I think that the member should check the record. I did not refer to any individual member, but there is a cohort. Our free European market of £500 million is not going to be free of any more, and we are already starting to see prices rise and the falling pounds. Just look at interest. We all know that it is unacceptable, according to the code of conduct for this chamber, for an individual MSP to call out another individual MSP like that, but she has just repeated the charge that there was a cohort here and pointed to the Labour members, and that is simply not acceptable. I have listened to what has been said, and I say that, in the heat of debate, members should always treat each other respectfully where there are strong views. The official record will be checked, and we will have a look at it and revert back. Ms McKelvie, you will have to wind up now. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The first choice is that we need to make that choice. If the choice is bombs not burns, I choose burns. If the choice is demonisation of the sick and the disabled, I choose a full independent social security system. If the choice is rape clauses, I choose to treat women and children with respect. If the choice is a withdrawal from the ECHR and Human Rights Act, I choose the Human Rights Act. If the choice is abandoning children and children refugees, I choose sanctuary. I choose for Scotland. I call Jenny Marra to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given those remarks just outlined, I say that it is with a heavy heart that we come to this debate yet again. I know that that is true from all sides of this debate. Those of us who voted no in 2014 certainly did not expect to have this debate again, as we were promised that it would be once in a generation. However, I suspect from the conversations that I have had with friends and acquaintances who voted yes last time that they neither did not expect to be torpedoed back into this binary question so soon. Scottish Labour will vote tomorrow no to a section 30 order for a second referendum simply because we do not think that it is good for Scotland. The SNP has argued that there has been a material change of circumstance as set out in their manifesto with the Brexit vote that gives them the authority to call for another vote. I agree that Brexit, although it contains possibilities, as every crisis does, is overall a shambles. It was a foolish and irresponsible Prime Minister that visited the European referendum on us in the first place. However, the case that we made on EU membership and Scottish membership of the EU in 2014 remains unaltered. An independent Scotland would find it very difficult to become an independent member of the European Union. With agreement of all member states required, I failed to see how it is in Spain or Belgium's interests with its own secessionist movements to grant Scotland's membership. I am happy to take an intervention. The economics of the situation do not add Gil Paterson. Gil Paterson. I much appreciate the invite. Is this project 3 again or is it project fear with a 3 on it? Jenny Marra. I do not quite understand the intervention, so I will continue. The economics of this situation do not add up. Scotland would struggle to meet the convergence criteria for membership with a £15 billion deficit. The European Commission said quite clearly last week that Scotland would be required to apply as an accession state and queue up like everyone else. We saw the TV interviews at the weekend that even SNP MPs do not understand their own case for this membership of the EU. The idea, mooted by some nationalists, that Scotland would assume that the UK's membership is at best naive but really it is not living in the real political world. The thing that most upsets and worries me about the prospect of a second referendum is the focus that it will divert from domestic issues. During the last referendum at a debate at Dundee University, I said that Scotland's education system used to be the best in the world, but we could no longer make that claim. In a minute, Shona Robison dismissed this assertion categorically and accused me of the same thing that she did every time I raised an issue of talking Scotland down. Wine forward three years and it seems that I was not far off the mark. We find that our First Minister proclaiming that education is now the priority of her Government as the statistics roll-in make extremely worrying reading for every parent in Scotland. Less than half of primary 7 children in Dundee reach expected numeracy standards, and that is in the face of continual SNP cuts. The SNP has taken nearly £900 per primary school pupil out of Dundee schools. We were right and nobody will tell me otherwise that this Government's attention was diverted away from people's priorities, and it seems that that is happening again. I will take John Swinney now. John Swinney? I am very grateful to Jenny Marra for taking the intervention, and she will have to ask those specific questions to Mr Swinney. I do not know if you were present when I was speaking, but would the member acknowledge that there has already been implications for education as regards university applications from EU students, and particularly for research already as a result of the decision on Brexit, which has not even progressed? Jenny Marra? Yes, I would agree with the member. I said in my opening remarks that I think that the Brexit situation is a shambles, but the EU position of the SNP is not clear. The essential work that we are doing on the Public Audit Committee, scrutinising eye-watering deficits in our public services, will also gather little attention as referendum fever builds again. Friends who voted yes last time and who will do again tell me that Scotland's economy needs radical action and that we need to do things differently. I do not disagree. The inequality that we see in our communities created by post-industrialism, globalisation and automation is the biggest question for all progressive people and our politics today. It is not generic to Scotland, though, and I believe will be made worse not better by a second vote. A few months ago, Peter Scowin, the deputy editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail, came to Edinburgh to talk about referendums in Quebec. He told a story that we would be foolish to ignore. Before the first referendum on Quebec leaving Canada, he said that Montreal in Quebec was poids on the brink of huge economic success. However, as a result of the uncertainty caused by the referendum, business decided to go elsewhere to Toronto. The second referendum compounded matters. Quebec's economy, he said, has never recovered from the uncertain environment for business and industry that the succession questions caused. To that end, Presiding Officer, I ask the SNP today if this referendum is held and people vote no again, will the SNP rule out a third referendum because we can see what this continual question can do? From now on, everyone will have to keep to under six minutes please or people won't get in. Clare Adamson followed by Miles Briggs. Not for the first time, I want to speak about my journey to the cause. Jenny Marra We may want to check the official record, but it is my understanding that both Christina McKelvie and Richard Lyle have well over seven minutes in this debate. If that latitude is to be applied to some members, then it should be applied to all members. That is not a point of order, Ms Marra. A timing of debates is agreed by the business bureau, then the Parliament running these debates is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer. Clare Adamson I want to talk about my journey to the cause. Sorry, Ms Adamson. A point of order, Richard Lyle. That Ms Marra named me. I have not spoken in this debate. Can you have a ruling, please? Thank you, Mr Lyle, for that point of clarification, although not a point of order, Ms Adamson. I would like to speak about my journey to the cause of Scottish independence. Growing up in industrial central Scotland, the granddaughter of an Irish steel worker who came here in the 1920s and who worked in the Diel Mill in Motherwell, the very mill saved by this Government last year with the Liberty Steel buy-out, I grew up where the Labour Party values were forged in Lanarkshire, Cair Hardy's home county. When I was a teenager, I watched in the news as miners picketed outside Ravenscraig and our police were used as a tool of the Tory Government to systematically destroy my community, pitting worker against worker and demonising our police force. Ms Adamson. The police were there to protect us. The community, an economy and an industrial industry were destroyed by the Tories, and that is why I will never, ever trust the Tories to have the interests of Motherwell, Wisha, Lanarkshire or Scotland at the heart of anything they do. And to my Labour colleagues, it was that that convinced me that Scotland as an independent nation could have saved its steel industry, and in the 30 years intervening, nothing has changed my mind, whether that's Iraq wars or Tory austerity. Because we are here again, Tory Government bent on inflicting economic and social chaos of a hard Brexit on Scotland. To my Labour colleagues, as they examine the shambles of their party down south, are they condemned to leave Scotland to the vagaries of a Tory Government? A Tory Government that used othering to demonise and blame asylum seekers for their economic failures, a Tory Government deploying othering of European citizens, failing to give them the simplest of guarantees about their future now and following breakfast Brexit, or a Tory Government deploying othering of their own citizens as they demonise the poor, disabled and the sick. Othering's disabled people subjecting them to demeaning PIP assessments and visiting destitution on its own citizens, and they have the cheek to say that we are divisive when othering is at the heart of their policies. And the Labour Party are content to sit back and allow this to be visited on Scotland. They know that federalism, no thank you, like the Liberal Democrats, is unlikely to happen because they are neither going to be a position and possibly the next 30 years to deliver it, but they will leave Scotland to the vagaries of Tory Government in that intervening time. The Lib Dems want to give choice for the UK, but not choice for Scotland. They talk about the possibilities of that. What they should understand is that whist possibilities come probabilities and likely outcomes. This is our future of our country. It is not some existential version of Schrodinger's cat where all things are possible until they are observed. The Scottish people are observing, the Brexit box is open, the cats about to eat the poison and the way for it to avoid the inevitable is just to get out the box. It really is that simple, Presiding Officer. I call Miles Briggs to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. A First Minister is there to bring a country together, to bring the whole country together, but in Nicola Sturgeon we have a First Minister who knows only one way to govern, and that is to pit one scot against another, the politics of grievance and division. I do not think that that works for our country any longer. Scotland is too vast, too complex a country to be governed in such a way. After what has been a hugely disruptive period in both Scottish and British politics, last week we saw the true calculated response to the United Kingdom leaving the EU from this First Minister. At the very time when we needed politicians from across this country to come together and work together, we had a First Minister looking to exploit an already difficult and complex situation. Just look at how the First Minister responded to the decision by voters across this United Kingdom to leave the EU just three hours after the result was declared. Did the First Minister rise to the office that she holds to look to call for unity and keep a calm head? Did the First Minister enter into a constructive working relationship with the new Prime Minister to help protect Scottish jobs and look to the opportunities that our country has in the future? No, instead the First Minister looked to exploit anxiety, to try to turn it into a grievance and more division, to try to take us back to the divisions of 2014. I think that the events of the last week have shown the people of Scotland exactly the sort of First Minister that Nicola Sturgeon wants to be. A First Minister who is not really interested in finding solutions, but instead a First Minister who wants to exploit the issues for political gain. Just like the First Minister, I voted remain last June, but I am also a Democrat and this is what democracy is all about—how we put our arguments to the people and the manner by which we live by their decisions. I do not doubt or underestimate that Scotland and the United Kingdom face some real and pressing challenges as we work to build the strongest political and economic future for our countries outside of the European Union, but we should be working to help to build the strong trading links that we need with every European country. Deputy Presiding Officer, our great and perhaps unique strength as a United Kingdom is the fact that we are strong as a country, not in spite of our differences, but because of our differences. The grievance and division that the SNP wants to return our country to is not the Scotland I believe in. It is not the type of a society that I believe the majority of people in Scotland, often the silent majority of people in our country, want to live in. In recent weeks, I have met hundreds of SNP voters who are growing tired of the political games of this Government and this First Minister. Many of our fellow Scots who voted SNP in the past are beginning to cast a weary eye over this Government. What about the 40 per cent of SNP voters who voted to leave the European Union? How must they feel to see a Government and a First Minister not listening to them? I listened to what I believe was one of the best speeches today from Bruce Crawford. Sadly, Clare Adamson and Christina McKelvie undermined what he was trying to say in their contributions. However, I want to say today that SNP voters are not our enemy, they are our neighbours. Those are good people who want better from their country and their government, good people who thought that they were sending MSPs to this Scottish Parliament to be strong voices for their communities but got nothing in return but Nicola Sturgeon's voice in their community. Last week demonstrated the fact that our First Minister has stopped being a First Minister now for all of Scotland, and we should all regret that. But as a country, we need to move forward from the divisions of the past. The United Kingdom has always worked as a family of nations to pull together when we face tough times. That is just how the UK works, and that is exactly what people across Scotland are calling on politicians across this chamber to do. Our United Kingdom, at its very heart, is a story of friendship and hope during difficult times. The bonds that bind our countries together, we learn from each other and we are there for each other. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that there is a longing and a need for a real, principled leadership in Scotland today—leadership that will bring our country together—a longing for us to work together as parliaments, as Scotland's two Governments, to make a success of the decision by voters across the United Kingdom. For us all to work to build the most entrepreneurial, competitive and successful country in the world, if we are going to achieve that goal, we need to unite as a country, not be divided even further. Now is the very time that Scotland needs unity. Finally, to conclude, on behalf of the voters that I represent across the Lothian region, I want to give this message to the First Minister today. We might not agree on everything in this Parliament. In fact, we might disagree on a great number of things, but I know that we can agree on this. Grievance, division and negativity cannot be the political lifeblood of this country. Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom in 2014. It is time that the Scottish Government started to listen to the people of Scotland. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Daniel Johnson. Presiding Officer, it has been a very interesting exercise in democracy listening to colleagues across the chamber. There are some speeches that I will definitely read with some great care when the official report is published. I will read Alec Rowley's contribution, not because I agreed with his conclusions but because of the quality of the argument that he deployed in support of his conclusions. I will read Bruce Crawford's speech again because of the moderation of his expression and the felicitation of its words. Ivan McKee delineated an interesting approach. Adam Tomkins, not a man that I have often found myself agreeing with in conclusion, at least had the decency to argue a case where step A was followed by step B followed by step C. I see he has been absent for the chamber sometime. I hope that he will read a number of the speeches in this Parliament as I will do. Jenny Marra talked about how difficult it is to get into the EU. One of the things about the EU that is particularly interesting is how flexible it is. It took only three months for East Germany to get into the EU, curiously enough. Of course, for my constituents who have a particular hatred entirely justified and sustained by the SNP who has been opposed to the common fisheries policy from 1975 to the present day, there is a curious exception in the EU. There is a part of the EU that is a full member of the EU that is not in the common fisheries policy, even though it is a coastal state. That is Gibraltar. It may be a tiny exception, but there are in democratic societies, in democratic institutions, the capability of being flexible. I want to talk a little bit about the United Kingdom, and why the United Kingdom may now be passed at the point of recovery. One of the things that those who voted to leave in the recent referendum should perhaps take heart from is that, under the present rules for admission to the EU, the United Kingdom could not be re-admitted. The reason for that is article 2 that requires respect for democracy, stability of institutions, guaranteeing democracy. Very specifically, functional democratic governance requires that all systems of the country should be able to participate on an equal basis in the political decision making at every single governing level. The majority of national politicians are unelected, undismissable and therefore the UK, in European terms, is not a democracy. That is hard to those who voted to leave. Of course, there is a little bit more when we look at the processes of Westminster. Alison Thoolis, my MP colleague, has discovered that it is impossible for any parliamentary process to oppose a negative instrument. In this case, any effect penalising those with a third child requiring that it be shown to have been by rape is not the way that a modern progressive democracy should work. I want to say a few words about fishing because, without doubt, those who had an interest in fishing were the most antipathetic to the European project and with good reason. When I came here in 2001, my first speech was in the common fisheries policy. At a time when we were savaging our fleet at European behest, while simultaneously the EU was funding the building of new boats in Spain, those boats were, of course, to fish in our waters. If we get anything out of where we are today, it is an opportunity to reset the way in which we have access to our European waters, our own national waters. In my parliamentary constituency, the four candidates who stood in last year's election were all remainers, but we all share a duty to support the interests of our constituents. On the subject of independence, it is worth saying that it is not a particularly unusual activity. The UK has, if it is brief, please... Lewis MacDonald I am very grateful. Can I simply ask, following the reference to fishing, is it Mr Stevenson's intention, should our second independence referendum go ahead, to ask the fisherman in his constituency to vote to leave the United Kingdom in order to rejoin the European Union? Stewart Stevenson We have shown the kind of flexibility, and I direct them to Scotland's place in Europe, section 127, which reads, in our compromise, we are clear that, under this option, we would not remain within the common fisheries policy. We are being flexible and offering compromise. Would the others do the same thing? Let's just say a little bit about where the UK and Scotland can go from where we are, because at the moment there is only one word—it's a gull. In crises times, the UK has, on occasion, been bold enough to bring everybody into the room in an attempt to solve the problem, and in fishing I returned to the very simple thing—that the position of fishing would be protected, the argument would be amended and taken forward if the Scottish fishing minister leads the way in the debates with the EU. I urge the UK to listen to that again. It takes a button off their shoulders, gives them the time to do other things, would help us and ensure that we get the kind of outcome that we absolutely require for our fishermen. Daniel Johnson We have had a heated and argumentative debate, but there is one absolute clarity. The SNP prospectus for a second independence referendum is based on flawed assumptions and confused logic. It claims that it is based on certainty and choice, but the reality is that independence can only lead to more risk and there is certainly less clarity. As evidenced no less than by the previous speaker talking in confused terms about the EU and whether or not we would even join the EU. Perhaps the most concerning of all is that it is willfully ignoring what the Scottish people want, which is to leave constitutional uncertainty behind them. Last week we had a constructive and insightful debate from the Committee on Tourism and Europe, discussing the uncertainties of Brexit, and it is true that Brexit lays before us a great number of uncertainties. We discussed what the implications would be of trading under DWTO rules. We discussed the benefits of the co-operation that we have through European organisations and institutions, and we discussed how the implications of Brexit would be counted on economic costs, not least in terms of jobs. However, the reality is that leaving the UK, the single market that we have enjoyed for so long, is of four times greater significance in terms of trade. It is leaving the UK that presents the very real prospect of Scotland having to trade with the rest of these islands on DWTO rules, which Ailey Whiteford was saying just at the weekend would be extremely damaging. What is more, the co-operation that even the white paper had baked into it would be brought into that because of the similarity between the EU status and the UK status. The reality is that independence does not ease those risks, does not help those uncertainties, it exacerbates them, and the reality is that we have had not one argument from the benches over there about how those risks would be ameliorated or mitigated. Patrick Harvie Daniel Johnson and I would agree that I suspect entirely about the Brexit shambles and the two-year period of uncertainty that is before us because of that, but surely it follows that to defer a decision about whether the voters of Scotland choose to stay on that path until after 2019 extends uncertainty. It does not diminish it at all. Daniel Johnson It increases that uncertainty because there is no set of circumstances in which Scotland will remain continuously a member of the EU. The fact of Brexit as unpalatable as it is is that Scotland is coming out of the EU. What we are discussing here is whether or not it will have a differentiated status to the rest of the UK, with the dire consequences on trade, on the economy and jobs that would come with it. If you accept that that is the consequence of Brexit, you have to accept that those are the consequences of independence. The First Minister described that as being about informed choice, but the reality is that the situation this time is more complicated and more risky than last time. The economic case is less sure because of the collapse in oil and the international context far less certain. The reality is that this should not surprise us because this is just another excuse from the party that only believes in one thing, that only believes in independence, because motion after motion that we have had in this place, vote after vote, they have willfully ignored, except this is apparently the historic one. Time after time it was about having the acknowledgement of our options in that letter triggering article 50, except the First Minister shot her bolt before that letter was even sent. Indeed, we know that this is an excuse when we look at the cartwheels and contortions laid before us over recent days, over the definition of whether a generation was meant or what a generation really means. Indeed, we are not even clear. We do not even have the commitment from the Scottish Government that we would even apply for European membership. Is it EFTA? Is it EU? We do not know. The reality is that this is a party that has spent the last two and a half years looking for another excuse for another independence referendum. Indeed, I think that there could be no more sure key to that being the case than the rhetoric that we have had from those benches. Despite some of the pleas from people like Ruth Maguire and Bruce Crawford for a dignified debate, we have had insult after insult from Ash Denham, from Christina McKelvie, and then we have had the grandiose rhetoric from Jenny Gilruth and Richard Lochhead talking about the eyes of the world, Scottish stories and Ivan McKee's historians of the future. However, not one person has answered this. Is it a good idea? Is it worth doing? You have not been making that case in your speeches, have you? It is a little bit late. We are already past five o'clock. The reality is that we are two years on from the last independence rate and we have got no new ideas. Indeed, all that we have is stuttering from Jenny Cherry, who cannot even begin to answer questions on currency. Indeed, we have Jenny Gilruth laying out a picture of industrial decline, which is serious in Scotland, which we do need to tackle. However, not one word on how we would tackle the 11 per cent budget deficit, not one word on how we would tackle the £15 billion of cuts that we need to make up. What would be the impact of those cuts on the Scottish economy? What would be the impact of those cuts on Scottish industry? The reality is that the SNP argument on the EU is flawed. The SNP argument on certainty is flawed. The SNP argument on the compromises that they have made are certainly unclear and the SNP cannot be even clear where they stand on the EU. Labour stands against this independence referendum because we need to put division and divisiveness behind us. We stand opposed to this independence referendum because it distracts from the reality of the issues that we need to deal with, such as industry, such as education. We stand against this independence referendum because, quite simply, it increases risks and uncertainties that will only be counted in the cost of jobs to Scotland. Before I move on to Mr Dorn, can I say to members in regard to the points of order earlier? I have now read the official report, and this is clearly a matter between members that they may wish to discuss between themselves. However, I would reiterate that, from the point of view here, passions are running high, and I should remind all members during the course of those debates to treat each other with respect. We now move on to James Dorn and to be followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to be as respectful as I possibly can in such an important debate. Despite the best efforts of the First Minister, we now find ourselves in the process of having another referendum in Scottish self-determination. During the last referendum, support for yes climbed from 27 to 45 per cent, partly because people realised that the continual Tory Government was becoming increasingly likely due to the continuing demise of the once great Labour Party. This time, the spectre of continual Tory control at Westminster is now not a likelihood but a certainty. I want to discuss two things during my contribution. The first is the importance of the decision that we make to our future generations. When people of my year are going to the polling booth to vote for or against self-determination for Scotland, they have to consider the impact that their vote will have for the future of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and children that they do not even know. They have to decide what kind of legacy they want to leave. A future where our children get to work, study and live in Europe, where they get to make their own choices, including mistakes that they will undoubtedly make or have their future decided for them by a Government, run by people who do not even care enough to protect and welcome unaccompanied children from war zones. Kezia Dugdale says today that I hate what the Tories are doing to Britain, and yet the end result is going to be that she will continue to make sure that the Tories do that to Britain. Can I say to the member that I am genuinely listening, can he tell us how, faced with a £15 billion deficit, the poorest people in his constituency will benefit from independence? James Darnham. Can I say in response to that that any deficit that the Scottish Government may well end up with when we become independent will be a deficit that was run up under this union that you seem to be so proud to be a member of? Will Scottish Labour seem to be content and forever siding with the Tories? At Westminster we have Corbyn and his colleagues saying that they would allow a referendum because even they understand that the will of the Scottish people is to be respected. Although I will be quite honest with the Labour Party in such this array, I am not going to hold my breath in that position either. If my memory serves me correctly, Kezia Dugdale and Alec Rowley said last year that they were supportive of the Scottish Government's efforts to maintain a relationship with the EU. As Sarwar earlier on today said that he wanted truth, well, here's some truth. For poverty and the NHS, I don't see how Kezia can say that an independent Scotland would be worse than living with the outcome of a predicted Tory Government to Westminster till up to 2030 and beyond. I've watched Labour abstain and vote after vote in Westminster, votes in legislation that would have protected some of the poorest in our country. Scottish Labour would rather, it appears that Scottish Labour would rather stay in an unholy alliance with the Tories than do what's right for the people of Scotland. I heard and I listened very carefully to Alec Rowley's speech and I thought that the tone of Alec Rowley's speech was great. I agreed with a lot of what he said, but I can't see how he can come to the conclusion that under the Westminster we're going to get a good deal for Scotland. We're talking about a Westminster Government here that refused to speak to the First Minister or listen to anything that the First Minister was saying in the run-up to the article 50 being announced. It's a Government that refuses to take into consideration anything that any redevolved nations have done. Why would you think that if we say no to tomorrow night that they will all of a sudden start to listen to us and think about the other nations of the United Kingdom, it's just not going to happen? That brings me to the party on my left. I've got a weak comment here. You don't get a referendum for free, you have to earn it. If the Greens and the SNP go over a line, make a majority, get votes in Parliament, then they'll vote through a referendum and that's what democracy is all about. It's perfectly simple. That was Ruth Davidson. What has changed? What has changed? Nothing, except for the fact that Ruth sees that she might have a future elsewhere if things go badly here. When the Prime Minister talks about playing politics, she should remember that it was her predecessor who called the leave-remain referendum in order to stave off UKIP and appease his own Eurosceptics MPs. There was no demand for a referendum in Europe, and yet here we are. Theresa May herself warned that Brexit would be a disaster before she changed her spots to suit her own political games and ambitions. She knew that, should David Cameron and the rest of the pro-Europe group lose the EU referendum, that it would be, and I quote, fatal for the union with Scotland. If Theresa May and the Tories knew that Brexit would indeed be catastrophic for the union, which she claims is so dear to her, it's no wonder that Scotland is flabbergasted at the utter disregard that seems to be held in when it comes to negotiations. Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Russell, Fiona Hyslop and the rest of the Scottish Government have made it very clear that it would be willing to work, listen and engage, but the devolved administration seemed to be snubbed at every turn. Just yesterday, as some of my colleagues have already highlighted, the devolved administrations were to find out the trigger date for article 50 on the BBC. That's simply not good enough. How often do we hear the phrase, a partnership of equals? And yet, how often can it be displayed that this is simply not the case? It's not for me, the SNP, the Tories or indeed any other party to decide the future of Scotland. While the United Kingdom faces uncertainty and economic instability, it's for the people of Scotland to decide how this country moves forward. I will be voting for independence should we're given a choice because I believe that this debate is about what kind of Scotland we want to be, but I firmly believe, no matter how you vote, that this choice does belong to the people of Scotland. Their future should be one decided by them and not one made for them, and that's why I'm supporting the Government's motion. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. For once, I take no pleasure in taking part in a debate in this chamber. Thanks to the kingmaker and his sidekicks, with their incredibly quickly biodegrading manifesto commitments, apparently already in the pockets of the SNP, the outcome of the debate may already be decided. I wanted the opportunity to speak up from the majority of Scots who are sick and tired of this Government continually putting their pet obsession ahead of actually governing Scotland, ever size-stepping their actual responsibilities, a Government of smoke and mirrors. Presiding Officer, this week we are having two days of debate on this issue, because after two years and the largest democratic vote in Scotland's history, apparently not just now, we need further debate on this issue. In the end, though, this is an illusion. Sound and fury signify nothing, and nothing is exactly what's being achieved today. Nothing to tackle preventable health, nothing to support the NHS, nothing to improve education for the next generation, nothing to support farmers still waiting for farm payments, nothing to address poor economic performance, nothing to justify Scotland being the highest tax part of the UK. In other words, nothing to discuss issues of genuine importance to the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government may have given its most in the title Scotland's choice, but this is not the debate that the majority of Scots would choose. Contrary to the latest constitutional myth, dreamt up by the SNP, Scotland does not face a choice between independence and Brexit. It faces a choice between pragmatically dealing with a situation that it finds itself in as a result of democratically held elections or being dragged by the SNP Government into yet more distracting, demoralising toxic arguments about an issue that does nothing to address the real problems facing Scotland. Presiding Officer, I didn't vote for independence and I didn't vote for Brexit, and yet somehow the First Minister feels that she has the right to take my remain vote and the revolts of over one and a half million Scots as a signal to hold another independence referendum. I'm certain that my ballot in the EU referendum didn't say remain and if I lose, I'm happy for the Scottish Government to ignore my vote in 2014 and use my remain vote to put a party political interest above the interests of Scotland. The Scottish Government appears to live in a world where any instance of things failing to go their way is an excuse for a referendum. It's one thing to be a sore loser, it's another to ignore the result and twist reality to suit your own narrative. The idea that the 2014 independence referendum was somehow invigorating and enlightening does not resonate with me. Yes, there may have been many more Scots engaged in politics, but it was the politics of division and it's this division that the SNP continues to drive and cultivate for its own end. I remember being in the better together campaign reception through the night and watching the results as they came in. I was relieved when we realised that our union would remain intact, but I have to say that my overwhelming feeling was one of sadness. My one and only conversation with Jim Murphy—I don't know if you remember him, tall guy of future Scottish Labour—was when he put his hand out to me and joyously proclaimed we've won. I remember looking at him in the eye and saying, what have we won, Jim? My country's torn in two. How do we go about fixing that? You see, Presiding Officer. The SNP and their cohorts were comprehensively defeated, but I would suggest that nobody won. How can anyone realistically claim victory against a backdrop of such huge division and discord? Regrettably, Presiding Officer, here we are again. We need to recognise that when it comes to SNP, nothing else matters. It is independence, no matter what it costs Scotland and the Scottish people. We will use any excuse, real or invented, to leverage their obsession. How can the Scottish Government justify returning to this issue again so quickly? What was supposed to be once an generation issue was allowed to lie for less than the lifespan of an average goldfish? Speaking of creatures with short memories, I would like to suggest that we insert a new definition of the word generation into the dictionary, something along the lines of the period of time equal to however long it takes Alex Salmond to forget he made a promise. I entered this place less than a year ago with the hope that I would have the opportunity to discuss and debate health, education and the rural economy, to try to bring some different ideas to this chamber through constructive dialogue and to help in any way possible to shape a better, brighter future for Scotland. I very quickly came to appreciate the huge weaknesses of this SNP Government. It is laid bare for all to see in every debate and with every question that it put to them that remains unanswered. This chamber hosts a never-ending game of SNP buzzword bingo. Westminster, Tory austerity, Brexit, no matter what the topic, no matter what the question, their rhetoric remains the same, always designed to cultivate division in Scotland and between Scotland and the rest of the UK to stoke up grievance and resentment, independence, no matter what it costs my country. The SNP has nothing else to offer, nothing of substance and no original thought. The philosopher important, George Santillar, said that a fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he's forgotten his aim. The First Minister has forgotten her aim, Presiding Officer. It's clear that whatever was said in the SNP's last manifesto about health and education and dealing with the issues of real importance to the people of Scotland, it was all hastily thrown together to disguise the fact that they are a party with no aims for Scotland beyond independence. The SNP wants to talk about the second manifesto. Mr Whittle, just one second. Can I say to Mr McAlpine, please let this be a point of order and not an interruption disguised as a point of order? Thank you, Presiding Officer. The member just called the First Minister a fanatic. I regard that as unparliamentary language, which I think is against the standing orders of the Parliament, and I wondered if he would give an opinion on that. I'm not sure that that is exactly what Mr Whittle did describe the First Minister as. Mr Whittle. You're absolutely correct, Presiding Officer. That is not what I said. The SNP wants to talk about how a second referendum may or may not work so that the people begin to think that it is inevitable. We're not going to play that game. It's not inevitable. It shouldn't happen. The SNP should take it off the table because the people of Scotland don't want it. I suggest that, if members do not wish to take an intervention, it's up to them, so please do not continue to pester a member for an intervention if they're not taking an intervention. Since entering this Parliament, I have campaigned for constitutional change based on the principle that powers should be devolved for a purpose, and that purpose is to create a co-operative, progressive and socialist society. There's little point of having powers or repeatedly calling for them, then not using those powers when you get them. That is what we've seen with taxation, social security, procurement and so many other areas where this Government is failing our citizens. In the 65 public meetings that I spoke at during the referendum, I argued for a federal system of government where power is devolved to the most logical and appropriate level. I want to see a Government and public bodies at local, national and supranational levels use their powers to create full employment, rebuild the public services that civilise our society, provide homes for all our children and end the scandal of 260,000 Scottish children living in poverty. Devolving power as we have seen does not mean progressive change follows. That requires political will, hard cash, redistribution of wealth and power, and a commitment to face down the corporate and new establishment interests that control Scottish society and the economy. We had a referendum once in a generation event that the former and current First Minister spoke of, but they now perform verbal gymnastics or resort to amnesia to disown their words. Of course, the camera never lies. On numerous occasions I've heard the First Minister demand that, if there is a majority in this Parliament to have another referendum, then the will of this Parliament must be respected, but, of course, this argument only applies when it suits the First Minister's case. Where was this great champion of parliamentary democracy when this Parliament defeated her Government on fracking, on NHS cuts, on Highlands and Islands enterprise, on council funds, on the offensive behaviour at footballer, on failing education policy and local government's cuts? I will give way to the First Minister if she can tell us why it suits her argument, but when she is defeated she rejects democracy. I will give way if the First Minister wants to tell us. That tells you everything. Does she change her policy after those defeats? No, she plowed on regardless of this Parliament. Let none of us take any lectures from the First Minister about respecting the will of Parliament when, by her own arrogant belief that she can do no wrong, she has shown nothing but contempt for this Parliament. What about her little helpers in the Green Party? What about her little helpers in the Green Party, a party that is repeatedly claimed to stand on the moral high ground on so many issues, claimed that they were the champions of democracy, that they do politics differently from other parties, yet at the budget the worst negotiators in history sold out public sector workers and council services at the first opportunity, and now they rip up their manifesto, which said that if a new referendum is to happen it should come about by the will of the people and not be driven by the calculations of party political advantage. Another sell-out at this rate, Mr Harvey, will be declaring his undying love for Donald Trump. Presiding Officer, we come to the issue of Europe. Last Tuesday the SNP policy was to remain in the EU. The following day they were joining EFTA. Saturday it was EU and according to the former First Minister we were back to EFTA again. Is it really the Government's plans to see powers return from Brussels to this Parliament only for them to hand them back to Brussels again? Let's save ourselves time, like the West Lothian question, let's call it the Alec Neill question. If an independent Scotland was to rejoin the EU it would have to join a future date to join the euro, and most worryingly of all, except a 3 per cent budget deficit. Of course Scotland has never been asked if it wants to be a member, so should there be a referendum we need clarity from the Government. The First Minister tells us how public services would be paid for under her independence plan when there would be no Barnett formula that gives us over £1,000 extra per head. How would it be paid for with the oil price at the level that it is now, and how would it be paid for with a 3 per cent budget deficit demanded by the European Union? People want a job, they want good schools for their children to live in, they want to be educated in. They need care and dignity and old age to live in clean and safe communities. The Government and this Parliament's energy, time, budget and focus should be on these things, not another two years of constitutional wrangling. I believe that all of us want to live in a better society, but socialism and nationalism are two very different political philosophies. As a socialist, I want to live in a country that retains UK wide fiscal redistribution, a united trade union movement and social solidarity, based on class, not nation. Our final speaker in this afternoon's debate, Michael Russell. Can I just welcome, as a nationalist, the re-emergence in the last five minutes of Better Together? It is to see Ruth Davidson and Neil Findlay get together, a marriage made by Brexit. Bruce Crawford made, undoubtedly, one of the best speeches of the afternoon. When he asked this chamber— Sorry, Mr Russell. The point of order, Neil Findlay, is this? I could withdraw that mark, because, as he knows, I voted remain in the referendum. That's not a point of order yet again, Mr Russell. Allegedly, so did Ruth Davidson. Let me start with Ruth Crawford's speech, which was not only right in terms of tone, it was right in terms of conclusion. This debate will have to be concluded. It will have to be concluded by debate. It will have to be concluded by the exchange of ideas, because there are three positions in this debate. There is a position that Scotland will leave the EU with the rest of the—no, I'm not taking an intervention—we'll leave the EU with the rest of the UK on the hardest of Brexit terms. There was a position that we would leave the EU with the UK in a negotiated settlement, and there is a position in which the Scottish people will decide. In order to have that debate, however, we have to have clarity. And this has also been a debate of three confusions, and they're all confusions sewn by the Tory party, so let me see if I can clarify them. The first of them is the conclusion of what a manifesto is. According to the Tories, a green manifesto must be observed to the absolute letter. According to the Tories, an SNP manifesto must be abandoned completely. And according to the Tories, their own manifesto commitment, I remind you, yes to the single market, must simply be forgotten. It's not quite as entertaining, of course, as the Lib Dem manifesto, which, according to Willie Rennie, is about to be delivered. It's on its way. I wouldn't hold your breath for that. The second confusion today is a confusion of Governments. If you listen carefully to this debate, there are extraordinary double standards being applied. The SNP Government, with the First Minister, who has painstakingly tried to get a Brexit compromise, and it is that Brexit compromise is here. I know how painstaking her approach has been, who has painstakingly tried to get a Brexit compromise, who is leading a highly successful, highly popular administration. I'm quite happy to start reading the list of achievements that will take me longer than my six minutes. I'm sorry to say, but a highly successful, highly popular administration, now 10 years in office, with around 50 per cent of the vote still, apparently she is not doing her day job. She's obsessed with the detriment of, amongst other things, the legislative programme. She's only interested, according to the Tories, in her own political party. Yet, astonishingly, there is a UK Government and a UK Prime Minister who we know has rejected compromise, who creates division, who won't negotiate, who's presiding over a collapsing health service, a divided and class-ridden education system, the most expensive universities in the world, what is, truthfully, the highest tax part of the UK, and who has made the worst ever cuts to local authorities, and who has, because of Brexit, abandoned almost the entire Westminster legislative programme, apparently she is doing her day job. In addition, she's working in the interests of her nation, not her party, and she has the support of the Labour Party, clearly. That's the second confusion. Both those confusions are bad enough, but there's a third and very serious and alarming and damaging conclusion. It's this. It's exemplified by Adam Tomkins, who is apparently an expert in constitutional law, who bawled at the end of his speech, we are the people, and we say no, and we mean it. Professor Tomkins is not the people. Neither am I the people. We are the government, and they are the opposition. That is the situation. The opposition is absolutely entitled to vote and to argue against anything. Donald Cameron was absolutely right about that, but they are not entitled to veto it. That is the situation that the Tories have got themselves into. It's a situation that Ruth Davidson has got herself into in that old thought-out press conference when she appeared with a minister from the UK Government to veto the decision of the Scottish Parliament if it is that decision tomorrow. There is worse than that, because it is not just vetoing a majority in this Parliament, it is vetoing a manifesto commitment. Apparently, both those things can be vetoed because there is now a new Davidson definition of democracy. That is that everything has to have the approval of the Tory Party, either here or in government at Westminster, even though they only have one out of the 59 Scottish MPs, and even though they are a small minority in this Parliament. That is what is alarming, because that is anti-democratic. That is unacceptable in a democracy. An opposition does not have a veto. When we come to consider this tomorrow, when the Parliament votes, the judgment will be if that will of the Parliament express through majority and through manifesto prevails or whether it is vetoed by an opposition. That will tell us whether the Tories are a democratic party or not. In conclusion, Bruce Crawford was absolutely right about something else. Division is caused by people, not by debate. We need to find a way to bring this debate to a conclusion. The only way that we can do that is to allow the people to have their say. It does not matter how often Ruth Davidson shouts, but that is the crystal clear conclusion that anybody will draw in this debate. It must come to an end, and the only way it will come to an end, given the dangers of hard Brexit, given the reality of the situation in which all attempts at compromise have failed, there is only one way to bring this to an end, and that is for the people to vote. Those who are against the people voting are not democrats. Thank you, as members will know, the debate on Scotland's choice will continue tomorrow afternoon. There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business. The decisions on the motion and the amendments debated today will be taken at decision time tomorrow, and I remind members that if they have spoken in the debate today, they should be present at closing speeches tomorrow, which are due to begin at 4.43pm. We will now move on to members' business in the name of Rhoda Grant, and we will just take a few moments to change seats.