 I'm very pleased you're fine. The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on Scotland's place in Europe our way forward. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions, and I call on Michael Russell. Up to 10 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to update Parliament today on the state of the Brexit negotiations and the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to protect Scotland from the damage that leaving the EU will cause. Let me start by being clear. The premise of all my previous statements to the chamber has been that there are ongoing negotiations of substance and that the UK Government is working towards a plan. I am no longer confident that that is the case. On the withdrawal agreement, which is supposed to be the easier part of the negotiations, it's now clear that UK Government ministers are incapable of reaching agreement, even within their party, on the crucial issue of the Northern Ireland backstop. With just weeks to go before an agreement needs to be signed, the UK Government does not have a coherent or unified position that it can put before the European Union. Bluntly, Presiding Officer, the UK Government has no plan and no plan to get a plan. On the future relationship, which, even if a withdrawal agreement is made, will be subject to probably years of difficult negotiations, again there is no UK Government position worthy of the name. The checkers proposals have been rejected by the EU and are under attack from all sides. It's time to face the reality that without something new and some means of the Tory party setting aside its internecine warfare, then we are heading to a disastrous no deal. But there is, of course, one credible plan on the table. That is the plan from the Scottish Government, which we have been advocating since the publication of the first part of Scotland's Place in Europe in December 2016 and which continues to attract support. On 15 October this year, the Scottish Government published Scotland's Place in Europe Our Way Forward, updating the case if the best solution of staying in the EU is not possible for both the UK and Scotland to remain in the single market and customs union. Later in that week, the European Council broke up without concluding either a withdrawal agreement or a political declaration on the future relationship. We are therefore at the brink of that catastrophic no deal, yet, meanwhile, we have tragedy turning to farce, even in this chamber, with the spectacle of the leader of the Scottish Conservatives and the Secretary of State for Scotland threatening to resign if a Northern Ireland backstop is agreed in case that strengthens the case for Scotland staying in the single market. To go out on the principle that Scotland must be guaranteed a worse deal than that which could be and should be on offer. What this country deserves is a clearly articulated plan. Scotland deserves a plan that is evidence-based and objective, a plan that provides a firm basis for fruitful negotiations with our European partners and, most importantly of all, a plan that will protect jobs, living standards and rights in our society. The Scottish Government has repeatedly and with constantly increasing detail set out just such a plan, one that could and would solve the current impasse in the negotiations providing a basis for compromise. Our plan would remove the political difficulties with the EU and provide a secure foundation for negotiations in the critical coming weeks. It would reassure business as they reluctantly start to make investment decisions detrimental to our collective future. Indeed, the CBI set out as recently as yesterday that business optimism is falling at its fastest rate since the Brexit vote. Let me make clear what is required now. Before leaving, the UK Government needs to secure both an agreement on the terms of withdrawal and a political declaration that provides clarity on the future relationship. Both of which, of course, the Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech, would be secured by late 2018. A small number of simple steps would allow for these difficulties to be resolved, simpler steps than the contortions put forward by the Prime Minister on Monday. The UK Government should revise its negotiating position on the future relationship to ensure that the whole of the UK remains within the European single market and customs union. However, if the UK Government rejects that, it could seek an extension to the article 50 period to allow for a consensus to be agreed across the UK, thereby avoiding a hurried and damaging exit. If that proposal was rejected by the UK Government, then the political statement on the future relationship must be sufficiently detailed and any subsequent legislation is sufficiently clear to allow the people of Scotland to understand the impact on their lives of the monumental decision to leave the European Union. The political statement should also provide clearly for an extension of the implementation period if needed. We must not be required to sign up to a blindfold Brexit. Our priority is to avoid the damage of either a no-deal Brexit or that blindfold Brexit in which the UK leads with no detail on the future economic partnership. Both of those outcomes will be disastrous for jobs and living standards. We are clear that the proposals that are made in the so-called checkers agreement will not work, and of course they have already been rejected. Those issues can be resolved, however, through long-term membership of the European single market and customs union, so it is demonstrably wrong to say that there is no alternative to the checkers proposal. It is the UK Government's position that is unsustainable, a position that insists on pursuing proposals that are not acceptable to the EU or it would seem to the House of Commons whilst rejecting a plan that is. There is no reason why our proposals cannot be accepted quickly, but if more time is needed to avoid a no-deal Brexit or a blindfold Brexit, the UK Government should ask for an extension to the article 50 process. That would also allow time for another referendum on EU membership, which is often called the people's vote. The people of Scotland voted to remain, and therefore, if there is an opportunity to ensure that their wishes are respected, it should be taken. If a proposal was brought forward for a vote on the final deal with the option to remain in the EU, the Scottish Government would support it and SNP members of Parliament would vote for it. We must also find a way to ensure that any second referendum does not leave Scotland in the same position as in 2016, voting to stay, but ending up being taken out against our will. As I conclude, let me address three more issues briefly. First, I believe that some have chosen to misrepresent our position on Northern Ireland for their own divisive ends. We have fully and unequivocally backed the Good Friday agreement and supported the invisible border in Ireland, recognising the unique circumstances there. However, we have argued since 2016, well before the backstop was even conceived, that the UK Government should be putting forward a differential deal reflecting our remain vote if the UK would leave the single market. That was and is independent from any Northern Ireland backstop. Our argument is given renewed force this week by the news that not only is such a differentiated deal likely for Northern Ireland, but that the deal has already been agreed for Gibraltar, which maintains its differentiated treatment. It is now clear, contrary to the position of the UK Government in January 2017, that differentiation is not only possible, but actually the sensible way forward to reconcile differences. The truth is that it is only the intransigence of the UK Government that is preventing such a deal for Scotland. Rather than threatening to resign no for securing such a deal, the Conservatives in this chamber and in this country should be fighting tooth and nail, not with each other, but for Scotland, to be given the respect that its voters and their decision deserves. Scotland should not be the only nation or territory that voted to remain within the EU but which does not have the flexibility of a differentiated approach afforded to it. Secondly, let me confirm that intensive work on planning for a no deal is under way and growing in scope. The country legislation is now starting to flow through this Parliament and I am grateful for the work being undertaken by committees on it. Presently that legislation consists of packets of statutory instruments agreed with the UK Government. Specific Scottish statutory instruments will come forward later this year and into the new year. The financial implications for a no deal for a Government and the bodies supported by a Government is being carefully considered and discussion with stakeholders like the ports is being undertaken. Senior officials are in close liaison with the UK Government. I intend to make a further statement to the chamber on the detail of no deal preparations before the end of the year or at the first moment we know that a no deal would be inevitable. However, let me stress, Presiding Officer, that there are problems that will not be able to be overcome if, in the end, the chaos and irresponsibility of the Tories at Westminster leads to a no deal outcome. The fact that they are talking of hiring boats, packing motorways with lorries and stockpiling medicines illustrates the vacuuming leadership in the UK that is resulting in measures unprecedented in peacetime. That cannot be willed away by any of us. Finally, Presiding Officer, let me conclude with two specific commitments. With crucial decisions coming up over the next few weeks, it is vital to break the impasse. A decision to maintain membership of the European Single Market and the Customs Union would both secure withdrawal agreement and provide the clarity needed for future relationship. I can therefore say that if the UK Government puts this option on the table, we will commit ourselves to support it. Without such a proposal, we reject every other option, short of staying in the EU, as all deliver, not progress, but a succession of unacceptable and damaging bad deals are ultimately no deal at all. However, I am also clear that it should not just be voices in Westminster who get to be heard, and especially not those who are determined to ignore the votes of Scotland and sell Scotland very short indeed in terms of our future prosperity. The UK was repeatedly told during the 2014 independence referendum that it must remain a partnership. The UK Government said, lead do not leave, but other Tories say that we are the ones who are leading, we are the ones who are telling you that you are leaving. Your democratic choice does not matter. The Government will never accept the silencing of Scotland, so if a withdrawal agreement and political declaration are in the end concluded and offered to the House of Commons, then we make this commitment. Before the Westminster Parliament votes on that deal, the Scottish Government will seek to ensure that this Parliament can pass its own judgment on it. On this most crucial of matters, Scotland must be and will be heard. Cabinet Secretary, we will now take questions on the issues raised in the statement and I will allow around 20 minutes for that. Can you press your request to speak buttons, please, to anyone who wishes to ask a question? I stress the word question rather than statements, and I call Murdo Fraser. I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of his statement, although there is little in it that we have not heard before. Indeed, all today's statement seems to be another opportunity for yet more grand standing and grievance from a minister who has become a master in both. The cabinet secretary tells us how catastrophic a no-deal scenario would be, but then astonishly goes on to say that SNP MPs would bring on a no-deal scenario by voting against proposals brought forward by the UK Government. That is an irresponsible approach, and will be seen as such by the people of Scotland. It seems extraordinary that we have the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government who is unable to draw a distinction between arrangements for Gibraltar, a British territory with a tiny population geographically situated thousands of miles away and attached to mainland Spain and the very different situation in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, fully part of the United Kingdom. A differentiated deal for Scotland would put at risk the internal UK market, which is worth four times more to the Scottish economy than trade with the EU, a point that has been made by the likes of Sir David Edward and Lord Kerr, both members of the First Minister's own standing council on Europe. Will the cabinet secretary at last acknowledge the basic fact that maintaining the UK internal market is of far greater importance to the Scottish economy than is the EU single market? Finally, on the issue of the so-called— Please, Mr Fraser. The so-called people's vote is really now the SNP position that all referendums must be rerun until they get the result that they want, or does that only apply to referendums where they are on the losing side? Michael Russell. The one thing that never astonishes me is Mordor Fraser's brass neck. Not so much brass is titanium lined, I have to say. The reason why we are in this situation is because the total and utter incompetence of the Tory party in government at Westminster. Indeed, that incompetence is matched by the extraordinary, extreme, knee-jerk constitutional unionism of the Scottish Tories. They have nothing else to argue for. Meanwhile, Scotland is facing a unique and damaging crisis brought about by the Conservatives, and yet not a word of apology from Mordor Fraser. Instead, he pursues the old arguments and the old chimeras. I think that people like David Edward, I have to say, would be horrified to know that he was being called in evidence by extreme Tories to justify the destruction of the European Union and its institutions to which he has given many years of service. This is the disgraceful approach of the Tories. The reality is that the Tories should hang their heads in shame rather than burble from the sidelines and make things worse for themselves. Neil Findlay. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for the copy of his statement. The Conservative Party's handling of Brexit has been a disaster, now a matter of months, from the date that the UK is due to leave the EU, and yet no one is any clearer on what has been proposed. The Prime Minister was humiliated at Salksburg and has been repeatedly humiliated by her party. Checkers are dead, and her handling of this entire process has gone from neglect to dark, unfunny slapstick, because there is nothing funny about the stockpiling of foods and medicines. With only a few weeks to go until a deal must be agreed, businesses, communities and their citizens are in the dark about Tory plans. On the very serious issue of the Northern Ireland border, they have no answer. Will we do it? We should have a customs union. That would resolve the problem. We should have single market access. We should protect the rights with secure land that we enjoy. We should have a collaborative and co-operative relationship with our EU neighbours going forward. We should have a deal that respects the nations and regions of the UK, ensuring the security and safety of our citizens. We must have a migration system based on fairness. The Government is right to plan for a no-deal scenario. Indeed, it must plan for that, because that is the very scary prospect that we face. I wonder if the minister would give us a little more detail on what plans have been put in place for that. Those are worrying times. We must keep all options open to keep the maximum political pressure on the Government and the Prime Minister and ensure that that no-deal is completely avoided. Michael Russell Yes, I am happy to give you—I do not want to go into full detail, because I believe that there is presently too much discussion of a no-deal in a way that could make it actually more likely than not. I still think that the momentum is towards it, but I think that we should do everything that we can to hold it back. However, I can say this. Individual cabinet secretaries are now engaged in discussions with me, their stakeholders and where possible, through civil servants and the civil servants south of the border, to scope each of the issues that confront them. I will give you one example that is very concerning. If there is to be a continuation of an export trade in both meat and shellfish, there will require to be inspections undertaken—filer sanitary inspections undertaken. There are simply not enough people to undertake those who are qualified. How can we resolve that question? How can we put in place a system to do so? That is the type of extremely difficult question that is being addressed. I assure the member that, right across the portfolios, those questions are being scoped and are being looked at. Some are capable of resolution. For example, I mentioned ports, it would be conceivable if there was too much pressure on Dover to see that Recythe and Grangemouth, for example, brought into operation, although some major changes would be required. However, there are some, as the one that I have mentioned, which it is very difficult to see how you can put a short-term solution in place. We are scoping, we are working and, as I have said, I will come at the earliest possible moment to this chamber to try to outline further where we are. Can I make a point about customs union and a single market access? Quickly, please, Mr Russell. Sorry? Quickly. I will make a point simply about migration. The migration issue is crucial to Scotland, particularly to rural Scotland. I am shocked that the UK Government is still unable to discuss that in a constructive way with this Government and the Welsh Labour Government. Both Mark Drakeford and I made that point very forcibly at the GMC two weeks ago, and we will go on making it. Can I say that the first two questions have gone well over their allotted time? That has an effect on backbench questions. I would ask backbenchers to be quick to allow their colleagues an opportunity to ask. Joan McAlpine, followed by Maurice Golden. Thank you very much. Yesterday, the leader of the UK Conservatives in the European Parliament caused deep offence when he compared the 200 strong socialists and Democrats MEP group to the Nazis. That comes on the back of the British foreign secretary comparing the EU to the Soviet Union. Does the minister agree with me that the Tories are poisoning the UK's image in Europe and the world and that these narrow-minded British nationalists do not speak for Scotland? Michael Russell. I would agree. If there were further evidence required of that, it would be in the questions from Murdo Fraser. He did not address that as a serious issue. He addressed it from the narrowest partisan point of view, which damages all of us. Maurice Golden, followed by Annabelle Ewing. Thank you. The statement makes clear that a no-deal scenario would be, and I quote, disastrous and indeed terrible for Scotland, given this, why are the SNP both here and Westminster so desperate to vote for a no-deal? Michael Russell. Again, that just shows the problem that the Conservatives have. The reality of the situation is that nobody is desperate to vote for a no-deal. The only people who want a no-deal to take place are colleagues of Mr Golden's, many of them, some of whom are lauded by Scottish Conservative MPs, because a false choice is being presented. It is not a choice between the checkers deal or no deal. I have indicated at some length other choices that exist. If the reality of the situation was addressed by the Conservatives, and there is seriousness of the situation addressed by the Conservatives, they would be responding to that. However, they are in actual fact destroying the prospects of this country with this extremism that we hear. Annabelle Ewing, followed by Jackie Baillie. Presiding Officer, the cabinet secretary mentioned a moment ago the important issue of immigration. I wonder if he could set out what he sees as the specific impacts from the ending of freedom of movement and clarify whether the UK Government has shown any flexibility at all on a differential immigration policy for Scotland? Michael Russell said that the UK Government has shown no flexibility in migration at all. All we hear from the relevant ministers is the parroting of the phrase that says, freedom of movement will end. The impact will be published a variety of information on the impact, so I will not go through it just now, but there will be a very severe impact upon Scotland. Both in terms of flow of EU migrants with Scotland, it is not increasing itself naturally. We need to have migration. There will also be a severe effect as people are frankly turned off from staying in this country by the type of rhetoric that has been encouraged by the Conservatives. Jackie Baillie, followed by Patrick Harvie. The cabinet secretary rightly in my view recognises how disastrous a no-deal Brexit would be. Many would say that it is all disastrous whether there is a deal or not, but I do want to ask him this and it is something that troubles many people. If the UK Government brings a deal to Parliament, which might not be everything that we want, will SNP MPs vote for it because it is better than no deal at all? Michael Russell said that the only deal that would be possible that is acceptable beyond staying in the EU would be a single market and customs union deal. Now, I do not want to equivocate on this because the reality of the situation is that there are elements of the single market and customs union deal that you would have to look at closely. I know that the member appreciates this. Freedom of movement, for example, of four freedoms are absolutely essential in those matters. I have made it clear that a single market and customs union deal, one containing the important elements of the single market and customs union, is conceivable as something that could go forward. However, I am immensely resistant to the argument that the only choice is between checkers, which has already been rejected by the EU, and no deal. That is not a realistic choice, it is a false choice. It should not be put in a way that says, choose one or the other, because neither are acceptable. However, nobody wants to see a no deal, and the no deal that appears to be hurtling towards us is not because of the SNP, it is not because of Labour, it is because of the Conservatives, it is because of the two factions in the Conservatives, one of which, once the no deal, though that is unbelievable that there are people like that, but one of them wants a new deal, but the second faction is so incompetent that they cannot get a deal. That is what we are faced with, but we should not accept the false dichotomy that is presented by the Conservatives. I ask you, please, Mr Fraser, to stop muttering that is becoming very annoying in my right ear constantly. Patrick Harvie, followed by Tavish Scott. On the point of the people's vote, the minister says that we should find a way to ensure that Scotland is not left in the same position again, voting to remain but being taken out against our will. I agree that that would be preferable, but can I ask him if, as it seems likely, some kind of four-nation lock proves politically impossible to achieve, that should not stand in the way of a people's vote, that should not stand in the way of giving the public the opportunity to do what Westminster parties won't do, cancel Brexit and stop this mess? I'm certainly not going to give away my desire to make sure that Scotland is not protected in those circumstances, but we have been clear and we remain clear that the SNP MPs will vote for a people's vote, and I think that that is unequivocal. We will vote for a people's vote. I see a people's vote, Presiding Officer, not as a second chance, but as a verdict upon the Tory's stewardship of Brexit, and it would be a savage verdict. Tavish Scott, followed by Emma Harper. I thank the cabinet secretary for the statement in advance. Does he accept the principle of extending the transition period that the European Union proposed last week? Secondly, when and if there is no deal in March of next year, salmon, white fish and mussels will be on the high seas from Lerwick to Aberdeen, which will be due to be in France by the next morning, what in heaven's name is going to happen to those businesses? Michael Russell. The member knows that there will be live angustine from the village of Tarbot in Argyll and other shellfish and other material that will be on the way, too. That is the question, and presently there is no answer to that, because there aren't enough phylo sanitary inspectors to deal with those inspections, nor is there any guarantee that the goods will be accepted. Although no deal papers from the UK Government say that material can come in without a check, that will not solve the problem that we are talking about. The material coming in without a check will be open to fraud, undoubtedly. That is a highly unsatisfactory situation, and I simply don't know the answer, neither does the UK Government. That is a measure of the incompetence of those people. In terms of transition, if transition is required, then clearly there should be longer transition. It is interesting that the argument over transition has gone on for two years, at all the time people have said that you will need more than 21 months. It started with David Davis saying that there would be no transition. I remember him saying it to me in October 2016 in Glasgow. Now, of course, they move to transition of 21 months, and now they are talking about transition possibly up until the end of 2021 or beyond. However, it has to be for something. It cannot be, and that is absolutely clear, it cannot be instead of the backstop. If that is what Theresa May is proposing, it appears to be in the bizarre statement that she made on Monday, then it won't fly. Emma Harper, followed by Liam Kerr. Has the Scottish Government had any indication from the EU that it is prepared to accept the argument from the UK Government that the Northern Ireland backstop should be temporary, as that may impact any movement through the Cairnryan port, which is in my South Scotland region? Michael Russell? No. There is no question of the backstop being temporary. That is entirely clear, and both sides will indicate that. The solution has to be found by the Prime Minister moving from that position. The Scottish Conservative party has been making some of the loudest noises on that, which has determined that Scotland should do as badly as possible out of any deal. Liam Kerr, followed by Maureen Watt. Just over one hour ago, John Swinney was telling the chamber why he will ignore its vote on P1 testing. So can the cabinet secretary tell me what effect, if any, a vote on the final EU deal in this Parliament would have, or does the Scottish Government think that votes in this Parliament should be heeded only by others? Michael Russell? I think that it would be inconceivable if this Parliament did not have the opportunity to say what it thought about the issue. If the Tories think that it should not, then one must ask why the Tories are bothering to be elected here. Maureen Watt, followed by Pauline McNeill. Can the cabinet secretary say whether he has had any indication from the UK Government over how he intends to ensure access to European markets for the fresh fish processed in my constituency and elsewhere, and whether, in order to avoid damage to this product and transport due to the forecast lengthy waits at the channel ports, whether he will have these talks as a matter of urgency, as Angus MacDonald and I have both said, with the ferry companies to divert at least one ferry to use the recife Zeebruker route? Michael Russell? I am sympathetic to the issue of direct transport from Scotland to and from the EU. I hope that that can be arranged, but there are difficulties and so doing, and there have been difficulties in securing that route. However, I would be keen to continue to do so. I am sure that my colleague and cabinet secretary for transport will wish to look at that, too, and I shall discuss it with him. The point that the member raises about fish is exactly the point that Tavish Scott has raised, that I have raised, that others have raised. It is one that requires a solution, but presently there is no solution to it. That is the conundrum of the whole issue of no deal. There are matters in there that are simply not capable of solution, at least in the medium term, possibly even in the long term. Pauline McNeill, if she is quick, I will manage to get Willie Coffey into. What demands will the Scottish Government make for a differentiated settlement? More importantly, notwithstanding what the minister said, when will he set out what a no deal actually means to the people of Scotland? I think that they are entitled to know that, and, as he agreed with me, we should not contemplate a no deal on any terms. Yes, I do. I think that you could ask for an extension of article 50, as I said before, if you cannot get to the stage of getting an agreement and say that no deal is an impossibility. We have been arguing that for several months. Regrettably, that is not where the UK Government has found itself. In terms of differentiation, I think that we have indicated from the very beginning how we see a differentiated solution operating and will continue to do so. I think that the issue now is, as I indicated in my statement, that we are essentially the only territory or nation in the UK that voted to say that is not being offered differentiation. That is both unjust but also damaging, because there are issues such as migration in which we absolutely require differentiation. The solutions being provided for the UK are not solutions that could possibly work for us. In terms of information, no deal, I have indicated my timetable for that. I will do the best that I can, but I do not want to stoke it. The last question is from Willie Coffey. Thank you very much. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on Monday at the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly that our Government wanted an EU deal that works for Scotland. When I asked her who was best to determine what works for Scotland, she said that that would be the UK Parliament. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this sums up the attitude of the Tories to Scotland and that it is the Scottish Parliament that is best placed to decide what is best for Scotland? Michael Russell How could I possibly disagree with that? That concludes questions. On the minister's statement, we will move on to the next item of business.