 The first item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on next steps on Scotland's future. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call Michael Russell for 10 minutes, please. There we are. Michael Russell. I will try again. Michael Russell. I will not be deflected as easily as that. Much has happened since the First Minister set out in late April the Scottish Government's view of continued Brexit chaos and of the measures that this Government must bring forward to protect the people of this country. Last Thursday Scotland said, loudly and clearly, that it is a European nation and that it intends to remain one. It also rejected all attempts to reflect that argument with spurious assertions about other matters and showed its contempt for equivocation. Elections can be brutal judgments on parties and politicians. That one certainly was. However, elections can also be fresh starts. If all the parties in this chamber are willing to hear the clear voice of Scotland, I believe that we can find a way to put behind us the divisions of Brexit and move forward together. That is what this statement is about. On 11 April, when the EU threw the UK a lifeline to avoid a no-deal Brexit, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said to Westminster, please don't waste this time, but he's been ignored. Not only has nothing happened to resolve the Brexit impasse, but now the stalemate looks like lasting for several more months, whilst ever more extreme Tory MPs vie with each other to present the most hard-line positions to their party faithful. The Tories are heading for a no-deal Brexit, and some positively welcome that disastrous direction of travel. A Boris Johnson premiere shape is no longer a bad joke, it's a frightening possibility. Substitute rub or lidsum or gove or Hancock or McVeigh or any of the others for Johnson, and the situation is no better. Most are heading with pleasure to the cliff edge, but Scotland must not be forced against our will to go with them. Let me at the outset make one thing very clear to the Tories at Westminster and to the Tories in this chamber. The SNP manifesto, on which we won the Holy Road election in 2016 and on which this Government is founded, said 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. Any deal that takes Scotland out of the EU against the wishes of the majority of people in Scotland has that effect. That is what people voted for when they voted the SNP into government. If a new Tory Prime Minister attempts a no-deal Brexit, while we will do everything possible to stop it and everything that we can to mitigate it, it will yet be further proof that the conditions that are set out in our manifesto in April 2016 have been met in full, and there will be an even greater urgency to give Scotland a choice of a different future. The Scottish Government and the SNP at Westminster will continue to do all that we can to stop Brexit for the whole of the UK. In particular, we will continue to support a second referendum on EU membership, a position that received widespread support on Thursday, but time is running out. The third anniversary of the Brexit referendum will be with us in less than a month's time. The accelerating shambles has caused and is causing real damage to Scotland's economy and to our social fabric. The assumption that a UK Government and a UK Parliament would or could in any way do better for Scotland than our independent institutions has been finally and completely destroyed. Presiding Officer, there must be, and there is, a better way forward. That is, in our view, for Scotland to become an independent European nation. As we seek that way forward, we must try to build as much consensus as we can. One thing that we have learned from Brexit is this. There is a need for reconciliation and the bringing together of different views. The current Prime Minister did none of that when in office and the baleful result is there for all to see. We must try to break the current logjam with the power of fresh ideas. To do that, we must approach our collective national future in a spirit of openness and acceptance that we all want the best for our country. We must be mindful not just of those who won but of those who lost, not just this week nor even in 2016 but in 2014 too. It will not be easy, but at least we start on that process with a high degree of consensus about the basic fact that the Westminster system is broken and there is no mending of it in sight. The First Minister said last month that we must reach out and be inclusive, and our approach to the three tasks that we are now taking forward has been and is just that. Firstly, as context, I can confirm that despite the chaos that we witness in Whitehall, my colleagues and I will continue to attend inter-governmental meetings with the UK and Wales and hopefully soon Northern Ireland counterparts. The destination that the Scottish Government wishes for this country is independence, but as we travel towards that, we have a role in helping to improve the structures under which we presently live and work. In the past two years, I have often quoted the terms of reference to the JMCEN. They have consistently and fundamentally been ignored by the UK Government, and that strategy was, I believe, at the express wish of the current Prime Minister, imposed upon her ministers at every level and at every turn. She had and continues to have no interest in seeing the devolved settlement observed. Now that she is going, that must change. There must be a new meaningful respect for our position and for the responsibilities that are ours as of right. There needs to be a clear and urgent timetable for the current inter-governmental review that must secure a legal underpinning to the relationship, and the UK Government must commit to respecting the legislative consent mechanism rather than ignoring it. Those matters will be discussed at the next JMCEN due before the end of June. We must see significant progress on them if those meetings are to have any future purpose. Presiding Officer, that is about the journey. Let us now turn to the destination and the three areas of activity that the First Minister set out in her April statement. Firstly, the Referendum Scotland Bill was introduced to the Parliament yesterday and has been published this morning. The bill will, if it is hoped, have completed its parliamentary progress by the end of this calendar year. As the First Minister said in April, it is the intention of the Government to offer the people of Scotland a choice on independence later in the term of this Parliament. Of course, should circumstances change, we would have the option of seeking Parliament's agreement to proceed on an accelerated timetable. The bill provides a legal framework for holding referendums on matters that are now or in future within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The rules that it sets out are of the highest standards and will ensure that the results are widely and internationally accepted. It brings Scotland into line with the UK, where there is already standing legislation for referenda through the Political Party's Elections and Referendum Act, which Westminster passed in 2000. As the First Minister indicated in her statement, we intend at a future date to negotiate with the UK Government for a section 30 order to put beyond doubt our competence to hold a referendum on independence. When the framework is used in those or in any other circumstances, a separate vote at a future date will allow members to consider the specific topic and approve the question. The proposed franchise will be based on that, used for local government and Scottish Parliament elections, which includes EU citizens in 16 and 17-year-olds. It will be updated to incorporate future extensions to the franchise. I previously set out my intention to extend the franchise for Scottish Parliament and local government elections to all people legally resident in Scotland, whatever their nationality. Those proposals will be brought forward shortly. Given the disastrous and shameful experience of many EU citizens last Thursday, it is now obvious that this is the only way to secure the democratic rights of every citizen. I look forward to working with other parties at all stages of the parliamentary process. Secondly, on cross-party talks about the broken Westminster system and the future needs and direction of Scotland, I welcome the commitment from Labour and the Greens to explore what might be possible. I hope that the other parties who have not yet responded will now confirm that they wish to do so. I have suggested using an independent interlocutor who would talk to parties separately to gather views and create an agenda and format for the talks. That would take the pressure out of the process and allow better engagement without any hangover from past discussions. I intend to start a first round next month and to build on that if the other parties are willing. Those talks are without preconditions and I commit myself and the Scottish Government to constructive engagement in them. I know that wider civic Scotland is keen to be involved. I will work with the parties to consider how that might be possible. Finally, we have made considerable progress with the creation of a citizens assembly. Two weeks ago, I visited Ireland, where I met some of the key people responsible for the constitutional convention and the assembly. I am meeting with a range of experts from this country and overseas in order to further inform our own planning. There is already a lot of interest in and enthusiasm for the assembly. I hope that all parties will welcome and become involved in the initiative, as was the case in Ireland. In order to help members to engage more, I have arranged for the secretaries of the Irish initiatives to come to Scotland on 19 June to speak to MSPs and others. That will include a briefing session to party leaders or their nominees. At and after the meetings on 19 June, I would want all parties to offer their thoughts and suggestions. I hope to be able to announce an independent chair in the formation of an expert steering group in the coming weeks and to confirm the timetable and the process for formulating the precise issues for deliberation when we return in September. We intend to hold the first session of the assembly in the autumn and have all five or six sessions completed by next spring. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, as we take forward a range of activities based upon consensus and compromise, we will be endeavouring to get away from the negativity and nastiness of the current Brexit process. Scotland deserves, and this week has clearly demanded better. We must create a country in which we all feel that we have gained something worth having, where we all feel part of a shared national endeavour, regardless of the particular side of the argument that we have come from. That is a spirit that imbued the First Minister's statement in April, on which the Scottish Government is determined to carry forward. I hope that we can do so together. That is the fresh start that the people of Scotland have offered us. We should all grasp it with both hands. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that are raised in his statement, and I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question would press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Adam Tomkins. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. In a week when new figures show that more patients than ever are waiting more than 12 weeks for treatment in Scotland's NHS, we might have expected a ministerial statement on the SNP's mishandling of the health service. No, here we are again talking about Nicola Sturgeon's pet obsession with independence. Only a few days after she said that a vote for the SNP in last week's European election was not a vote for independence. She must think our heads, but not the back. There is a case for standing legislation on the conduct and campaign rules for referendums, but the bill that is published today goes so much further than that. Under this bill, SNP ministers will have the power to set any referendum question at any time on any matter of their choosing. Ministers, not Parliament, will set the question, pick the date and determine the campaign period. If they change their minds, ministers, not Parliament, can then change any of those rules. This bill is not about the democracy of letting the people decide in a lawful referendum. It is about the dictate of ministers. Even the powers of the Electoral Commission to scrutinise proposed referendum questions will be diminished in comparison with the position in UK law. Why should ministers and not Parliament determine those matters? Second, could the minister answer this? Do referendums under the bill published today have to be binary? Yes, no, leave, remain? Could multi-question referendums be established under this bill and could multi-choice referendums also be permitted? Finally, let me ask this very briefly. I agree with the minister that Scottish independence could be established only by referendum. Clearly we could not have independence without a lawful referendum, but what are the other matters that SNP ministers are proposing to put to referendum? They claim that the bill is a framework bill for referendums in general. I suspect that it is no such thing and that in reality it is a trojan horse for a wildcat Indiref 2. A minister could prove me wrong. What are the other issues besides independence that he plans to put to the people in a referendum? Michael Russell? There were a number of questions there. Let me do my best to answer them. First of all, in questions of priorities, I am, of course, my friend, the health secretary is working very hard in the health service. Some of the results of that are already clear, as Scotland's core A&E services are the best performing in the UK actually for almost four years. We have a record high in health funding. We have a record high in patient satisfaction. NHS staffing is up by over 13,600 or 10.7 per cent under the SNP. Patient safety is massively increased, and 5.1 million people are now registered with an NHS dentist. Of course, work continues, but the record of that is a good one. Let me move on to the question of a pan, the First Minister attempting to achieve the referendum by stealth. Not only did the First Minister announce her intention to take forward the bill on 24 April, but she was so stealthy about this that she sent a card to every single household in Scotland, every single one, which said that we will offer people a choice of a future for Scotland as an independent European nation. How stealthy is that? A stealth referendum? I have to say, absolutely. How stealthy was that? Can we calm down a bit, please, if we wish to listen to the cabinet secretary? How stealthy it is to send a message to every single household in Scotland? Excuse me, Mr Russell. It is very difficult for anyone to hear anything except front bench people shouting at each other. Let me now address the issues raised by Mr Tomkins. First of all, Mr Tomkins is a constitutional lawyer. He understands at Westminster that the Government proposes and Parliament scrutinises and decides. That is exactly what happens in the political parties, elections and referendum act passed by Westminster in the year 2000. It is exactly the same process. If the member wishes to have a system in which Parliament proposes the referendum, he can move to that system. It is not a system at Westminster, it is not a system here, but, of course, Parliament will be able to scrutinise and decide on every single detail. Finally, on the question of referendum, if there are developments to this bill that Mr Tomkins wishes to see, the bill itself is open to amendment. The bill will be going through a system in which that is a welcome matter, because I have always welcomed full debate on those matters. The problem with Mr Tomkins' position is that Mr Tomkins does not want this Parliament to decide. He wants Westminster to decide. No, no, no. He actually wants the Tory Prime Minister, whoever that is, to decide and simply say no. That is not democracy, that is not what we will be doing. Richard Leonard I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. Labour delivered devolution. In the Scottish Parliament's 20th anniversary year, Labour continues to support and defend devolution. Up until Brexit, the devolution settlement, founded on the 1998 act, worked well. While it is evident that there is a breakdown of trust between the present UK Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, it is not because it is a UK Government, it is because it is a Tory Government. Cabinet secretary, you note in your statement that Theresa May, I quote, has had no interest in seeing the devolved settlement observed. However, it is clear that the SNP Government here does not observe the devolution settlement either and is once again seeking to advance the cause of the break-up of the United Kingdom. So does the cabinet secretary not understand that his party's obsession with the creation of a separate Scottish state is a distraction from the real issues that this Parliament was brought in existence to tackle? Michael Russell Let me start by just paying a brief tribute to my former shadow, Neil Findlay, who regrettably I do not think is in the chamber today. It is no secret that he and I were not soulmates, but I do regret that any individual has decided that they do not want to continue in the role, and I wish him absolutely well in the future. I hope that whatever he does decide to do, he enjoys that more than being a member of the Labour group. I just also want to make the point that there are 14 members of the Labour group present. I just wonder where the others are. Are they still in office or still attending? However, let me come to the points about this referendum. I do not agree with that. I do not agree with Mr Leonard quite respectfully. I do not believe that this is in any sense a distraction, because the question that Mr Leonard has to address is this one. How does he achieve the things that he wants to see happen if there is a constant bloc upon them from a Tory Government at Westminster? We have not seen and I have lived through even more Tory Governments than Mr Leonard has lived through. The reality of the situation is that whatever happens, that is what is the bloc on progress in Scotland. There is an opportunity here to say how could we move forward to a more socially just, to a more fair, to a more equal Scotland? He and I have a genuine disagreement about how that will be done, but I have to say that the evidence of the last 50, 60, 70 years is on my side, because the evidence shows that it cannot be done through the United Kingdom, but it could be and should be done through this Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I would say to the Labour members to join us in that task, because actually in that task there would be a substantial majority in this chamber for the type of equal fair Scotland that we all want to see. The barrier to that happening is regrettably on those benches, but it lasts still on those benches too. It does not have to be like that. Patrick Harvie Thank you. I am also grateful for the advance copy of the statement and I welcome the publication of the bill today. I certainly commit to work with any other political party that has serious proposals for making the process more democratic and ensuring that powers are properly with Parliament, not ministers. We have done that before and we would be willing to do it again if there are serious proposals, even if some political parties have not recognised that the collapse in their vote last week does mean a necessity, a change in their position in relation to the political crisis that we are living through at the moment. One aspect of that crisis is the hacking of democracy. What we have seen is a growing body of evidence that the 2016 referendum was affected not only by empty promises on the side of a bus or racist rhetoric from Farage and Johnson but also by dodgy money and dodgy data. What opportunity is there to make sure that this bill prevents the future undermining of the democratic process in the same way as we saw in the 2016 EU referendum? Michael Russell I think that the member makes a very important point. We have seen in the referendum that it took place a great deal of shady activity and probably worse than shady activity. We see today, of course, a charge pending against one of the Tory leadership contenders for the misrepresentation. Of course, it is up to the courts to decide how that matter proceeds. In all those circumstances, I am very open to discussion with any party in this chamber that wants to strengthen legislation, not just this piece of legislation. Of course, there are two other bills due to come on electoral matters. One is on the franchise and the other is on the conduct of elections. It is certainly possible to look at how, after the members have seen those proposals, how they could be strengthened. I think that the whole chamber is showing that it supports democracy and the rules that underpin democracy would be a powerful message. I will work with anybody to send that message and to make sure that elections are run properly. Willie Rennie The cabinet secretary has learned nothing from the chaos of Brexit. Surely by now, even he must understand that the economic damage and national division that is caused by breaking up long-term economic partnerships, independence will mount chaos on top of the Brexit chaos. The minister has also got a lot to learn about building consensus. In one breath, he appeals to us all to work together reasonably and maturely before launching another attack on every single one of us. He has got an awful lot to learn about building consensus. He says that there are no preconditions for his cross-party talks. No preconditions apart from that is another independence referendum. Does he not understand that that is a major barrier to our participation in those talks? Michael Russell I regret that. I hope that Mr Rennie will think that matter through, because if there are no preconditions, there are new preconditions. The First Minister made it absolutely clear that cross-party talks are to look at alternatives that parties wish to bring forward. I have tried to create a structure for those who are non-confrontational, which allows people to take part without confrontation. I would hope that all the parties would take part in those, certainly through the first stage of talking to the interlocutor to see what the agendas are, because if there are alternatives, those alternatives should be put on the table. I cannot say fairer than that. It is important. The other question that needs to be addressed in here—I have put it in one form to Richard Leonard and Willie Rennie—is clearly what is the alternative to a no-deal Brexit when we get to that moment at Westminster. Do we just do what we are told? Do we just accept the economic chaos and disaster that will take place? He may not have sympathy with—and I do not have much sympathy with—the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Secretary of State for Scotland described the potential of Brexit itself as an economic catastrophe. The reality is that that is where we are heading. That is where it is being driven by Tory leadership candidates. What will Mr Rennie do in those circumstances? That is a vital question, and he needs to answer it. Members will be aware of the inordinate time that party leaders' questions have taken. If I ask for brevity, please bear it in mind so that as many members as possible can get in. Tom Arthur is followed by Murdo Fraser. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it should be for the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster to decide on a question of whether people in Scotland are to be given a choice over their future, particularly given the chaos unfolding in the Westminster Parliament? Michael Russell. Yes, and if you substituted any other country for Scotland within that question, you would realise how obvious it is that, of course, the people of Scotland should decide on their own future. Murdo Fraser, followed by Jenny Gilruth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister talked in his statement about consensus, about reconciliation and leaving behind negativity and nastiness, but he has never apologised for suggesting that our colleagues in Westminster are traitors to Scotland. In the spirit of reconciliation and a fresh start, will he now do so? Michael Russell. It is very difficult for me to apologise for something that I did not do, but let me try and reach out. If those colleagues and those people who support them on those benches were offended by that, I am sorry that that took place. Now, now, now, can we now perhaps accept that we should be looking forward to try and find a way in which we can work together? Will Murdo Fraser commit his party to sit down and have the conversations that we need to have? Jenny Gilruth, followed by Lady Smith. Thank you. Scotland overwhelmingly decided that it wanted to remain at the heart of Europe both in 2016 and in last week's EU elections. Can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament to what extent the UK Government has listened to the views of the people of Scotland during the Brexit process? Michael Russell. Well, not at all, because there has been, as I said in my statement, a deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to ensure that those voices will not listen to. The Prime Minister is not the person who finds dialogue easier, I have to say. However, if there is to be a change, and we are all hoping for a positive change, I mean, I know that it has often proved not to be the case. It is always dangerous to say that things cannot get any worse, because clearly they sometimes can. However, in those circumstances, there is an opportunity for change at Westminster. The next meeting of the GMCEN will be held sometime in June. I would be delighted to discover that there was a changed attitude at it. Elaine Smith, followed by Annabelle Ewing. Thank you. In the thirteenth year of this Government, over a million people in Scotland are living in poverty with children going hungry, rough sleeping on the increase in pensioners unable to afford to heat their homes. So where does the SNP's priorities actually lie? The statement talks about consensus. When will the Scottish Government respond to the clear consensus of anti-poverty organisations calling for urgent action, make tackling poverty its priority, rather than focusing yet again on the constitution? Michael Russell. I mean, I would refer the member to the UN report last week. I think that it is quite important that we deal with facts. The UN report is absolutely clear where the responsibility alas lies. It lies with successive Westminster Governments, and I say to the members, as I have said to the leader of her party here, there is a way to move on from that, to do the incredibly hard work that we are required to recreate Scotland in a way in which we would like to see it recreated, where poverty is eliminated, but that requires us to have a national consensus about putting the resources of the country to the good of the country. We cannot do that unless we have control of those resources. This is a simple issue. I commend the member for her passion about this. It is a passion that she has felt strongly. It is a passion that she is right to feel strongly. Poverty shames Scotland, but the only way that we will move on fully and finally from that is to make sure that all the resources, all the effort of the country, is devoted to that, and that cannot be done within the current settlement. Annabelle Ewing, followed by Donald Cameron. In relation to the Scottish Government offer of cross-party talks, does the cabinet secretary believe that there could be some consensus around, for example, migration, given Scotland's particular circumstances, recognised most recently by, for example, the director general of the CBI? Michael Russell. I think that the member makes a very strong good point. I have been on panels with opposition members. We have all been able to agree, even the Conservatives have been able to agree, that the devolution of migration is something that should move forward. The problem is the timescale and the decision-making process. There is no timescale for that. The decision-making process in the Tory Government has been entirely negative. The current Prime Minister is a woman obsessed by migration. She is against any form of migration. She talks with pride about ending freedom of movement. That is a matter of grave shame and real damage to Scotland. What could happen is, if there was a willingness to change—for example, the Conservatives could bring that to the cross-party talks—we could agree that that point was put to Westminster with the complete agreement of this chamber, and we would hope that that would have some effect. I am very happy that that could happen. There is something that could be backed by every single one of us. I just hope that that might be something that, in those talks, could move forward. Sorry, there are some members of the Tory party that are not willing to back that. That is a pity, because the effect of ending freedom of movement will be profoundly felt in every single constituency and region of Scotland that they represent. Donald Cameron Thank you. Does the cabinet secretary believe that referendums under this bill should be advisory or binding? Can he point me to the provision in this bill that states that the Scottish Government will respect the result of referendums? Michael Russell I think that you have to be firm on one side or the other. For example, the UK Government and the EU referendum was meant to be advisory, but the pan in eye is the most binding thing that you could possibly decide on and cannot be changed in any way. If the member wants to seriously engage with the bill—and I am sure that he does want to seriously engage with the bill—let us have that debate as to what the right thing to happen is. It is a rather curious position that we have just heard from Mr Tomkins. Mr Tomkins has lambasted us for apparently not having any desire to have Parliament involved in this. I have just said let us have Parliament to debate about this, and Mr Tomkins shouts what is your view. The reality of the situation is that you carry wind with them, but I do hope that we can have that debate, and we will come down on one side or the other, and maybe it will be an amendment from one of the Tories that allows us to do so. That concludes questions in the cabinet secretary's statement. Apologies to Stuart McMillan, James Kelly and Fulton MacGregor for being unable to bring them in. We will move on to the next item of business.